What is Digg?23 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I have to say, I love how Intel has come back guns a blazing
It doesn't seem too long ago that AMD was laughing at Intel's so-called dual core that was little more than two single cores. - mike503, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6actually don't you mean quad-core, single-socket?
a core (when listed as part of the CPU) describes the specific CPU, not the total amount of cores on the system. in theory you might be able to have an eight-core system by using two of these chips (if that's even supported properly yet) - or 16 cores with a 4-way motherboard. of course, that relies on chipset and mobo support and all that. but remember "-core" is per CPU for all intents and purposes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Not so impressive these benchmark results."
I don't think the CG renderers and image editors are saying that. - highvolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah right, like there is a specific way to write a thread for a 'hacked' or 'true' platform.
A thread is a thread, and it doesn't care if a hacked platform is crunching it.
At least with with the intel you dont have to use 2 cpu coolers (twice the noise) etc.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Don't you mean quad core dual socket? (Or some variation above?)
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Uh, you do know the Pentium M was intentionally kept down by low clock speeds to prevent it from competing with Pentium 4/D/EE sales, right? You know that original overclocks of the Pentium M were defeating Athlon 64s, since before the Athlon 64 was even released? The Core chip was just a bit of a tweak on the Pentium M's core, that was actually allowed to have an astronomically high clock, and allowed to compete with the Pentium D. More advanced cache, smaller process, higher clock, improved Micro-op fusion.
In summary: Intel's been out to compete with AMD, not destroy it. Think about things this way: what would have happened if Intel used the Pentium M to go up against the Athlon 64, and clocked it past 2.0GHz from the start? - theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was just thinking that. It's like AMD has been gloating all this time about how great it is, and Intel's just been quietly researching its revenge. Suddenly Intel turns around and says "bye the way...we have THIS", and AMD just goes "oh *****!" and tried to throw something together (dual dual core?).
- robchartley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think the difference is in core to core communication. Cores on the same die can communicate with shared cache, which is wicked fast. Cores on separate dies even if they are on the same processor package are communicating through a bus of some variety, still pretty but not as.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4competition has indeed done wonders for the cpu market as it has the video card market.
now if software were the same.... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Pentium M/Core chips were heavily modified Pentium Pros (p6), but the Core 2s are definitely _not_. While they might have started with a similar code base, the Core marchitecture is quite a departure from P6.
- mike503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3since digg won't show me the "submit" button for an edit, i wanted to add the "disclaimer" of "in all the marketing and press materials '-core' means how many cores on a specific chip, when talking about the specific chip'"
a dual-core processor does not mean two single core processors, it means ONE processor with dual-cores. just like this article is a single processor with four cores.
four cores is available if you want to think of it that way, with dual dual-core, or dual-hyperthreading processors (sorta) - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3down!
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I think the difference is in core to core communication. Cores on the same die can communicate with shared cache, which is wicked fast. Cores on separate dies even if they are on the same processor package are communicating through a bus of some variety, still pretty but not as."
Bzzz. No cigar. Cores on the same piece of silicon still have to talk using a bus, it's just that the bus can be a LOT faster when the wires are a few microns long verses 2-5cm. Two Opteron cores talk to each other via HyperTransport, for example. The Core 2 chips were actually quite advanced for their ability to dynamically remap the L2 cache so that it simulated "communication" between the cores, even if all it's really doing is remapping the L2 to each processor as its needed, but in order for two Core 2 chips to talk to each other, they still require the Front Side Bus. - pantuky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The correct version is quadcore single socket.
- heiesuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@mike503
Yea you're right. I think most have been lead astray by Mr. Jobs and his way of naming the core architecture. I can't wait to see these on a Mac BTW, I'm holding off on my Mac Pro till they get true "Quad" core. - hhcv, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3*tumbleweed*
- sleepyness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Core/2/Duo/Solo is just a extremely modded Pentium M which is a modded Pentium 3. The Core series didn't just come out of nowhere. -.-
- Weakling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Not so impressive these benchmark results. Pure CPU tests are not very relevant imho and when looking to the other results only the 3D rendering result shines. The other tests only show about 10% increase in speed compared to a Core 2 Duo, which I find way too low for a doubling of cores. I do not expect a 100% increase, not at all, that is unreasonable, but a 30% increase at least was expected by me.
- Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1OMG, dual core, dual socket. *DROOL*
- chrisinsocalif, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Thing people dont realize, intels quad core is basically contain two dual-core processors packaged on a die and not a "true quad core."
AMD has stressed that its quad-core design will be a "true quad-core," meaning it will contain four separate cores on a die.
If you want to wait for better quad core performance, i would wait for Intels "true quad core" or AMD's K8L to be released. To me, the kentsfield and 4x4 are just hacks. - Dposcorp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Just after i got my dual dual-core opterons.
Still, nice see where I stand.
OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh DIG IT!
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is