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

What do you think of this

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by trt740, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. trt740


    May 12, 2006
    11,069 (2.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    First I didn't write this . I got it out of a review of a AM2 6000+. Again I didn't write this!!!!!! I just want to see what you think of this gentlemen's statement is it factual!!!!

    To all the Intel lovers read more on how Intel worked their duel core and quad cores. Amd uses a single die cut duel core setup while Intel uses a duel die duel core. Amd runs a true 64bit architecture while Intel runs a enhaced 32bit architecture. For those of you that remember the Digtal DecAlphas you understand what I am talking about and if you dont read more about it. If you are buying this chip for pure gaming power and coding and graphics then you bought the right one if you are looking for true office power with minimal gaming then go buy a Intel. If you think that MACs are the way to go answer me me one question why have they switched to x86 CPUs? Now you can run Microsoft products on a MAC now so i say what can a MAC do better than a PCBench marks are so subjective and truely useless you can recreate the testing conditions. Sorry had to say whats on my mind
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. Eric_Cartman


    Mar 11, 2007
    681 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    intel's Pentiumd d series was technically dual die, it was just two prescott or two cedar mill cores strapped together

    what performance impact that has is arguable as the cores technically have to communicate with eachother over the front side bus, while amd's cores were on the same die and communicated with eachother directly

    the pentium d series performed poorly for more important reasons than the die arrangement, the cores themselves were inefficent

    now the core 2 duo line is very different than the pentium d line

    the core 2 duo line is a single die with two cores, just like amd's dual core setup, but obviously very different still, and clearly this is an old article as they recommend the 6000+ for gaming while intel's offerings both perform better and are cheaper

    now quad-core is here, or at least it is with intel, and intel once again decided to just strap two core 2 duo cores together to get 4 total cores, and again the performance impact of this design is very arguable

    how is amd's solution any better?

    they have actually decided to go with using two actual processors with two cores each to achieve quad-core

    how is that better?

    it isn't, it is worse

    now granted, amd has a single processor quad-core on the road map, but it isn't here yet, and all the signs are pointing to it not being here until intel has already released their quad-cores that use a single die just like amd

    as for the 64-bit part, pure crap

    intel's 64-bit is as real as amd's, the two do a few instructions differently, but generally they are identical
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2007
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. DanTheBanjoman SeƱor Moderator

    May 20, 2004
    10,488 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    First of all, a duel is a 1 on 1 fight. Dual means 2. Silly reviewer.

    Secondly Intel and AMD both use extended architectures. Both dragged down by compatibility with ancient junk.

    Third. C2D is 1 die, just like the AMD's. As for quad core: Linky

    Apple switched to X86 because IBM had problems delivering and with energy consumption (which was shortly fixed after the swap to Intel) Intel, however, had a nice chip and could sell as many chips as Apple wants.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. Jawsany New Member

    Mar 22, 2007
    5 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    Not everyone wants to play games.
    10 Year Member at TPU

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