X2 3200+
- Thread starter Jet
- Start date
fade2green514
Active Member
its because they produce some of their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol
Last edited:
Or better yet, just post the chip's OPN 
- Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
- AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject
You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:
- Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
- AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject
{LSK} Otacon
banned
^agree.
fade2green514
Active Member
Or better yet, just post the chip's OPN
You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:
- Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
- AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject
they definitely disabled a core on the newer E6 stepping single cores
http://www.short-media.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-42233.html
^lemonlime post #3"There are several revisions of the venice core out there right now, including E3, E4 and E6. When I wrote the guide, E6 single cores were pretty sparse. Now, there is even a Manchester dual core with one core disabled circulating around
same way they just disable half the cache, and some of the clock frequency potential of each chip.
the E6 type chip had a better memory controller, and it was probably cheaper to just produce so many dual cores rather than incorporate the memory controller into the older single cores and therefore needing more machines to produce them.. i don't know how it worked out but they definitely ended up just disabling a core the way nvidia laser cut pixel pipelines out of the 7800gt... or the 7900gs.
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon
banned
I hope you know that your wrong.......not ALL 64s are dual core, only the X2s. The normal 64s are just single core, there is no other disabled core. Do you know how much the company would lose spending all that money probucing all dual core 64s but selling half of them as single? That would be stupid. Thats why they run the company, and not you. And i will say i have never removed the IHS off a 64, and i take it you havent either, but you wont find 2 cores. And if you do, its an X2, and not just a normal 64. AMD would be losing ALOT of money if they did that. And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am, whether anyone else does or not. And actually, you stated that AMD produces ALL their cpus dual core. Which is obviously wrong in a way i cant explain.
Think before you post.
Oh and by the way, posting something that someone typed in another forum isnt proof at all. For all we know, you could have posted that in that forum, or maybe its just someone like you who doesnt know.
There might be 1/1000000 that are actually dual core and have one disabled becuz the other core didnt work right, like the HTT being disabled on my P4 becuz it didnt work right, but not all of them are produced like that. And i doubt if thats even right.
Think before you post.
Oh and by the way, posting something that someone typed in another forum isnt proof at all. For all we know, you could have posted that in that forum, or maybe its just someone like you who doesnt know.
There might be 1/1000000 that are actually dual core and have one disabled becuz the other core didnt work right, like the HTT being disabled on my P4 becuz it didnt work right, but not all of them are produced like that. And i doubt if thats even right.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
actually most of the money that goes into the materials for the chip is spent on the gold pins... and yes, they do disable the core. not all athlon 64's are dual core, but the newer single cores with the E6 stepping do have an extra inactive core..
yea, the earth is flat. umm no its true because i know im right.
think about it though, why would his 3200 show up as an X2? duhh
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon
banned
I dont know why it would show up like that, and he hasnt even posted a screen of it yet, so who knows. But i know for a fact that not all 64s are dual core.
The only dual core 64s is the X2 series. Its as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.
And besides, if it did show up as an X2, that would mean that it reconized the other core which means its not disabled. duhhh.
The only dual core 64s is the X2 series. Its as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.
And besides, if it did show up as an X2, that would mean that it reconized the other core which means its not disabled. duhhh.
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
i never said they were, only the E6's, which is probably his processor.
incorrect, see the posts above.
model name has nothing to do with how many cores show up. recognizing two cores would have to do with task manager, and how many cores show up there.
btw what did you build your rig for? 1gb doesnt seem like enough for video editing.... at least it would bottleneck the proc.. assuming you edit videos because of the one on your website in your sig.
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon
banned
I dont EDIT videos, but i do transfer them from my camera to my pc and convert them to AVI. but thats besides the point, and yes my 1 gig is enough for everything i do. My memory bandwidth is 4.2gb/s. And if i run my fsb at 220mhz, my bandwidth goes to 4.5-4.6gb/s.
Dude.......there is no dual core AMD 64 Athlon unless its an X2. CPU-z makes mistakes dude. Do you have the latest version of it? If not, that may be why.
Dude.......there is no dual core AMD 64 Athlon unless its an X2. CPU-z makes mistakes dude. Do you have the latest version of it? If not, that may be why.
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon
banned
Really? Cuz thats not what you said here.......
Here you say they ALL are dual core. Even my DX-40? damn......never woulda guessed.
In either case, both are incorrect statements.
Iluvpenguins
New Member
point of making it dual core and disabling 1 core is...?
{LSK} Otacon
banned
Well, not true. They also have the HTT disabled on 2.66ghz Northwood P4s. But i believe thats all.
fade2green514
Active Member
why do i care what your memory bandwidth is, it doesn't effect most applications anyways... and besides, mines way higher at a 6.9GB/s... just to show off haha...
E6's and newer are dual cores with a core disabled. stop fighting it, its true and you know it lol
to prevent having to make a new machine to produce more single cores with the newer memory controller? i dono, they do it though.. silicon isn't exactly scarce hahaha
Okay all I'll try to get a picture (or have him post one). Lol about this disabled core stuff. The only thing that people disable are graphics card pipelines
and cache in many processors, athlon 64 3000+ = athlon 64 4000+ underclocked 600mhz and half cache disabled.
Last edited:
{LSK} Otacon
banned
How should i know why you care about my memory, you were the one asking about it. And yea, bandwidth does effect the performance in pretty much everything. Comparing my 4.2gb/s to my old 2.9gb/s its way faster, windows only takes 15-20 seconds to load, where as 2.9gb/s it would take almost a minute if not longer. And if you ask me 4.2gb/s is very good considering its PC3200, rated at 3.2gb/s.
What a noob. I feel sorry for ppl like you.
What a noob. I feel sorry for ppl like you.
Geoff
VIP Member
Thats not because of the memory. What makes Windows load time so long when you first boot it up is the hard drive, since its loading necessary files into the RAM. And even SDRAM is significantly faster then a hard drive. Games also dont show much improvement with faster ram, in a few games, using DDR333 and DDR400 showed only 1-2 fps difference.
Motoxrdude
Active Member
HAHA! That is just about the stupidist thing i have ever heard! Im putting that in my signature.
fade2green514
Active Member
dude its true... they disable a core. why do you think his proc is showing up as an x2 3200+
btw thanks goeff... you probably started loading windows quicker with the change from ide to sata
if youd like i can explain lol...
take it out of your signature please.
Last edited: