http://blogs.amd.com/work/2009/08/30/how-low-can-you-go/

AMD has launched the 6-core Opteron 2419 EE. It has an ACP of 40W, and AMD states this is equivalent to Intel's TDP. It runs at 1.8GHz and is for server platforms only at present.

I think it's impressive that they can fit 6 cores into such a small envelope, though next year they'll launch a 12-core chip in a 55W ACP, still 45nm.

1.8 GHz isn't exactly a lot, but it's still a nice feat to accomplish, I suppose.

Cool beans.

Six cores operating at 1.8GHz is something relatively akin to a single-core processor operating at 10.8GHz. Not a lot? Try HUGE.

I'm working on getting a quad-core 3.0GHz, though, so this isn't quite as powerful as the Phenom I'm getting. But with just one upgrade, they'll have the ol' MHz myth matched magnificently (3.0GHz x 4 = 12GHz, 2.0GHz (which would be the most likely next clock-speed they release) x 6 = 12GHz). Hopefully it's efficient enough to make that clock speed worthwhile. At 40W right now, efficiency doesn't sound like a problem at all, though.

It's not the most cores. Apple already has a $3,000 computer with 8 cores running at 2 GHZ at the least for each core.

No, that's not at all how it works.  6 cores at 1.8 GHz is not the same as three at 3.6, or one at 10.8, this is a common misconception.

EDIT: And there are already faster Istanbul Opterons available, up to IIRC 2.6 GHz or so.  But with higher TDPs.

And Crapple's 8 core comp has two CPUs - you could easily pair two Istanbul Opterons in a similar manner for 12.  It really isn't anything out of the ordinary, dual CPU setups have existed forever.  (What is out of the ordinary is the rediculous price Crapple will charge you for it, lol)

Note I didn't say the same. I said "something relatively akin". As in, LIKE. There are most definitely a variety of differences, but generally speaking, that's the quickest, simplest way of describing vaguely how it works.

You need to not believe what apple tells you. They do not have an 8 core CPU, they simply have 2 quad core CPU's, something that is not particularly impressive even a few years ago.

Interesting, I'd assumed they would have doubled to 8 rather than bother with 6.

Not even vaguely. 6-core processors have to use cache 6x more than with a single core. That slows the processor down a lot so your calculating method is really stupid.