If i knew you're genius a$$ was going to post i would have elaborated and not just thrown that out like that. Using today's processors even if amd gave us an 8 core processor that matched a 3770K i'd still take the less cores and better IPC of Ivy bridge. Haswell is only going to have 4 cores on 1150 but a good 10-15% better IPC which is fantastic. Keep ramping up the IPC intel.
Chasing IPC will improve performance in any situation...but we have been chasing single-threaded performance for many years and the returns are very much diminishing. That's why IPC has risen only slightly in the IB chips from the original Core 2 parts. Nearly all of the per-core improvement has come from clock increases from three process shrinks and the advent of Turbo Boost. And even then, we have parts that are
maybe twice as fast in single-threaded performance, six years later. That is way off of Moore's Law suggesting a doubling of performance in 18-24 months. There is more performance left to be had in parallelizing applications and adding more cores than there is in trying to milk a few percent at a time in single-threaded applications, since we have not been doing it as long and that current manufacturing processes allow for boosting core counts much more so than boosting single-core clock speeds.
Consider what's happened over the past 10 years. In 2002 few to no consumer applications were multithreaded. The GHz race where clock speeds increased from about 40 MHz in 1992 to 3 GHz in 2002 was in full swing. The few that were multithreaded either were really workstation applications or were attempting to take advantage of the 3.06 P4B's not very impressive HyperThreading capabilities to show a few percentage gain in performance over the regular P4Bs for those that shelled out the big bucks for the new HyperThreaded model. Now, we realize that heat production limits clock speeds even in single-threaded chips. No gamer will even consider a two-thread chip today because games need at least three threads and preferably four cores for full performance. The multithreading keeps increasing as makers (mainly AMD) keeps rolling out higher-cored chips with similar single-threaded performance as their older chips. The writing is on the wall, more cores is the future as long as there is no paradigm shift in CPU technology that boosts single-threaded performance like we saw in the '90s.
In fact, AMD may very well cause Intel to release their precious six-core chips in the "consumer" socket in the next generation unless Haswell really is all that and a bucket of fried chicken in IPC increases. I highly doubt it will be, given that since the NetBurst mistake, IPC increases in Intel chips has only been a few percent each generation. Sandy Bridge wasn't that much faster than Nehalem, and many here even prefer SB over IB because of the latter newer chip's heat production. Meanwhile AMD keeps cramming more cores on one chip and figures out the flaws in its new Bulldozer architecture. They are already competitive with the 4-core SB/IB chips with the FX-8150...and if PD and its successor keep ironing out the flaws and bring IPC back to Stars/K10-level performance, Intel won't be able to keep pace with only quads. Granted Intel will have no trouble releasing 6 and 8-core chips on consumer sockets, but it's still another nail in the "IPC uber alles" argument.