copy & paste :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by K.I.T.T.
Printable View
copy & paste :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by K.I.T.T.
The last architecture INTEL rolled out the door in a rush in order to whoop AMD before AMD could get around to launching BARCELONA, so that INTEL could actually take the performance crown for a little while. They knew BARCELONA was coming and would eclipse everything they've EVER created so threw some PIII's together and came up with crap-2-duo.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
They took the same approach with C2Q's......fire a couple of crap-2-duo's together and launch them as a quad-core :ROTF:
"Look everyone.....we've beaten AMD to a pair of DC's on one die....awesome!" :rofl:
Meanwhile, back in AMD labs.....some of the techs were designing BARCELONA and not skimping on it either. :)
:welcome: to AMD PWNAGE :up: :yepp:
I wish that every new architecture that comes out offering such a performance boost "sucks" as much as C2D.
Intel arent stupid for releasing 2 dual-core dies on 1 chip to get a Quad- 95%+ of people dont give a **** how they get 4 cores onto 1 CPU, as long as they do. From an engineering POV, its a little crude, but in terms of making money and getting something onto the market, its beautiful.
isnt money the only thing that counts ? (perfect example would be 3dfx, miles ahead in engineering, but fatal business failures)
Wrong, heard of the pentium M?Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
And crap2duo? Not worth responding to that.
And the problem there is? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
It works and in the G0 stepping, clocks like a mofo under air and is a very cool (and relatively cheap) cpu.
Mofo, i had quite a bit of respect for you when you started those benching results threads with detailed lists in but that post makes you look like a blatant fanboy and as a result you have lost a bit of respect from me, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
I wonder how revolutionarily ingenius does SOLDNER-MOFO64 declare the MCM approach when AMD introduces Montreal octacore...
You know, Montreal, the dual die Shanghai MCM.
Oh the irony... :p:
Montreal use HT3 link, one die to the other die. The first die don't send data to chipset before go in the 2nd die. They're going directely from the first die to the 2nd one using HT3 links.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
A lot faster than fsb way, a very short behind the native way.
fsb is the past, Hypertransport's way is the futur :up:
Well, a whole year+ to come up with a new architecture to fight against a year-and-a-half old architecture. :clap:
I didn't say INTEL were stupid for doing so.....rather smart if you ask me. They managed to get a load of guys to buy 2xC2D's in one package by telling them it was a quad-core.Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
All cars have 4 wheels ('cept for maybe RELIANT ROBIN), but they ain't all 4 WHEEL DRIVE.
At the end of the day INTEL chose that route in order to beat AMD to the punch....nothing more.
Aww come on mate, your not gonna go all biscuit arsed on me are u? I'm not flaming YOU personally....I merely used a non-flattering term toward your dearly beloved cpu is all. No need for us to fall out over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Yeah, one main difference......AMD ain't fallin' over themselves to release it before INTEL do. AMD ain't cutting corners and creating FAKE cpu's with FALSE names in order to sell them.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
INTEL made C2Q's which at their own admission ARE NOT TRUE/NATIVE quads. I'm simply pointing that out....I didn't ask them to make them that way. It's not my fault C2Q owners are running dual-C2D's.
AMD (you know that little sucky company that's about to go broke) have managed to engineer a TRUE/NATIVE quad-core cpu with 4 independant cores and INTEL fanboys just can't take it.
Nice SHANGHAI argument there but sadly it's died as quickly the C2Q's (dual-C2D's) have.
Yeah, like I said.....AMD design QUALITY products that actually ARE what they say they are. AMD don't shove half-assed FANBOY cut&shut CPU's out the door just 'cos someone wants a faster super pi time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasgul
Besides, how long did it take INTEL to glue 3xPentium III's together to fight off A64?? 3yrs? :rofl: :yepp:
mofo64, I'm an amd fanboy, but I'll be honest... I'm glad they released these glorified pentium 3's. My pair of pentium 3's @ 3.4ghz are a substantial upgrade.
Ryan
Yeah, we know a C2D has an impressive Pi time.....and have good performance in lots of apps, but I merely touched upon INTEL's decision to call their CPU's QUAD-CORES, when in reality they're dual-dual-cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
Glad your happy with your CPU though.....that's all that matters anyway really :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
And Intel did a good job at it wouldn't you say? Getting 4 cores into the market sooner rather than later allowed them to take all sorts of crowns on the performance front.
2 x 2C2Ds at 2.66 Ghz as you put it did indeed out peform 2x2 Optys at 3.0 Ghz. Not to mention the server market has shifted significantly back toward Intel's quads, Intel gaining some 5-6% MSS back from AMD and continuing on that trend....
Oddly, 2x2 C2Ds shows 4 cores in taskmanager, multithreaded code shows all 4 of those cores being utilized, and multithreaded apps are scaling with core count as if it were a quad core.... so, 4 cores working must mean quad cores working (at least that is what most people associate with the word quad).
The truth of the matter is that integrating 4 cores onto the same die as Barcey did is certainly technically more elegant; however, there is a cost associated with that... AMD has not had a quad solution for almost a year after Intel put their quad into play... Barcey is, by Hector's admission, late by 6 months and, if IBM's leaked PDF is any indication, will not show real volume until November.
Add to that a larger die and lower yields, and Barcey will be more expensive for AMD to mass produce as opposed to the MCM approach. So while latency will not allow an MCM to exploit the full potential, the real question is how much of that potential is lost... 1%, 2% ...20% ... and while Barcey will scale (per core not per socket) better in multithreaded code, the quesiton is will the absolute performance over take the MCM... the answer to that is likely no.
We have a hint from IBM's leaked data that suggests how the desktop version of this may play out clock for clock. Barcey is not out performing clovertown in the non-rate SPEC scores, which is more indicative of the multitude of single threaded apps that will run on the DT workload. Barcey will be competitive in server, it will smash Intel in FP intensive HPC applications, but the likelihood that your stipulation that Barcey is the next best thing since peanut butter is probably not going to be accurate.
actually its more of a Ford 4 wheel drive vs. a Jeep 4 wheel drive. they do things differently, but arrive at the same outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
4 cores are 4 cores, its not like you cant use 2 of the 4 cores on an intel quad right?
No matter which way you shape it, he won't understand. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
It would be funny though, to see a car with four wheels and the moment you hit D, two wheels get suspended in the air and there, you take off on two wheels, that's how he probably thinks. :ROTF:
A wheelie!
Very good point you make.
IMO though there was no real need for quad-cores a year ago anyway, we're just starting to see apps which utilise all 4 cores and actually need to...so AMD being 6months late is neither here nor there. It's not like there were loadsa games/apps you haven't been able to use if you haven't had a quad. Sure the CINEBENCHES of the world complete faster on a quad but gamers have seen no real performance boost.
I appreciate what INTEL have done, but at the end of the day it only looks like a stunt they pulled to beat AMD to quads...considering they are by far the largest and most dominant of the two companies...you'd have thought THEY would've taken their time and designed a native quad themselves instead of rushing out a cut&shut quad which still uses a FSB.
If they'd taken another 6months+ and launched a native quad then perhaps AMD would have a much tougher job trying to surpass them. INTEL are the BIG company remember.....AMD are the small guys with :banana::banana::banana::banana:-loads of errors to their name....delays after delays.....facing bankruptcy, low yields, etc etc etc.....yet INTEL are the guys with all the knowledge and wonga, yet they rush out cpu's as if they're desperate for money!!!!
IMO I thought INTEL woulda went about this whole saga in a different way. It's like they knew they had one up on AMD with C2D and thought "Let's run with this as fast and far as we can before AMD reltaliate".
Now see you're opening your mouth but all I hear are your BOWELS.....pls move along......kindergarden is THAT way >>>>>>>> ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasgul
why do you think we see now apps that make use of quad core ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
right because they are there, there would be no consumer apps that would make use of quads right now.
Except in server applications.... the majority of those are multithreaded. Hence, the success Intel has enjoyed pushing the MCM approach, driving 4 execution engines into one socket.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
On top of that, someone has to break the ice and provide incentive for software to push into the multithreaded arena.
You say "tomato", I say, "tamato". Let's see how AMD's native quadcore compares to two glued together C2Ds.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
Granted, but what success would they have had with a native quad-core and an even greater performance increase over opteron? Then they'd have less to worry about from AMD with theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
As it stands, the 5%-6% market-share they may have recovered is gonna all but dissapear overnight when AMD launch they're OPTY-QUADS.
So now INTEL have an even bigger fight on their hands than they would've had they gone the native route. IMO they'd have got there before AMD with all they're $$$$$ and know-how....and would have left AMD in a very precarious position. Alas they didn't and decided to rush out C2Q's still clinging onto the FSB like nobody's buisness and raking in as much $$$$ as possible....and as a result now find themselves in this position, by which I mean staring at BARCELONA.
Even if it'll lose they'll resort back to " but it's a native QC and that's all that matters " !Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
:sick:
There is a term which defines this : zealots.
That "fake" CPU at almost 12 months old looks like it is going to put the smack down on the "real" quad except in a very few specific benchmarsk.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
And that is ALL I care about. PERFORMANCE. :up:
Much the same as when it out-performs your pentium 6 (2xPENTIUM-3's) you'll moan "it's supposed to, ours are only pentium III's glued together in a fake quad-setup :hm: "Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
So what's the term for someone who buys a product which they are lead to believe is something which it is not? DUPED?
What's the term for someone who cries into they're cornflakes when BARCELONA is released? INTEL-USER :ROTF:
I don't really care about the native quad core then. What matter is performance. It could be 4 single cores in MCM for all I care.