MCM or dual-core??

pipit · 04-06-2006, 06:56 PM

I'm still confuse about dual core processor.

there's a review about that Pentium D is not a dual core Processor :

Quote:

"You would be better served waiting for laptops with AMD Turion64 X2. Intel
chips are not true dual core; they are two separate chips fused together.
and they cannot see or communicate with each other on the die. They can
only communicate by going outside the die through the Northbridge chipset,
and only one CPU can do so per clock cycle. Add to that they do not have an
on-die memory controller, are tied to a 667-MHz FSB (as opposed to 2GHz on
the Turion), no direct connect architecture and no Hypertransport bus. They
are simply the same old chip dress up in a new package, but they are not
really new."

"By definition, a dual core processor requires a crossbar switch *AND* a
system request interface, neither of which Intel has. Intel does indeed
join two single cores on a single connector; I have no preference over the
use of chips or cores, as they signify the same thing. AMD X2 cores are
built as dual cores, Intel chips are not.
It's really quite elementary."

"
Intel has not made a new chip in nearly 7 years. Now matter how many time
they change the name, or change the logo, Intel chips are still P4 based,
and bring nothing new to the table. They are not the same 64 bit
specification as is AMD (Intel uses EM64T). Intel does not have consumer
level dual core chips, but multi-core dies. Even if Intel were to make true
dual core, they would be wasted on Intel motherboards, going through a
Northbridge chipset because there is no on-die memory controller.

Intel has one single advantage over AMD; tons of money to throw into
advertising making the general public think things like ViiV and the new
"Core Duo" are new technologies. I once heard someone use an axiom that
describes the current Intel lineup very well...the gentleman said something
along the lines of "no matter what color you may paint it, a pig is still a
pig". Those of us who are willing to research, to read the testing done on
numerous websites, know that Intel is not in the same league today as is
AMD. Whether or not this will change in a couple of years remains to be
seen. In the interim, AMD makes a better product, and has done something no
other company has done before...beat Intel in the marketplace and on the
motherboard. I wish AMD all the luck in the world. Do I wish bad for
Intel? of course not. I just wish them luck and God Speed in catching up."

Is this article true?
and A guy from other forum said that Pentium D isn't dual core processor but a Multi chip Module. It's different from CPU101.
and Multi Chip Module is different from Dual Core.

If so, What's the different between MCM and Dual core??

and If it's true that Pentium D isn't Dual core, what about Pentium Extreme Edition, Is it Dual Core or MCM?

fade2green514 · 04-06-2006, 07:06 PM

its baloney.
basically, theyre making up reasons of why AMD should be better but it really isn't. AMD's dual core is better... but all those reasons were baloney and didn't make much sense.
also intels dual cores are alot cheaper.
"fused together." thats their reason for why it's got to communicate through the chipset. that makes no sense whatsoever.
i love B.S. reviews like that.
just kidding, i hate them.
multi chip module sounds like its the exact same as dual core.
maybe they said its different from dual cpu? dual core doesn't mean dual cpu.

pipit · 04-06-2006, 07:24 PM

Well, all I know that Oracle counts AMD and Intel dual-core CPUs as a single processor but has other numbers for other types. IBM, HP and Microsoft count a multi-chip-module as multiple processors.

it means that MCM different with Dual-core, right?
and Whether Pentium D is Dual core or MCM, that's what I'm curious about.

**apj101** · 04-06-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Oracle counts AMD and Intel dual-core CPUs as a single processor

so what is they do, its not like they haven't got things wrong before

The article is completely cock and bull

fade2green514 · 04-06-2006, 10:06 PM

thank you. lol exactly what i said. baloney. even though its really spelled balogna. lol

04-06-2006, 07:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
fade2green514 Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: buffalo ny Age: 19 Posts: 3,463	its baloney. basically, theyre making up reasons of why AMD should be better but it really isn't. AMD's dual core is better... but all those reasons were baloney and didn't make much sense. also intels dual cores are alot cheaper. "fused together." thats their reason for why it's got to communicate through the chipset. that makes no sense whatsoever. i love B.S. reviews like that. just kidding, i hate them. multi chip module sounds like its the exact same as dual core. maybe they said its different from dual cpu? dual core doesn't mean dual cpu. __________________ Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz Radeon HD 4850 512mb 2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835 2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive 12,936 - 3dmark06 score

04-06-2006, 10:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
fade2green514 Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: buffalo ny Age: 19 Posts: 3,463	thank you. lol exactly what i said. baloney. even though its really spelled balogna. lol __________________ Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz Radeon HD 4850 512mb 2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835 2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive 12,936 - 3dmark06 score

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-06-2006, 07:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
pipit Silver Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: indonesia Age: 26 Posts: 112	Well, all I know that Oracle counts AMD and Intel dual-core CPUs as a single processor but has other numbers for other types. IBM, HP and Microsoft count a multi-chip-module as multiple processors. it means that MCM different with Dual-core, right? and Whether Pentium D is Dual core or MCM, that's what I'm curious about.