- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Location
- Overland Park, KS
This is highly speculative Dolk,
...That wasn't Dolk
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
This is highly speculative Dolk,
Yes! The OEM market will eat them up just because they are cheaper, which either makes the machine cheaper to sell or the profit margin higher. For OEM's that's good business. And the power consumption isn't that much of an issue, if anything less L3 will result in less power usage. Already the Phenom II's are competing well in power efficiency and CnQ & C1E will take care of the rest ...Phenom II based with cut down L3 is risky. A major reason for Phenom II improvement was the additional L3 cache. I'd be worried that a low L3 cache quad core would just be excess power draw and heat for no reason. Don't kid yourselves, even some enthusiasts care about that stuff and there are whole sites of 'enthusiasts' who like low power with good performance (SPCR.)
Do we really need cheaper quads just for the sake of being cheaper? They are already pretty darn affordable.
yay phenom x2 soon!
edit
no crap they pushed the dual core i want back to june. crappy
why would AMD try and release their duals at the same time as intel's? thats suicide? shouldnt they just beat them to it.
The fact is no games use 4 cores and even if they did, GPU is the bottleneck at high resolutions/AA/ect.
If you want a super budget gaming rig, dual core is fine. But old X2's are slower than core 2 duo's, these new ones will be able to hang.
A modular design would be cost effective and MORE VERSATILE than just cutting off cores the possibilities are limitless with one base die design. This disabled crap may be a good thing in the end as it may lead to a flex design concept in which cores can be cut and caches combined or split or halved ............ you get the picture.
A modular design would be cost effective and MORE VERSATILE than just cutting off cores the possibilities are limitless with one base die design. This disabled crap may be a good thing in the end as it may lead to a flex design concept in which cores can be cut and caches combined or split or halved ............ you get the picture. A way to use all of what is there neede to be implemented ?reserve registers? redirect commands? offloading through HW to a sud processing unit? the registers are there tha pipes are open if the core is not up to spec hardwire the CPU to offload to a slower locked core when load reaches XX% of core max load.
The fact is no games use 4 cores and even if they did, GPU is the bottleneck at high resolutions/AA/ect.
If you want a super budget gaming rig, dual core is fine. But old X2's are slower than core 2 duo's, these new ones will be able to hang.
There have been a couple of people who have unlocked the 4th core only to lock it back up again due to instability. Even running a slow 4th core the CPU either isn't stable even at stock or won't OC as high with the 4th core enabled. I know of at least one example where the 4th core was clocked clear down to 1 GHz (AOD) and was still causing problems. Yes, there have been some success stories from the unlocked core but there are also plenty of disasters ...