Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zantham
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3
ive been satisfied with AMD and will probably stick with AMD, i just like amd better  ive had intel c2d but for me an ovverclocked amd x2 by 400-600mhz (which isnt alot) can beat a c2d, but maybe by like 2% lol. but still c2d currently is winnging but i hate the c2q its 2 dual cores on one 2 die's on 1 chip. the AMD quad core is first actual QUAD CORE like 4 cores on one black blox(for noncomp freaks here  )
let me explain, AMD released first dual core CPU, where there was 2 cores on a single die (black box on top) the chip is the green silicon chip where the pins are.
the die is where the guts of the cpu are. now intel's first dual core was 2 single cores on 2 seperate DIEs on a SINGLE silicon chip which lookes like this
www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1113326140.jpg
now the problem is on the intel dual core (and quad core) there are 2 DIEs on a single silicon chip. this means theres more heat and more wattage use as there are 2 DIEs, then theres the issue of bottlenecks because the 2 DIE's have to communicate first before doing a normal cpu job.
Now AMD was the first to make a REAL dual core by putting 2 cores on 1 SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this meant less wattage, less heat and more overclocking potential, AMD's quad core will be 4 cores on a SINGLE DIE on a single chip. this means faster and better then the core 2 quad because the core 2 quad is 2 dual core DIEs on a single chip which means heat and ineffiency |
Both current AMD and Intel quad cores are essentially two dual cores linked together to make a 'transitional' quad core. Both upcoming revisions for Intel (Yorkfield) and AMD will be native quad core cpu's. Both are scheduled for release in Q3 2007. Both are hinting at a possible earlier release. Both again bring more focus to power management (AMD switching to 65nm process, as well as having unlinked core processing speeds (DICE); Intel running on a 45nm process and on an architecture that already is superior powerwise to AMD's). Which will be faster, especially for gaming? Nobody knows, there are arguments back and forth all over the web, and until the chips are actually released and benchmarked on their respective platforms...who can say for certain which will be faster. |
nooo amd's quad core is 4 cores on a single DIE and not 2 DIE like intels quad core |
From an article found in Hardware Central:
"The Quad FX platform consists of two matching dual-core Athlon 64 FX processors, but these are not your father's FX -- instead of using AMD's current desktop Socket AM2 as the Athlon 64 FX-62 does, they're based on the 1,207-pin Socket F used for Opteron server processors. Equipped with 1MB of Level 2 cache per core, they come in three different flavors: the Athlon 64 FX-70 (2.6GHz), FX-72 (2.8GHz), and FX-74 (3.0GHz)."
and further down:
"One promising aspect of the Quad FX launch is its anticipation of AMD's "real" or native K8L quad-core CPU in mid-2007"