Well that's where the $75 liquid cooler comes in. XD

It all makes sense now.

another day another rumor

What people making rumors like this don't understand is CPU's....at all. Games have hit a wall at a little over 4 cores. There can be 100 threads, but only 3 or 4 threads actually chew up CPU time (Rendering, Physics, big stuff like that) while user input, sound, and little stuff don't need dedicated cores. Just a few years ago devs figured out how to thread the rendering thread into multiple cores but its HARD to do. You can't just split it into 16 cores and go ZOMG GRAPHIZ. 4 or 6 is all it needs for epic ZOMG GRAPHIZ especially if it has a shit GPU. But don't tell the kiddies that!

RROBang confirmed!!

Either it's a very slow 16 core processor or this is complete BS

"But remember, Kinect 2 could chew up four whole cores tracking multiple players right down to their fingertips"

Kinect 1 uses 5% to 15% of 1 core. Sure Kinect 2's resolution is probably 4x that of Kinect 1 (Hardware already is, it just needs a faster USB connection) but needing 30x the processing power is insane.

6 to 8 core CPU and a much better GPU would be the better move and more cost effective. 16 core CPU is complete over kill.

A console launch price over $500 is disastrous and makes a huge difference in attracting early adopters. A $300 to 400 launch price is ideal.

It mentions full finger tracking so that will need extra proccessing on top of the extra proccessing time for the 4x resolution (per camera) more advanced voice recognition, and probably go up to 60fps as well to allow better tracking of fast motion. 

If Kinect is to be useful for more than dance games they are going to need a huge leap in tracking capabilities. Black & White launch game I'm calling it now with finger bassed gestures!

But yea a 16 core CPU would need to sacrifice single threaded performance, which seems like an odd choice.

It could just be a cpu with some type of hyper-threading. Not actually "16 core", but something like 8 core cpu (bulldozer is 8 core right?) and some type of hyper threading to make it like 16 cores.

My Intel i7 2600k is a quad core cpu, but it has hyper-threading and in windows when I look at Task Manager it shows up with 8 boxes, 1 for each "core". It's not as effective as an actual 8 core cpu would be, but...

dude what the hell are you running ? 5GB in use ?