Intel's strategy with Nehalem (and it's 32nm derivative Gulftown) appears to be to develop an amazing server microarchitecture and then push that technology down into other segments such as the mainstream (Lynnfield) and mobile markets (Clarksfield). The other interesting element to their strategy is that with the die shrink accompanying Gulftown, they've opted to use some of the added die real estate by upping the core count from 4 to 6 and upping the L3 cache from 8MB to 12MB (which is a complete waste of silicon if you ask me). What's also notable is that early reports of Gulftown have them clocked at a very conservative 2.4GHz. While this might seem like a suitable approach to take, particularly if you are focused on making an ideal server chip, it doesn't seem to make much sense for mainstream computer user (or even workstation users), who will be inheriting this technology as the chip of the day in about 12-18 months. I personally think that this strategy on increasing core count and cache and neglecting clock speed is going to ultimately cause Intel grief. It's already to the point where very few can benefit by upgrading their computer. If you are an average PC user running a Core2 processor, there's very little benefit to upgrading to Penryn or even Nehalem. Gulftown's just going to climb further up the diminishing returns curve. If you are a pro user, such as those here, there's no compelling reason to upgrade from Penryn to Nehalem... and it looks like there will be even less reason to upgrade to Gulftown. Sure it's a 50% increase in core count, but how often is that actually useful and what are the tangible benefits? I think Intel is going down a difficult path. In the old days, going from a 400MHz CPU to a 800MHz CPU made a huge difference to your computing experience. Today, going from a 2 core system to an 8 core system is virtually unnoticeable for most. Even a hard-core user really has to think long and hard to justify an Octo core over a quad because the situations where it will provide any benefit at all are fairly rare. I see a period now where most users really have no compelling reason to upgrade their computer. This is not good for Intel. If it was up to me, I would offer a line of Intel processors with lower core counts and less cache with higher clocks. Surely if Intel can make a 6 core processor with 12MB of L3 at 2.4GHz, they could make a dual-core processor with 2MB of L3 at a clock of 5GHz and maybe a quad-core with 4MB of cache that runs close to 4GHz. Which would interest you more?