I thought I read a while ago that AMDs approach to dual core was quite the opposite to Intels...?? I thought that they were effectively running dual cores to appear as a single core, in contrast to Intel, who ran them as 2 seperate cores.
The benefit to AMD of this was that applications would see a single chip, rather than the 2, and utilise its abilities more efficiently, rahter than having to be specifically written with dual cores in mind...
So AMDs duall core would effecitvely be a 4800, rather than just 2x 2400s... yet from what I heard, they dont bench accordingly, with little or no improvements in gaming or application performance other than multi tasking, over its single core counterpart.
I thought that this was AMDs whole point of effectively merging the 2 cores so thay operate as 1, which would theoretically double the performance of the chip regardless of whether the app/game had been encoded especially to tun on 2 cores....
The benefit to AMD of this was that applications would see a single chip, rather than the 2, and utilise its abilities more efficiently, rahter than having to be specifically written with dual cores in mind...
So AMDs duall core would effecitvely be a 4800, rather than just 2x 2400s... yet from what I heard, they dont bench accordingly, with little or no improvements in gaming or application performance other than multi tasking, over its single core counterpart.
I thought that this was AMDs whole point of effectively merging the 2 cores so thay operate as 1, which would theoretically double the performance of the chip regardless of whether the app/game had been encoded especially to tun on 2 cores....
