bypassing core 2 duo
- Thread starter geff_r
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,876
- Location
- Rutland
Great 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,876
- Location
- Rutland
Corasik said:
I don't think it really matters, its not the most insightful of posts
I thought the core 2 duo's were 1 die with a bridge maybe i'm wrong then.
I thought The core 2 duo has two cores on a single 65nm die??
Sure, it’s just two Duos whacked on the one silicon slab, thus not using a shared cache and prompting AMD to denounce it as not true quad core.
hmm words and eat spring to mind even the quads arent true quad core.
I thought The core 2 duo has two cores on a single 65nm die??
Sure, it’s just two Duos whacked on the one silicon slab, thus not using a shared cache and prompting AMD to denounce it as not true quad core.
hmm words and eat spring to mind even the quads arent true quad core.
Last edited:
I own a QX6700 and it is a "true" quad core thankyou. Four independant cores in one chip = quad core. Simple as that. Intels Penryn quad cores are still going to use the bridged FSB design. Fact of the matter is, the single die solution using the current achitecture, will not bring about hardly any performance gain. Its a stupid argument really.
Core 2 Duo is 1 die. 2 cores, no bridge required as both cores are directly hooked up to the L2 Cache. I guess you could say the cache itself is a bridge, but then again AMD are planning a shared L3 cache instead(as well?) of linking its K8L cores via Hypertransport, so it cant be such a bad idea.
Core 2 Quadro isnt a monolithic quad core, as yes, it has a pair of Core 2 Duo dies sitting side by side, interlinked by the frontside bus. Not quite as efficient but Intel did a very good job with the task of avoiding FSB conjestion on Core 2 Duo, So the quads are still very good performing processors.
For most people, a Core 2 Duo offers more than enough processing power, by the time Quad core is anything more than an extremists toy, the perhaps Yorkfield will be out.
Regardless its the overall processor design that counts. As long as the cores can be fully fed with instructions and data, then how they are wired up doesnt really matter. If AMD's K8L quads outperform Intels Quads, then intel will improve them. Never much point in playing the waiting game, there is always something new and improved just around the corner. By the best you can afford that does the job you want.
Core 2 Quadro isnt a monolithic quad core, as yes, it has a pair of Core 2 Duo dies sitting side by side, interlinked by the frontside bus. Not quite as efficient but Intel did a very good job with the task of avoiding FSB conjestion on Core 2 Duo, So the quads are still very good performing processors.
For most people, a Core 2 Duo offers more than enough processing power, by the time Quad core is anything more than an extremists toy, the perhaps Yorkfield will be out.
Regardless its the overall processor design that counts. As long as the cores can be fully fed with instructions and data, then how they are wired up doesnt really matter. If AMD's K8L quads outperform Intels Quads, then intel will improve them. Never much point in playing the waiting game, there is always something new and improved just around the corner. By the best you can afford that does the job you want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
geff_r said:
Core 2 Duo (Conroes/Allendales) = 2 cores on one die
Core 2 Quad (Kentsfields) = A pair of Conroes on one chip. (Two dual core dies)
Problem here is what?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
geff_r said:
are you saying there is a faster quadcore cpu out there?
- Status