[pHaestus]

I don't think you CAN assume that the dual core will have the max OC potential. Look at the obstacles:

1) The memory controller of A64s is already pretty limiting to overclocks. There's lots of fiddling to get the last bit of oc stable, and it always seems to be with memory timings and settings for me. This is going to be worse if the same controller is dealing with 2 cores. And there's a finite amount of communication between the mem controller and the CPU that can happen; is this bandwidth so far above CPU requirements that we'll never hit it?

2) Good lord the heat. 190 is the speced amount for dual core 2.2GHz chips. I use a retail hs on my Winchester 3000+ (1.8GHz) at 2.5GHz and it stays under 50C. I dont think I'd be able to do the same with a dual core 1.8 chip.

3) Price. If you're dissipating 190W at stock dual 3500+ speeds, then what kind of PSU will you need? What kind of extra precautions will mobos have to take to keep onboard parts near the socket from overheating? How stable will the voltage regulation and supply be? This is gonna be expensive, and it is probably why they are introducing these chips to the server market first (Tyan can put the extra quality into their opteron boards because they are charging big bucks for them).

Think about the following scenario: If you are a gamer would you rather have a dual 2.25Ghz 940 setup with a 6600GT or a sincle 939 chip at 2.5Ghz with a 6800GT? The answer is pretty clear, and I think this is the real decision people will have to make on the AMD side. For a fixed computer price, is it better to spend more $$ on multitasking at the expense of raw performance in single apps, or to spend more $$ on upgrading other components and stick with single CPUs?

Or should you just say screw both options, stick with current PC, and get an xbox 360?