I think we have someone here who never prepared a ppt to a customer or to senior management. If you have 30% increase on your product performance, why would you write >10%? That's right, you don't. It's outright stupid. If you have 30% on the sleeve what you do now is to generate a lot of hype to the product without disclosing your secret sauce. Promise and deliver 30% puts you in a very nice spot. In business language, and you can bet your paycheck that AMD senior management reviewed what the guy can or cannot talk, >10% means 10%, 11%, 12%, maybe 13%. If you can reach 14% you'll write ~15%, not >10%. It never means 30%. Never. Looking back at x86 history, I can't recall any other time beyond Netburst => Conroe when we had >30% increases on IPC, and even then clocks were down by 40%. IPC increases of the same arch usually sits between 5% and 10%, so if they get 10% with only adding 10% on xtor budget, a near perfect scaling, that would be quite a feat already. As for the clocks, going from 2 to 4 cores puts a great burden on the thermal budget, so doubling core counting and still being able to rise frequencies isn't something trivial. The first slide stating 10% doesn't seems too out of touch with reality. The assumption here is that a 28nm bobcat core with double the number of cores would have roughly the same frequencies. I surely wouldn't want everyone knowing totally the merits and flaws of my products, as it would give my competitors an unneeded head start to counter my product, but a rough but accurate performance estimate without disclosing what I did to get there generates the kind of good hype for the product that brings OEMs in, that makes key people and companies interested in knowing what I have, and even better, some very good news to announce to investors at the EC. It is the "how" that cannot be disclosed.