Core 2 Duo or X2?

Two Quad cores are suppost to be released next month the 9500 2.2ghz and 9600 2.4 then a 9700 2.6 in December, but I dont think the Tri core is released till Jan. or Feb. 08
 
Don't get a tri-core during production of quad core chips, sometimes one core goes bad and amd is recycling the processors instead of throwing them out and labeling them "tri-core" i'd stick with a quad core or dual core.
 
As far as I know all the tri cores will be Quads with one core disabled, you make a monolith Quad core and one core is bad or alot slower than the other three. You have three choices, throw it in the trash can, run it as a low ghz. quad or disable the bad or slow core crank up the GHZ and sell it as a Tri core.
 
[-0MEGA-];796739 said:
X4's? AMD hasnt even released their tri-core models yet, so dont expect quad-core desktop processors to be available well into 2008.
Click to expand...

what's going to be the diff betweenthe X4 and the Opetron?


off topic:
zero_cool, my AVATAR!!! :(
 
UriA702 said:
Don't get a tri-core during production of quad core chips, sometimes one core goes bad and amd is recycling the processors instead of throwing them out and labeling them "tri-core" i'd stick with a quad core or dual core.
Click to expand...

INTELCRAZY said:
You were joking, right?
Click to expand...
Actually he is most likely right. MaximumPC had an article stating how AMD's upcoming tri-cores actually have 4 cores, one is just disabled. They went on to say that they believe the "tri-cores" were originally quad cores, however one of the cores wasnt functioning properly, so they disabled it and sold it as a tri-core.
 
Wouldn't they have to cherry pick and test all the of the bad quads? that would be hard to mass produce if the tri's are faulty quads..

50% of the quad cores would have to be bad... i don't think one would be disabled
 
[-0MEGA-];797325 said:
Actually he is most likely right. MaximumPC had an article stating how AMD's upcoming tri-cores actually have 4 cores, one is just disabled. They went on to say that they believe the "tri-cores" were originally quad cores, however one of the cores wasnt functioning properly, so they disabled it and sold it as a tri-core.
Click to expand...

At least they are making the best of what they would have originally wasted... :D
 
ThatGuy16 said:
Wouldn't they have to cherry pick and test all the of the bad quads? that would be hard to mass produce if the tri's are faulty quads..

50% of the quad cores would have to be bad... i don't think one would be disabled
Click to expand...
What processor companies such as Intel and AMD do are produce processors with the same architecture (such as the Core 2 Duos, Xeons, Pentium 4's, etc). Now they dont make ones designed for the E6600, or X6800, they test each one and the ones that are more stable then others become the higher end models such as the X6800, QX6850, etc, and the ones that cant handle as high of a clock speed become the E6300 and such.

So back to the tri-cores, AMD has to test each individual processor, so the ones that only have one core damaged are most likely what are used for the tri-cores, instead of just throwing them out.
 
[-0MEGA-];797341 said:
What processor companies such as Intel and AMD do are produce processors with the same architecture (such as the Core 2 Duos, Xeons, Pentium 4's, etc). Now they dont make ones designed for the E6600, or X6800, they test each one and the ones that are more stable then others become the higher end models such as the X6800, QX6850, etc, and the ones that cant handle as high of a clock speed become the E6300 and such.

So back to the tri-cores, AMD has to test each individual processor, so the ones that only have one core damaged are most likely what are used for the tri-cores, instead of just throwing them out.
Click to expand...

True, but i though i read somewere that it was truely 3 cores on a wafer, no extra disabled core?
 
[-0MEGA-];797325 said:
Actually he is most likely right. MaximumPC had an article stating how AMD's upcoming tri-cores actually have 4 cores, one is just disabled. They went on to say that they believe the "tri-cores" were originally quad cores, however one of the cores wasnt functioning properly, so they disabled it and sold it as a tri-core.
Click to expand...

ThatGuy16 said:
True, but i though i read somewere that it was truely 3 cores on a wafer, no extra disabled core?
Click to expand...

I read both and I'm really confused. :confused:

I can't wait for the Q9450. :D
 
ThatGuy16 said:
True, but i though i read somewere that it was truely 3 cores on a wafer, no extra disabled core?
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure, I just saw a MaxiumPC article which showed the die of the tri-cores, which were clearly 4 separate cores, and they believe that one is just disabled.
 
[-0MEGA-];797554 said:
I'm not 100% sure, I just saw a MaxiumPC article which showed the die of the tri-cores, which were clearly 4 separate cores, and they believe that one is just disabled.
Click to expand...

I read that article too. Unfortunately, it's not on their website. It's in one of their older issues.
 
Accordingly to what I have read and seen Intel is faster but AMD last longer and can be left to idle longer than a Intel can without breaking. AMD is cheaper, mainly the same speed. If you're looking for a decent, long-lasting processor, I'd recommend AMD 64 X2.
 
KevinKevin said:
Accordingly to what I have read and seen Intel is faster but AMD last longer and can be left to idle longer than a Intel can without breaking. AMD is cheaper, mainly the same speed. If you're looking for a decent, long-lasting processor, I'd recommend AMD 64 X2.
Click to expand...

AMD is cheaper, but longer lasting when idled? I haven't really heard anything on that. Plus, I doubt anyone will use a processor to it's full lifetime, by then the computer will be useless anyways.
 
Picture.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top