Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    7,381

    Did Intel Fake it's Dual Core Processor

    This says they could have.

  2. #2
    Member Sjaak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,032
    Seems VERY unlikely to me that they did...if so, their reputation would drop tremendously...


    BTW: that article sounds like 'written by AMDroid'
    'Apparantly reality has a strong liberal bias'

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    7,381
    I see were you are coming from, more less I think they mislead us. It's not a true dual core, more two cores stuck together on a chip instead of integrated into one.

  4. #4
    Drifto Mexicano Cerberus2k7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Morris, IL
    Posts
    2,222
    ugh...the inquirer...I really have a hard time believing anything they say. I mean, what kind of site says "Flame Author" in the email link?

    Member of OCdriftingNinjas | You gotta' Fold if you wanna turn up the Heat
    Overclocking: My Anti-Drug. | Overclocking my body...one day at a time... | Black Belt Ubercloxx0r | You are the most ripped yo-yo'er I have ever seen. - Seven
    HTPC | i5 2500k@3.8 | Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 | 16GB HyperX | GTX 460 1gb@845/1100 | 1.5TB | Silverstone LC10S-M | Corsair 500w

  5. #5
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78
    I am using AMD, but I hope Intel didn't or they will appear to have the same creditability as CBS News.

  6. #6
    Member Sjaak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,032
    Quote Originally Posted by dicecca112
    I see were you are coming from, more less I think they mislead us. It's not a true dual core, more two cores stuck together on a chip instead of integrated into one.

    leads me to the question: how do you define dual core? If i made a chip the size of a mobo and put two cores on each end with a bridge linking them, is that dual core?

    The guy in the article says that Intels dual core isnt dual core since hes from AMD....who has the real definition?
    'Apparantly reality has a strong liberal bias'

  7. #7
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Sjaak
    leads me to the question: how do you define dual core? If i made a chip the size of a mobo and put two cores on each end with a bridge linking them, is that dual core?

    The guy in the article says that Intels dual core isnt dual core since hes from AMD....who has the real definition?
    I think his point is that they just slapped them together with no regard on performance.

    Well, if you just encase a second, none functioning core in with a working one, that could be a dual core, right?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    7,381
    dual core to me is a single core that integrates two cores in one internal structure, or something like two caches. Not just two cores put on a single chip. Don't get me wrong I am not an AMDdroid, in fact, I may go to Intel soon, and am increasingly leaning towards intel if they fix the prescott heat issue. But I just think it is false advertising in a sense.

    EDIT: Ohh come on Texas, lets be sensical here. You understand what I mean in the post.

  9. #9
    Member Sjaak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,032
    Yeah but since there is already spoken of the cores sharing a bus and L3 cache, what IS the core? Just the processing unit & registers w/o any cache? or does L1 / L2 cache count?

    Seems to me that for two cores to run fine, you need double the bus, probably even 4 channels of ddr (2 per core)

    2 cores sharing one bus is inefficient..look at Xeon's, their performance in memory lags behind because they share a single memory bus.
    'Apparantly reality has a strong liberal bias'

  10. #10
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    83
    I would not be suprises if the first gen of Intel dual core chips are going to rather poor compared to the others because from what I have gathers is it is very rushed. They are basicly play catch up and trying to keep up with IMB (G5) and AMD which both are well on the road to daul cores.

    I think intel beein playing catch up on there chips since the AMD 64 with the intgerated memory control.

  11. #11
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by dicecca112
    EDIT: Ohh come on Texas, lets be sensical here. You understand what I mean in the post.
    Sorry, I didn't mean you, I ment the author of the article.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,628
    I would like to think that they'd spend the time to re-engineer the workings to get the best performance out of it, if I'm gunna hafta deal with the heat from both cores, might as well get all the performance I can out of it
    "I named the mold in my toilet Albert. He lived there for five years; until I got a girlfriend and cleaned my room." -curtis1552

  13. #13
    Member mata2974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    1,243
    ugh...the inquirer...I really have a hard time believing anything they say. I mean, what kind of site says "Flame Author" in the email link?
    As funny as Mike Magee is on that site, he is normally right on the money most of the time, if you have been followoing the IT industry as I have been....He is well respected...even in Wall Street. Hard to believe right....

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    178
    First generation dual-core Intel CPUs are just 2 cores slapped together.
    (Because they don't have time to re-design and be able to match AMD's projected release date of dual-core A64 FX/Opteron CPUs).

    In theory, it should operate identical to today's Xeon setups where the bottleneck is a shared bandwidth between 2 CPUs. Increasing the bandwidth of the bus would help the situation. (Compared to AMD's dual-core implementation where they share the memory controller). No one is really sure which is really better until benchies (not synthetic BS, real apps), are done to confirm.

    The 2nd generation dual-core Intel CPU is a complete re-design, from ground up and is far more optimised. If you're planning for Intel dual-core, I suggest you wait for 2nd generation. (Besides, it should be based on the Pentium-M by then!)

    Anyway, the article in question.

    Because at IDF Sept 2004 (when they demo'ed the dual-core on i915 chipset),

    (1) Intel didn't let any Journos get close enough to see or check out the specs.
    (2) No "plexi" casing for everyone to see the inside.
    (3) Intel guarded the box closely.

    The one problem with this demo is...
    We aren't sure if its a CPU with SMT,
    or a dual CPU
    or a real dual-core.

    But it doesn't mean a dual-core variant of the P4 doesn't exist. We aren't 100% certain, that's all. But who really cares when it won't be available until halfway through 2005.

    The biggest misconception I've noticed about dual-core is heat.

    (1) They ain't gonna use standard desktop cores with those voltages! They'll use Low Voltage variants of the cores...So instead of one core that produces 90W+, they use something like a dual-core with 40W+ per core.

    At most dual-core will be slightly hotter.

    Example : Opteron specs
    Single-core = 89W
    Dual-core = 95W

    This allows existing Opteron mobos to easily work with dual-core variants of Opteron...Of course, they'll still need a BIOS update!

    (2) The speeds will be lower than single core.
    Instead of a single 2.4Ghz Opteron, you'll have a dual-core 2Ghz Opteron.

    I'm not sure how a dual-core will behave if you overclock it, that will have to wait until end of 2005.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    537
    MMMM I wanna see a 12 pipe P4. That thing would be a beast. Just put a massive cache on it and that would solve most of your memory issues. Or you would have to go to a Next gen rdram sort of platform. That cranks huge memory bandwidth. You could run said chip at like 1ghz and it would mop the floor with any current P4. Since each pipe would run at about 75% of the effeciency of a single piped P4. Would be a monster chip requiring lots of new stuff to run it though. But it would be equivalent to an 8ghz machine, give or take a few mhz. Hmmm even at that speed though you would be more likely to run shortened pipes so with alot fewer stages you would make up for the lower effeciency. It would sort of be like a gpu but in a cpu jacket.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •