Well no, it wasn't. :hmm: Clearly Intel agree that all four cores on one die is the better solution, because that's what they did in the following generation. It wasn't elegant, but it was a sensible solution to make the product they needed.
Better, more elegant compared to what?
For the guys selling the chip, where every ounce of extra performance is interesting, yes, it is better to have everything on the same die.
For the guys working in a fab, trying to raise yields, and for the guys responsible for running the company, this question deserves further analysis.
An MCM, by the virtue of generating smaller parts is *much* better for yields (and costs) management than a huge monolithic part. Also validation of a smaller, simpler part is easier than the validation of a bigger, monolithic part. This is the reason why AMD never reached a "true" 16-core Bulldozer, or that only after 12 months after the architecture introduction Nvidia managed to launch Titan.
That said, who is more elegant:
- The company that pursue technically complex solutions in immature nodes for the sake of pure performance, the company that sell die-salvaged parts that carries the same cost tag of full-fledged parts, further eroding price at the bottom of their line up, culminating in atrocious financial results?
- Or the company that pushed mature, proven solutions to their limits achieving better results than the other company in the performance area, but effectively blowing the competition in the sky in the economic/costs area?
This trade off reflects how differently both companies are managed, not only AMD technical prowess. Intel is a more conservative in the way they introduce new goodies in the chip (not in a tick, somethings in server first), and they do a lot of work to keep production and design in synchronization.
As AMD never reached the level of refinement in the integration between production and design that Intel has, and never shied away from die-salvaging to the point of the absurd, they introduce nice technical innovations ahead of Intel but sometimes they do screw the porch, like they did with Phenom, with Llano, with Bulldozer, etc. This reckless approach to costs is one of the ingredients of the sad state of affairs we currently verify at AMD.