Nvidia Says More CPU Cores are Better (& Why)
The more cores the merrier rule also applies to smartphones and other mobile devices.
Today's smartphones have chips inside that can produce output that surpasses that of a Nintendo Wii – which is very impressive for something that fits inside your pocket. But those right now are single-core, and as any computer enthusiast now knows from their desktops and laptops, more cores tend to make for a better computing experience.
The top-end chips inside tablets and smartphones next year will be dual-core, and Nvidia has published a whitepaper on why it will be a great thing not only in terms of performance, but also power consumption.

Essentially, having two cores splitting the work puts less strain on each individual core as compared to having a single core shoulder the entire load. This not only allows for greater performance potential but also a generally lower power draw – provided that both cores aren't under a greater load.
Check out some of Nvidia's charts below for a better idea, and then the full white paper for more details.


IE for the price of i5, you can get a Ph II X6?
or more just mobile (and our stuff only) and marketing had gotten a brain fart?
STOP THE PRESSES!! SINGLE CORES ARE NOT FASTER THAN DUAL CORES!!!!!
-_-
I had to read your post three times to under what you where trying to say. Got it now! I'll still take Intel and Nvidia over AMD any day. I think they simply make better products. I used both at the beginning of my tech career now I only user Intel and Nvidia. I'm not opposed to an ATI video card though but I've had good luck with Nvidia so I'm sticking w/ them. I'm brand loyal until I have a good reason to not be.
AMD's benchmarks fall short overall vs it's same priced intel... i.e. the AMD x6 1090T vs the core i7 950. You can find the two for relatively the same price and cpu benchmarks put the intel over the AMD. Not to say that AMD still has the best bang for the buck on most of their products, but for AMD's top of the line hexacore, you'd expect it to beat our it's competitors quad cores. (there are also a number of quads above the 950 as im sure you know)
If that's the case they really need to beat the world fastest dual processor card by making a sing dual core GPU.......
I'm loyal to price/performance ratio, but biased towards Nvidia when it comes to video cards, because I like Nvidia CPL more than ATI CCC (which lacks scaling with fixed aspect ratio).
So, seeing as the performance of the smartphones' CPU rose dramatically in the past years, and the performance of the desktop CPU rose only a little, does this mean that in a few years phones will be as powerful as desktop PCs? We need faster desktop CPUs, not a CPU with 2^n (n>=4) cores. What am I going to do with so many idle cores?
AMD platform provides better throughput at high resolution 1600 or higher in terms of gaming it depends if the game is going to take advantage of that.
As you see below 1090T x6($199) in worst cases scenario performs the same as i950($290)at best its fast as or faster then i7 970($859).(Without overclocking.) The fun begins when its overclocked.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=146
Having more than 1 core in xp does not help as it was not designed to do so windows 8 will make more use of more cores but most game developers still are behind on making multi-threaded games work well with 3 or more cores.
The problem lies with hardware if hardware could do the multi-threading on its own instead of relying on coding it for muli-thread use it would make it much easier to create software that could utilize more cores.
Does DirectX (any version) support more than two cores (two simultaneous threads) yet?
Anyone still gaming on WinXP is locked at two cores at the OS kernel level.
so now we have single core
V=1.1
P=p
I=p/1.1
assuming dual voltage are in cascade/series
V = 0.8*2
I=p/1.1
P = 1.6*(p/1.1) = 1.45p
if is in parallel
V = 0.8
I = p/1.1
P= 0.72p, however is in parallel = 1.45p
NV has strange math