Core 2 Duo or X2?
- Thread starter Justin
- Start date
It's from the latest issue of Maximum PC. I received it in the mail today. Thought I read that in a previous issue. Guess not.
In particular, Brewer and other AMD executives cited a recent study from Mercury Research pointing out that quad-core processors represented less than two percent of desktop shipments during the second quarter, while dual-core took up the remaining 98 percent. Until demand ramps up for quad-core, triple core will serve as something of an intermediary, according to AMD. At the same time, the company hopes it will also stimulate broader multi-core adoption.
"We left the megahertz race for the core race," said John Taylor, product communications director at AMD. "The sweet spot is now four (cores) and down … and there are a lot of scenarios where three cores outperforms dual core," he said.
Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight64, agrees.
"I think it could be clever," said Brookwood, who was also at the briefing. "Conceivably, a tri-core chip from AMD could run 20 percent faster than a quad-core chip and feature a 15-16 percent performance boost for each thread. That would be interesting to many users."
(((In terms of architecture, Brewer also confirmed on Monday that the yet-to-be named processor will basically be a quad-core processor with one core disabled, and that it will feature the company's Direct Connect architecture, as well as a shared L3 cache, and other architectural selling points that Intel currently lacks.)))
From what I can tell based on what has been announced, the new triple-core Phenom is essentially what The Inquirer described it as—((a quad-core Phenom with one core disabled.)) This should help alleviate some of the yield issues that are bound to plague a part this size, but only if the tri-core actually sells
Why a three-core chip? There's definitely a manufacturing edge to be gained there: Not all of the CPUs that come off a wafer will work properly. The native quad-core design AMD's using for Phenom (and the Barcelona server CPUs it just released), makes it easy for the company to ((deactivate a defective core)) and still have a viable three-core chip. Sony does something similar with the Cell processor in the Playstation 3 shipping with seven of its eight SPE cores operational.
Ever since AMD has announced its tri-core, most of the drama has been around the fact that it is most likely a ((defective quad-core, with one disabled unit.)) It is obvious that it would save AMD money to resell chips that would otherwise go to the trash bin
Of course, no one sets out to make a three-core product - AMD is simply being commercially canny. Of all the quad-core chips it punches out, some will have cores that are dead or not up to scratch. AMD can't sell them as four-core products, and while it might have once sold them as dual-core chips, by disabling one of the remaining cores, it now plans to offer them as three-core CPUs.
That allows it to not only sell chips it might otherwise have had to discard or offer as cheaper, two-core parts, but also allows it to position the three-core products as superior to Intel's rival Core 2 Duo chip.
"We left the megahertz race for the core race," said John Taylor, product communications director at AMD. "The sweet spot is now four (cores) and down … and there are a lot of scenarios where three cores outperforms dual core," he said.
Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight64, agrees.
"I think it could be clever," said Brookwood, who was also at the briefing. "Conceivably, a tri-core chip from AMD could run 20 percent faster than a quad-core chip and feature a 15-16 percent performance boost for each thread. That would be interesting to many users."
(((In terms of architecture, Brewer also confirmed on Monday that the yet-to-be named processor will basically be a quad-core processor with one core disabled, and that it will feature the company's Direct Connect architecture, as well as a shared L3 cache, and other architectural selling points that Intel currently lacks.)))
From what I can tell based on what has been announced, the new triple-core Phenom is essentially what The Inquirer described it as—((a quad-core Phenom with one core disabled.)) This should help alleviate some of the yield issues that are bound to plague a part this size, but only if the tri-core actually sells
Why a three-core chip? There's definitely a manufacturing edge to be gained there: Not all of the CPUs that come off a wafer will work properly. The native quad-core design AMD's using for Phenom (and the Barcelona server CPUs it just released), makes it easy for the company to ((deactivate a defective core)) and still have a viable three-core chip. Sony does something similar with the Cell processor in the Playstation 3 shipping with seven of its eight SPE cores operational.
Ever since AMD has announced its tri-core, most of the drama has been around the fact that it is most likely a ((defective quad-core, with one disabled unit.)) It is obvious that it would save AMD money to resell chips that would otherwise go to the trash bin
Of course, no one sets out to make a three-core product - AMD is simply being commercially canny. Of all the quad-core chips it punches out, some will have cores that are dead or not up to scratch. AMD can't sell them as four-core products, and while it might have once sold them as dual-core chips, by disabling one of the remaining cores, it now plans to offer them as three-core CPUs.
That allows it to not only sell chips it might otherwise have had to discard or offer as cheaper, two-core parts, but also allows it to position the three-core products as superior to Intel's rival Core 2 Duo chip.
Last edited:
Dual_Corex2
banned
[-0MEGA-];796739 said:
They already make quad-core Opertons. And with their dual-cpu boards you can make that into 8 cores.
The Desktop Phenom X4 Agena and Phenom X2 Kuma is suppost to be released in the middle of November and the Tri Core around Feb. 08
Dual_Corex2
banned
KevinKevin
Member
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYQLgh1vNN0
This proves that AMD Processors & Motherboards are more advanced and have better sustainability than the Intel Processors & Motherboards. Obviously, I've never known anyone to keep their computers on for that amount of time, but isn't it good to know that you are able to keep your computer on for a longer period without failing? Although the Intel Processors & Motherboards may be that little inch faster, what's the point in spending a lot more money on a processor at the same speed if you can find a cheaper processor with the same speed? Summarizing all of this; AMD processors & motherboards are in a different, better league.
salman
Member
Geoff
VIP Member
Yes, they have been out for quite some time.
Dual_Corex2
banned
Uhhh, i have a Pentium 133MHz cpu from like 1995 that still works like new and it was kept on most the time, as is my X2.
So whats your point?
The amount of time you leave your computer on has nothing to do with anything. Theres too many other factors that can play a role in that. As in your cooling and your power supply.
And currently, Intel processors and boards are ALOT faster, not an inch. I love AMD, and i wish to someday work R&D for them, but your post is completely false.
Whats to say, whats the most advanced. AMD has onboard memory controller, Hypertransport. But right now Intel Core 2 is faster mhz vs. mhz. I,ve used both and theres not really any difference in reliability between the two. I,ve built nothing but AMDs for 4 years because I thought the Athlon 64 was a better processor than the P4 but, I,m just waiting till the end of the year and if the Phenom is not what AMD claims I will probably start building Intel systems again. Its as simple as that!
diduknowthat
formerly liuliuboy
Sooo what does that video show? There are SO many different variables that they didn't account for that it's borderline propaganda. And what's with the reasons for deassembling? "Crash" and "setup"...wth?
And currently AMD is a good buy for lower end budget systems. But for high end systems Intel still has the edge.