let's say...$1600
each core operates at 4ghz with 2mb l2 cache, should be on the market officially around Q2 2006...
(note to anyone who's gonna be like "ohh!!1 no selling outside teh classifidz!!!" this is a fake)
Printable View
let's say...$1600
each core operates at 4ghz with 2mb l2 cache, should be on the market officially around Q2 2006...
(note to anyone who's gonna be like "ohh!!1 no selling outside teh classifidz!!!" this is a fake)
wat is the little slivery thing on the bottom core? it looks scratched or is it like on an AXP the little logo?
a reflection?
Is it just me or does the topside picture of the dual proc look alot like an athlon thunderbird? They used that color and more brittle texture on the pcbs.
not always ...
while one core is processing the game thread (if windows becomes that smart to dedicate one "CPU" to one thread), the the other core can be used for something else (Doom3's sound engine can be in a diff thread, or you could be using it for something else, like background tasks ...)
so, the performance increase WILL be there ... I think there will be one level of perfomance (some percentage) that we will see across the board (on AMD and on Intel CPUs)
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Slavik: Its entirely based on how the game is written. IF the game is written to use one core then two cores wont do jack.. Its also based on the OS too. So if you run win98 and are playing tribes then you wont see any performance gains. Because the os and the prog have no idea what the heck is going on with the dual core... I dont think XP would handle it either though... It seems to do good with hyperthreading, but this is a bit different.
hyperthreading is barely different then dual cores, the only real difference is the underlying hardware, but from a software perspective they operate identically. In fact, the current linux kernal for dual core labels dual core as CMP (Chip Multi-Processing) and Hyperthreading as CMP_Legacy.
i am really looking forward to seeing what type of heat these are going to put off. I would also be interested if someone could find me a link with an intel cooler with a built in tec. Thats just sick if it's true.
that really depends on the game engine, i started a thread on 3dcenter.de about something similar. i started a thread if its possible to split a thread into two smaller threads or re-arange the threads in any other way, because if you could, then a dual core 3ghz p4 would almost be as fast as a single core 6ghz p4. 3dcenter has some really really smart and professional people on their board.Quote:
Originally Posted by slavik
here, its in german though:
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulle...d.php?t=183363
even demirug replied :D he said he is working on a new engine for a game wich could take advantage of dual cores, but they all agreed that its very difficult if not most likely impossible to change an existing engine or program to be multi threadded. something like a tool or compiler that changes the code to multiple threads is not possible according to them.
they also said that windows xp should be fine, you really just need to write the game engines or applications to be multithreadded and not single threadded.
intels desktop dual cores, the x series, will be clocked at 2.8-3.2ghz at introduction and each core will most likely be a prescott with 1mb L2 cache. by the same time we should already have 2mb L2 cache prescotts clocked to 3.8ghz and with a 1066bus, in games and other single thread applications a dual core cpu will be almost as "slow" as a single core cpu, wich means a dual core 3.2ghz cpu will have no chance against a single core 3.8ghz 2mb L2 cache 1066 prescott... and the dual cores will cost a LOT! some say 1500$... :eek:
and the amd dual cores will come clocked at only 1.4-1.8ghz! that means an athlon64 3000+ will most likely beat amds fastest dual core cpu in games and other single threadded applications...
EDIT:
a member of 3dcenter suggest that the guy who posted this pics probably faked them to get attention for his other auctions he linked from that acution. he probably hopes that his auction gets linked from many forum wich creates a lot of traffic to his other acutions as well...
hope ebay closes his account... :rolleyes:
I talked to an AMD guy about this a few months ago, and at least on the dual core A64s you wont see as big of a difference as you would think. I dont remember exact numbers, but I remember it was only like 25% (or somewhere around that number) more heat dissipation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGeNeRaT3
well if this is the case, this is good news. things sure are getting exciting on the CPU front thats for sure. I really can't wait for a dual core AMD desktop cpu. The one area that intel has AMD beat (just personal expierence!!) is multitasking and running two applications at once. You imagine a dual core AMD 64 FX series chip? it would smoke in games (single threaded applications) and rock for burning a DVD and running A graphics editiing software suite. Viva la Dual core!
yeah, in multithreadded apps a dual core will give you an 80% boost over a single core cpu... its a bit like sli for your cpu :D
and heat dissipation... from what i heard amd tries to keep them below 100W, intel instead said they are trying to keep it below 150W! :eek:
yep as far as I knew, the 1.8ghz dual core would be 95W
jjcom
I asked Intel to take a look and let me know if this is a real chip.
how about my quad-core chip i posted? (last post, first page) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
"i sware its teh reel!!1! omg i gots madd clokzorzz on itt!1"