Question on AMD's comment on Intel Core 2 DUo
- Thread starter SemiDevil
- Start date
Intel I guess you could say has two dual core wafers on top of each other, where AMDs is one wafer and 4 cores?
)
diduknowthat
formerly liuliuboy
I'm not sure about this, but if you just glue two core 2 duo's together, there wouldn't be any communication between the two pairs of cores in the cpu itself..correct? And would true quad core have shared L2 cache and everything like that?
thealmightyone
New Member
My guess would be that...
I think AMD are just being picky. Quad-core is quad-core.
I think AMD are just being picky. Quad-core is quad-core.
Saurian
Member
No, anative quad core (AMD) is better then just putting 2 dual cores on the same chip. On order to communicate, the 2 sides have to go through the FSB in the system, then back to the other side, then bacck to the fsb, then they can process. Native communication would be Core for going straight to Core 1 and accessing its allocated cache.
Smithfield was a dual core setup I believe in which it was two single cores on one die. This was replaced by Presler I believe in which the dual cores were integral and communicated natively. Presler was a Netburst derivitive. Core Duo/Core 2 Duo are all Pentium 3/Pentium M-derived native dual cores.
That all said, a quad core non-native Kentsfield is going to eat a native dual core 2 duo alive in a threaded application like rendering where all 4 cores can be used effectively. However, the Kentsfield is also going produce as much heat idling as the C2D does loaded.
Smithfield was a dual core setup I believe in which it was two single cores on one die. This was replaced by Presler I believe in which the dual cores were integral and communicated natively. Presler was a Netburst derivitive. Core Duo/Core 2 Duo are all Pentium 3/Pentium M-derived native dual cores.
That all said, a quad core non-native Kentsfield is going to eat a native dual core 2 duo alive in a threaded application like rendering where all 4 cores can be used effectively. However, the Kentsfield is also going produce as much heat idling as the C2D does loaded.
In 2007 we will introduce a true quad-core design with four cores on the die and all the benefits that come with that," Randy Allen, corporate vice president of AMD's server and workstation division, told internetnews.com.
"Current workloads will see an immediate benefit with quad-core and that will only improve as the software industry works on ways to further exploit it."
Allen's reference to a "true quad-core design" is a dig at Intel. Brookwood notes that Intel has been talking about joining what he says are two intelligently-designed dual-cores into a quad-core package.
The two dual-cores communicate via the front side bus: This is in contrast to AMD's architecture, in which the processor connects directly to memory.
"Intel's approach works and is valid. I'm not going to get into whether it's a true quad-core because I don't think that's important," said Brookwood. "But Intel does put more of a load on the front side bus and that means the performance isn't going to be as strong as it could be otherwise."
However, from what I hear it seems that this move by Intel may be a repeat of the first to dual core war that played out when the dual core parts first hit market. Namely Intel won the bragging rights by getting their dual core part to market first. However, to do so they had an inferior CPU design that didn’t allow the two cores to talk directly.What Intel did was basically put two separate cores inside the processor and have them talk via the FSB. Whereas AMD took its time with their last to market dual core CPU, but thoroughly trashed Intel when it came to performance thanks to their much more efficient direct connection for the two cores to communicate over.
From what I am hearing, Intel’s new quad core CPU is taking the same route they took with the first dual core. What we will be seeing is simply two of their current dual core CPUs grafted together and communicating via the FSB. AMD again will take their time and bring to market a quad core CPU that communicates directly between the four cores. If this is accurate, it should again mean that AMD will have the same sort of performance advantage that they had when dual cores were the new tech
"Current workloads will see an immediate benefit with quad-core and that will only improve as the software industry works on ways to further exploit it."
Allen's reference to a "true quad-core design" is a dig at Intel. Brookwood notes that Intel has been talking about joining what he says are two intelligently-designed dual-cores into a quad-core package.
The two dual-cores communicate via the front side bus: This is in contrast to AMD's architecture, in which the processor connects directly to memory.
"Intel's approach works and is valid. I'm not going to get into whether it's a true quad-core because I don't think that's important," said Brookwood. "But Intel does put more of a load on the front side bus and that means the performance isn't going to be as strong as it could be otherwise."
However, from what I hear it seems that this move by Intel may be a repeat of the first to dual core war that played out when the dual core parts first hit market. Namely Intel won the bragging rights by getting their dual core part to market first. However, to do so they had an inferior CPU design that didn’t allow the two cores to talk directly.What Intel did was basically put two separate cores inside the processor and have them talk via the FSB. Whereas AMD took its time with their last to market dual core CPU, but thoroughly trashed Intel when it came to performance thanks to their much more efficient direct connection for the two cores to communicate over.
From what I am hearing, Intel’s new quad core CPU is taking the same route they took with the first dual core. What we will be seeing is simply two of their current dual core CPUs grafted together and communicating via the FSB. AMD again will take their time and bring to market a quad core CPU that communicates directly between the four cores. If this is accurate, it should again mean that AMD will have the same sort of performance advantage that they had when dual cores were the new tech
Last edited:
pyvnetrvne.
banned
One wafer has MUCH more than 4 cores.
what are you talking about!
Geoff
VIP Member
Correction, it has two die's, with two cores on each. The Core 2 Duo is one die with two cores, so it's a true dual-core.
Some would argue that the Kentsfield is more like having two dual-core processors on a motherboard, than one quad-core processor.
Geoff
VIP Member
4x4 isn't a true quad-core, it's simple a dual-socket motherboard.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1527913
Geoff
VIP Member
Hi,
I was wondering if you guys can explain to me the above image on the Core 2 Duo and the Bacelona..
What does those cables represent?
Looks like it's explaining how the multiple cores communicate. the Intel is less efficient, because it has to communicate using the FSB.
Geoff
VIP Member
AMD doesn't have an FSB on their newer chips. I haven't looked into the Barcelona much, so I can't say with for certain how they work.