Barcelona runs at 3.0 ghz

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: aigomorla
its not a true quad,

Yes it is. There's 4 cores in one package. That's as "true" of a quad-core CPU as you can get.

not its not, its 2 dual core dies glued together. thats not a true quad core design.


@aigo your a core whore :laugh:

already have my 999 saved up for QX6950

Im getting a yorkie.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: JAG87
not its not, its 2 dual core dies glued together. thats not a true quad core design.

Yes, it is a quad-core processor. It's not a "false" quad-core CPU, so using "true" is highly inaccurate and imprecise.

The term "quad-core" doesn't say anything about how those 4 cores are arranged or configured. Adding "true" to it doesn't exclude Intel's current quad-core products, nor is it a particularly useful thing to add because the term "quad-core" is insufficient to describe the differences between AMD's upcoming quad-core products and Intel's current quad-core products.

If you're going to reference the differences between Intel's current approach to quad-core and AMD's upcoming approach to quad-core, then you have to add terms like "MCM" or "single-die", or "native". "True" is not the right way to distinguish between them.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: JAG87
not its not, its 2 dual core dies glued together. thats not a true quad core design.

Yes, it is a quad-core processor. It's not a "false" quad-core CPU, so using "true" is highly inaccurate and imprecise.

The term "quad-core" doesn't say anything about how those 4 cores are arranged or configured. Adding "true" to it doesn't exclude Intel's current quad-core products, nor is it a particularly useful thing to add because the term "quad-core" is insufficient to describe the differences between AMD's upcoming quad-core products and Intel's current quad-core products.

If you're going to reference the differences between Intel's current approach to quad-core and AMD's upcoming approach to quad-core, then you have to add terms like "MCM" or "single-die", or "native". "True" is not the right way to distinguish between them.

why are you making a pointless argument about this? you know exactly what I mean and how things are, so quit small talking.


@aigo
I want to get a xeon yorkie, I have fallen in love with 775 xeons. the only thing that I am worried about is that since the qx6950 is already at 10x, so the core 2 quads and xeon quads will probably be 7x, 8x, and 9x. I hope these chips are high FSB friendly... stupid intel and their 1333 fsBS.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: JAG87
why are you making a pointless argument about this?

Because we're anti-marketing and adding 'true' and 'not true' is a marketing term?

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: JAG87
why are you making a pointless argument about this?

Because we're anti-marketing and adding 'true' and 'not true' is a marketing term?

really, i thought i was more towards the "lets start flaming for no reason" type of thing. how does true resemble a marketing term... enlighten me please.

 

[zsdersw]

"True" implies that Intel's quad-core products are something less than 4-cores-in-one-package; something less than "quad-core" or "quasi-quad-core". They're not. There is 4 cores in Intel's quad-core products just as there will be 4 cores in AMD's quad-core products. So they're both quad-core CPUs. Intel will, until presumably Nehalem, have only MCM quad-core CPUs available while AMD will have native quad-core CPUs available.

The bottom line: If you want to be accurate when talking about the differences between quad-core products from Intel and AMD, you don't use terms like "true". You use terms like "native", "single-die", and "MCM". Otherwise you're not being accurate, and people are going to point out your error(s). If you're not talking about the differences between Intel and AMD's quad-core products, you just use the term "quad-core".. without "true" in front.

 

[bryanW1995]

I don't see how "native" is any different than "true". They are both used to denote that one of them is really a quad core cpu and one is two dual cores together under one roof. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have the two dual cores now than wait another 9 mos for amd's empty promises...

 

[JackPack]

Originally posted by: JAG87

really, i thought i was more towards the "lets start flaming for no reason" type of thing. how does true resemble a marketing term... enlighten me please.

Using "true" implies quad-core processors must comply with some normative standard. Those standards don't exist. That's why only marketing guys use it.

Barcelona is a monolithic quad-core. Clovertown is an MCM quad-core.

Enlightened?

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I don't see how "native" is any different than "true". They are both used to denote that one of them is really a quad core cpu and one is two dual cores together under one roof.

"Native" is a substantive modifier of the term "quad-core". "True" is not. "True" doesn't indicate the approach used for quad-core. All it does is create the impression that other quad-core products are not really quad-core.. which is wrong, because they are. "Native" indicates that the processor includes by design (i.e. 'native') 4 cores.

Are there 4 cores in a Kentsfield or Clovertown? Yes.
Are there 4 cores in a Barcelona and its derivatives? Yes.

Hopefully you can see why there are two ways to talk about quad-core CPUs. One way is in a general sense, where they're distinguished from other CPUs simply by the number of cores they contain. The other is in a specific sense, where they're distinguished from each other by the method used to attain 4 cores in one package. In neither case is "true" particularly accurate or adequate.

 

[Arkaign]

Zsdersw has it. I think a lot of people got hung up on that because of Pentium D vs. Athlon X2. But when you look at the numbers, Pentium D ran exactly like two netburst P4s, so it really didn't have any problems with being 'glued together' like so many complained about. Sure, X2 was better, but that was due to the IPC advantage of K8 vs. Netburst. I bet that if they'd made a Core product that was two single-cores packaged in the same manner, it would perform within a very small % of the final Conroe dual-core. Communication between cores is mostly irrelevant, so long as each core's pipeline is constantly taking care of business. I think you can also look at it the same way with actual Opteron benchmarks. Look at two-socket single-core Opterons @ 1.8ghz vs Opteron 185 Dual-core, and the performance is for all practical purposes identical.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: aigomorla
its not a true quad,

Yes it is. There's 4 cores in one package. That's as "true" of a quad-core CPU as you can get.

not its not, its 2 dual core dies glued together. thats not a true quad core design.


@aigo your a core whore :laugh:

that doesn't even matter...it is 4 cores, on one CPU socket. /end

Regardless of the design

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: JAG87
why are you making a pointless argument about this?

Because we're anti-marketing and adding 'true' and 'not true' is a marketing term?

really, i thought i was more towards the "lets start flaming for no reason" type of thing. how does true resemble a marketing term... enlighten me please.

Same as Sony claiming 1080p is "True HD" heh...

 

[JAG87]

wow, I cant believe the discussion this topic has generated. you guys need to get busy, you have too much spare time, seriously.

for me, a TRUE quad core processor is a processor that has 4 cores on ONE die. thats how I see it. Thats because I look at a processor as a SINGLE die unit, while you guys look at it as a PGA package. its all about point of views. nobody is wrong or right here, as long as we know the facts, and it seems like we do. so /thread.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: JAG87
wow, I cant believe the discussion this topic has generated. you guys need to get busy, you have too much spare time, seriously.

And this is coming from the OP...

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: JAG87
wow, I cant believe the discussion this topic has generated. you guys need to get busy, you have too much spare time, seriously.

And this is coming from the OP...

well yea, cause we have gone so off topic...

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Zsdersw has it. I think a lot of people got hung up on that because of Pentium D vs. Athlon X2. But when you look at the numbers, Pentium D ran exactly like two netburst P4s, so it really didn't have any problems with being 'glued together' like so many complained about. Sure, X2 was better, but that was due to the IPC advantage of K8 vs. Netburst. I bet that if they'd made a Core product that was two single-cores packaged in the same manner, it would perform within a very small % of the final Conroe dual-core. Communication between cores is mostly irrelevant, so long as each core's pipeline is constantly taking care of business. I think you can also look at it the same way with actual Opteron benchmarks. Look at two-socket single-core Opterons @ 1.8ghz vs Opteron 185 Dual-core, and the performance is for all practical purposes identical.

You had me until the end. A two-socket single core opteron system at 1.8 will probably not have practically identical performance to an opteron 185 dual core, although that has more to do with the 800 mhz clock advantage that the 185 enjoys

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: aigomorla
its not a true quad,

Yes it is. There's 4 cores in one package. That's as "true" of a quad-core CPU as you can get.

not its not, its 2 dual core dies glued together. thats not a true quad core design.


@aigo your a core whore :laugh:

that doesn't even matter...it is 4 cores, on one CPU socket. /end

Regardless of the design

Sorry i should of used the word "NATIVE" quadcore. Better?


Anyhow do we have dates on when its suposed to come out? Q4 according to most people means october. Which i calculate should be around the same time fry's should get B bins, if i remember my (E6600 L628B omgwtfbbq4.0ghzwowzerz) madness i went though.

BTW, i checked burbank frys. There all B3's still. But there priced at 289. first time seeing a BM store cheaper then Newegg.com on a non holiday season.



Oh... never got 4.0ghz on that E6600. :\

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
i should of used the word "NATIVE" quadcore. Better?

Much.

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: JAG87
why are you making a pointless argument about this?

Because we're anti-marketing and adding 'true' and 'not true' is a marketing term?

really, i thought i was more towards the "lets start flaming for no reason" type of thing. how does true resemble a marketing term... enlighten me please.

Same as Sony claiming 1080p is "True HD" heh...

I don't get where they're wrong?

1080p is full HD
720p is HD ready
1080i is just 720p data show on screen but interlaced at 50 or 60Hz