That's what caught my eye. Sounds like the low performance chip will be running most of the time and they'll only fire up the quad core for really CPU intensive stuff. That could save energy, although possibly at the expense of performance when in 'low speed' mode.
I believe that the A5 and A6 have on-demand cores - which means that they only need to run one core if the workload demands it. That achieves much of the same thing without requiring a separate chip. Time will tell which approach is better.
Why some sites says Tegra 3 has 5 cores?
Quad core Tegra plus one companion (low speed) chip.
The problem for NVidia is that the Tegra 2 didn't even even really challenge the A5...it was pretty much dead on arrival in terms of graphics performance, which is Nvidia's strong suit. They say that Kal-El is twice as fast as the A5 in terms of performance like video encoding. Considering they are benchmarking 4 cores against 2 with a test that is easy to split among cores, I would certainly hope so. The real test will be if they can advance the field with single-core performance and especially with graphics performance. Just equaling or nominally improving on the A5 won't cut it...you know Apple's A6 will blow that away. When the benchmarks are finally published, it will be interesting to see what Kal-El is really capable of.
Yes, but history suggests that being skeptical is appropriate. The made all sorts of performance claims in the past that weren't true, so it makes sense to take their current claims with a grain of salt.
But IF Nvidia were able to offer a clear performance advantage, there would be nothing stopping Apple from switching.