1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

when is quad core not really quad core

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by AshenSugar, Jan 2, 2007.

  1. AshenSugar

    AshenSugar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    ashentech.com
    this is a question i was asked a few minutes ago on msn, a friend asked me "whats this talk about intel quad core not really being a true quad core cpu"

    i figuared i would post this to give us something else to talk about other then why the p4/pd design sucks. (or as a buddy on TUP said, why did intel put out the p4 after the p3)

    back on topic.

    quad core isnt really quad core when its what intel has done with their "quad core" chips, they arent really quad core, they are 2 core2duo chips ductaped togather, much like p-d isnt really dual core but 2 cores on one socket.

    it dosnt seem to hurt performance to much for c2q, but that dosnt mean its not a rushed hack job done to make sure they got "quad core" out first.

    at least thats how i see it, im sure others will strongly dissagree, and thats all good.

    ps. im glad intel finnly has chips worth talking about!!!!
  2. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    I would say quad core means there are 4 physical cores on a single socket. The way they're linked is totally irrelevant. Sure some ways are less efficient but it still makes it 4 cores.

    I actually think the quick hack job is a good idea. Next when Intel releases their first non-glued quad core CPU they will create an octo-core CPU by glueing 2 quads. It keeps them a step ahead. Specially with the low prices it's an interesting move.
    Though I do wonder how many cores could share a single bus, eventually the FSB will be the bottleneck again, Hypertransport doesn't have this problem as fast but that too will become limiting. Sure Intel is coming with CSI but who knows how long it takes them to make that a bottleneck? I think eventually the multi-socket/multibus approach should become desktop stuff. Then again, Intel already has a nice crude fix for bus limitations, just add more cache which also works to a certain extent.
    The future will tell.
    GSG-9 says thanks.
  3. AshenSugar

    AshenSugar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    ashentech.com
    i have a feeling intel is gonna have to look at what amd has done with hypertransport and make their own version of it, at the rate they are going they will endup with a very saturated FSB that will force them to hack even more to keep things from getting unbarable.

    ht2 isnt even close to being saturated, ht3 is comming(only really usefull for servers with true 4x4/2x k8l true quad core) and higher.
    i would guess that after amd gets the prosess for making quad cores refined enough we will see octo core server chips, these would be insainly over priced for anything but server/super computer use with CISC designs used in amd and intel desktop chips(via c7 is risc)

    eventuly they will have to move to RISC im sure, ofcorse they would need to get intel and the like to stop using lagacy code, but as via has proven with the c7 you can make a very cheap risc x86 chip that performs quite well and uses very little power.

    i still think am not a fan of hacked togather designs, its a good part of why i alwase hated p4, the design lacks style, the word im looking for illudes me at the moment, but im sure as soon as i post this it will come to me :p

    i like designs that are well though out.....elegant!!!! thats the word, had to look up theWhich OS Are You? thing because i knew the word i needed was part of the description of slackware linux!!!!!

    elegant efficent well thought out design to me is far better then "hackity hack" work.
  4. AshenSugar

    AshenSugar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    ashentech.com
  5. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Well, Intel has CSI coming next year, it should solve the bus issue. And at the moment Intel already has DIB which helps a lot as well. Though when they're adding so many cores to a single socket the socket needs a lot of bandwidth.
  6. DIBL New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    126 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio area
    Isn't it kind of the history of microcomputers that "progress" has initially consisted of duct-taping last year's innovations together and calling it "new"? I'm thinking of things like the 80286, for example, which was promoted by IBM as "Advanced Technology" (AT), but was really only a go-fast 8088 (for the typical user) until DOS versions and apps came along that could use the 16-bit bus, and then co-processor chips came along to allow faster math operations. Did they ever use the 80286 "protected-mode" capability? It's been so long, I can't remember!
  7. AshenSugar

    AshenSugar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    ashentech.com
    dos protect mode apps.....ROFL, that was old skool!!!!!!

    my main issue against dual-dual core being called quad core is that ITS NOT, just like pentium-d isnt dual core, its 2 singel cores stuck togather with ducktape and bailing wire in the hopes that intel could get back some of the market share they lost to x2.....
  8. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,648 (7.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,971
    Location:
    some AF base
    [​IMG]


    im XP what the hell it sure as hell doesnt fall under the software type i like best you know the kind that does what the hell its supposed to :roll:

    oh and to stay on topic i agree with ashen hard work and a good design are better than last minute CRAP
  9. warhammer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    204 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    So what your saying is my car has a V8 its not a true 8 cylinder motor its 2 four cylinder joined together.

    So is this the same argumnet that AMD put up about there quad being a true Quad?

    And that's why the AMD QUAD pwans INTEL not being a true Quad I understand now..
  10. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,199 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    I agree about the RISC/vector eventually becoming a huge part of future of PCs... With ATI's and Nvidia's stream/vector processing cores (GPU's) becoming as powerful as they are, it only makes sense. I think FUSION or whatever is a step in that direction, with a CISC core for x86 compatibility and Vector stream processors for sheer number-crunching power. RISC is definitely where its at from the performance/watt standpoint as well, not to mention how much easier those chips are to design/manufacture.

    If RISC and VEctor make it into the markets, would that shorten Moore's law down from 18months? :p
  11. candle_86 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,916 (1.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    but who cares, it works like a quad, it smells like a quad and it looks like a quad it must be a quad
  12. ElWapo973 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    99 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Wow talk about bringing back a dead thread. January 2007, lmao....

    Back on topic. I guess we could say now officially that the OPs original point is now moot(no wrong mind you, just that it doesn't really matter anymore) as now the Phenoms have been released(and tested) and clock for clock, watt for watt these "true" quad cores underperform Intels slapped together counterparts. I truely hope that AMD gets their act together within the next 12 months otherwise we will continue to see the price gouging and release date push backs from Intel due to the lack of newer viable competion per price point from AMD.
  13. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Please don't restart a year old fanboy discussion.
    keakar says thanks.
  14. mandelore

    mandelore New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,251 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
    Its all relative:

    A "quad-core" is 4 functional cores under a single processor package. i.e one cpu

    AMD has a native quad core with a single die consisting of 4 cores. ideally this would be the best option (tho real terms has not turned out to be true)

    Intel uses 2 dual core dies in one package. different approach, but still 4 functional cores within one package.

    this discussion is really obsolete in terms of the nature of a quad core. if a cpu has 4 functional processing units, it is quad

    Basically. if it shows this in task manager, its quad ;)

    [​IMG]
  15. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    a true quad core chip aint a true quad core chip when its called a phenom 3.. what they gonna call these for short.. a tripe chip..he he

    tripe in the UK is used to mean rubbish or nonsense.. not sure about the US..

    trog
  16. Nitro-Max

    Nitro-Max New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,476 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Location:
    Great Yarmouth, United Kingdom.{East Anglian Coast
    I think quads are going to be short lived like everything else somthing new and better will follow like dual quad. or quad quad lmao!!

    there was duel before core 2 duo amd did the athlon mp chips.
  17. GTX

    GTX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    I dunno wat you guys talked up there but what I know is that at Intel Quad is kind of 2x2
    but at the new Phenoms is 4x1

    :D Thank you for your atention :D
  18. GTX

    GTX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    But the Intel is still THE KING !!! 2x2 1x4 there s no importans no one of the Phenom family had a better score then Quad Core ... !! :D
  19. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderator™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,558 (3.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,911
  20. Triprift

    Triprift

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    7,185 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Location:
    Adelaide Australia
  21. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,648 (7.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,971
    Location:
    some AF base
    [​IMG]

    at least i didnt get windows ME
  22. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,198 (11.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,569
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Quad-core = four processing cores, of which the Intel quad-cores have. Intel didn't lie about their chips having four cores, did they? So quad-core from Intel is quite really quad-core, irrespective of how they function, they're at least better than the "Native Quad-core" design :rolleyes:
  23. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,382 (5.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,320
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    What does it matter really?, if you are a "purist" and prefer AMD's approch ...then fine, go buy a slower chip with more efficient BUT SLOWER architecture :D Choice is a wonderful thing :toast:
  24. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    I'm not sure why this keeps comming up..

    http://updatecenter.britannica.com/eb/image?binaryId=60791&rendTypeId=4


    Is this a 4 engine jet or a 2x2 engine jet? Seriously the AMD arguement doesn't really make sense. Why isn't a V8 called 2 * 4 cylinder engines? because its all in one engine, why is the intel quad core really a quad core? because its all on one socket.
  25. mandelore

    mandelore New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,251 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    UK-small Village in a Valley Near Newcastle
    hehe I turned out palm..

    [​IMG]

    hmm, they could make half decent sigs..

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page