Intel's newest release is due out in the next few weeks. The Hex Core Processor i7-980x. See http://www.emcworkstations.com/faqs.asp
You do realize that the article you cited is 2 years old. There are engineering samples of Intel SCC 48 core chips available. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2009/12/intel-demos-48-core-cloud-datacenter-on-a-chip.ars
I know. Just thought the article was interesting even being 2 years old. Here's is a more updated one. http://www.amax.com/CS_GPUpscDetail.asp?cs_id=PSC2n&gclid=CJP6rL3az6ACFZ9K5wodlynt0w
I built a quad core DDR3 system the first day the quad core processors were on the market ($1600 for the processor alone + $2k for the ram) and everyone said I was a crack for spending money on four cores. Here's my experience: First I put WinXPx64 on it and it ran great. Then I ran WinServer2008x64 on it and it ran even better because the server OS did a better job of distributing the workload across all four cores. Then I put Win7x64 on it just to test the OS and it does awesome. The Win7 distributes the work across all four cores just like the server OS did. On the XPx64 it seemed to pile up all processes from the same application (running multiple times) on the same core which is bad. Could I benefit from 6 cores? I don't see how. There is no way I can load up this quad core to the point where it would stall. I run Prime95 endless and my FPS is 780 which is smoking. Temps remain well within spec even under full stress test. During the utmost of volatility even during the crash it never missed a beat. I would build the same box again in a heartbeat (at 1/3 the cost or less).