Any CPU engineer will tell you instantly we have hit the wall and all this multi-core desktop CPU stuff is just a scam really. The maximum number of cores without losing efficiency of code execution is effectively 3. Not 4 not 8 but 3. You can not utilise much more than this without actually starting to waste cycles of CPU time delaying/setting up use of threads to run on other cores.
There are many many situations that the AMD 4.2Ghz PC will outgun an Intel i7 3700k fact. One of my lecturers at uni was pretty high up in CPU design for IBM in the 80s and you can bet your ass they tested every possible scenario for server and desktop OS efficiency as far as parallel processing goes. For desktop computers 3 or 4 is about it. So Moore's law is f**ked well and trully unless we start seeing 5 and 6ghz CPUs QUICKLY!
What you want in a desktop computer is intelligent design of the motherboard. 360 did it, the PS3 did it, their gains are from a better architecture than the turbo charged dinosaur that is x86 PC motherboards of 2007. What you won't get is a better CPU than x86-64 for price/performance.
The new Xbox and the new PlayStation are all confirmed to have x86 64bit CPUs already, and this means that those CPUs will be dropped into a much better design of motherboard architecture than any PC for sale in 2013/2014 with the same CPU to compete on price/performance.
And so the console vs x86 PC merry-go-round continues it's cycle
@OP Anyway Amiga died the day Commodore died, Escom were never going to catch up 2 years of limbo waiting to own an already luke warm late update to the A1000 chipset (AGA) and just printed some new logos and stuck them on the same old hat machines in 1996
Actually Amiga died the day the A500plus was launched (and was diagnosed with cancer of the incompetent engineer and manager when I saw the specs of the butt ugly cheap and plasticky A500 joke after 12 months of zero marketing for the A1000 in 1986 *PUKE*)
