Sorry but I just noticed this reply. I don't want to claim that IBM is "inflating" their core count, nor the inverse. Rather that what passes for what we migh

Sorry but I just noticed this reply. I don't want to claim that IBM is "inflating" their core count, nor the inverse. Rather that what passes for what we might think of as a "core" based on the ways software vendors describe things isn't directly transferable to what IBM has actually built. IBM has extremely flexible hardware which, using IBM's hypervisor, can be configured on the fly to present itself in a number of different ways. For example: few powerful compute units, many medium compute units, or very many less capable compute units. So right up front the idea (which a lot of people might assume without really thinking about) that a given chip has a fixed number of "cores" doesn't really hold true. More to the point the next question that presents itself "what makes up for a core and what determines how many a given processor has" is best answered with "it depends" (at least as far as IBM Power goes). One of the main reasons this matters is that all sorts of businesses use the idea of "cores" as a fixed entity as part of their pricing structures... and now it's all muddied.