Dual Core vs Quad Core 8 replies

Please wait...

N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

So a simple question, I think:

Which is better, why and when will Quad core be coming out? Will you need a new motherboard if you're upgrading to Quad core over Dual? Thanks.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

IIRC AMD's Barcelona will be out in September and Intel's Xenon quad core is out now.

Penryn is supposed to be out in November and AMD's first Phenom's are supposed to be out in November or December.

I dont think we will see alot of performance increase til the November quads come out since they will be native quad cores, not server versions and not two dual cores on one die.

And then you will need software that will support the quads to see a significant gain.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

WTF? Intel debuted desktop quad cores several months ago. Frankly, it's too early to state with any certainty that native quad cores will be that huge of a jump in terms of performance.

Historically, AMD has gone straight to a native solution. Intel has settled into their single die-dual die-single die pattern of improving upon their chips. It's actually a rather smart idea, as it has--to date--allowed them to beat AMD to market with quad cores by damn near a year. Sure, AMD and their fanboys will note with glee that it's not really a quad core processor, but it's still more cores than AMD has been able to field.

But the point here is that, in Intel's history of mainstream dual-core processors, they've only made the two dice-to-one die move once, and that was from Smithfield to Conroe, but Smithfield's cores were based on Prescott. This, not only did the process change, but then entire architecture changed. As such, there really is no basis on which to base projections about what kind of improvements Ridgefield will give over Penryn without some test data to work with, first.




arcadeplayer987

Revenge was here.

50 XP

25th April 2007

0 Uploads

1,819 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

C38368;3865276WTF? Intel debuted desktop quad cores several months ago. Frankly, it's too early to state with any certainty that native quad cores will be that huge of a jump in terms of performance.

Historically, AMD has gone straight to a native solution. Intel has settled into their single die-dual die-single die pattern of improving upon their chips. It's actually a rather smart idea, as it has--to date--allowed them to beat AMD to market with quad cores by damn near a year. Sure, AMD and their fanboys will note with glee that it's not really a quad core processor, but it's still more cores than AMD has been able to field.

But the point here is that, in Intel's history of mainstream dual-core processors, they've only made the two dice-to-one die move once, and that was from Smithfield to Conroe, but Smithfield's cores were based on Prescott. This, not only did the process change, but then entire architecture changed. As such, there really is no basis on which to base projections about what kind of improvements Ridgefield will give over Penryn without some test data to work with, first.

It will be a huge jump in performance from currently quad and the native one because the currently quads are more like 2 x dualcore and the nativ one all cores are working together like a 4x4 car vs. 2x2 car




marvinmatthew

Tech is where you'll find me..

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

3,627 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago
arcadeplayer987;3865909It will be a huge jump in performance from currently quad and the native one because the currently quads are more like 2 x dualcore and the nativ one all cores are working together like a 4x4 car vs. 2x2 car

Don't jump the gun. If the core architecture sucks, then native quad core isn't gonna mean jack.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
arcadeplayer987;3865909It will be a huge jump in performance from currently quad and the native one because the currently quads are more like 2 x dualcore and the nativ one all cores are working together like a 4x4 car vs. 2x2 car

Once again, there is no historical precedent to support this assertion, making the above statement pure, unadulterated conjecture.

To debunk your analogy: a "2x2" car is probably going to be lighter and therefore faster and more agile than a 4x4. A better analogy would've been 2x4 with a locking rear end versus one without (dual versus single core), and 4x4 (2x4 with a tranfer case to get the front wheels working) versus AWD (a vehicle designed natively to run with all four wheels spinning). As an aside to this analogy, I can tell you that AWD is better behaved on the road than a 4x4 with the transfer case engaged, but not by that much.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

A point not mentioned here, at least not that I've seen, is that current Intel quads besides not being integrated with 4 cores on one die as well do not have a shared cache. This in fact is perhaps a more significant difference from AMD's first gen quad design as without the shared cache the cores have to use the FSB instead. Personally I feel as well that much of the rumors about one chip being better than the other is yet to be proven. I DO however feel that many are making the mistake of comparing brand to brand and making assumptions about one's design being better than the other when there are so many factors involved. There are LOTS of ways a manufacturer can compete design wise in a chip war. Rarely in such wars between big names like AMD and Intel do we have enough concrete evidence to prove one way or another if certain design aspects are better than others because the two often use entirely different approaches. Thus you won't know if memory controllers on the chip, 4 integrated cores on one die, and shared cache will improve Intel's CPUs unless they try it. On paper though it certainly makes sense that it would. And while the word "fanboy" is being thrown around so loosely I think perhaps those resisting such speculation might consider themselves the same with the other camp, as there is really no evidence yet to prove otherwise either. I think that what some are forgetting here is that Intel goes the route of competing with the lowest cost manufacturing process they can before making major design changes. If they can compete in such a way, and they've certainly proven it up to this point, they seem to be content with it until AMD can prove to be faster. It does not mean they can't make their chips even faster using other methods. Lastly, as far as comparing quads goes, AMD has never produced a quad with two duals on one die, no shared cache, and no built in memory controller like Intel has, so we have no way of knowing how they'd have compared in such an arena.




N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
arcadeplayer987;3865909It will be a huge jump in performance from currently quad and the native one because the currently quads are more like 2 x dualcore and the nativ one all cores are working together like a 4x4 car vs. 2x2 car

That's what I thought.

What is Native core?




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

Native is just another way of saying integrated, meaning all 4 cores are on one silicone layer. In current Intel quads they are merely "cookie cutter" design where they can take mass production of Core 2 Duos and utilize them in both duals and quads by placing two Core 2 Dous on one die to make a quad. This means they do NOT share cache and instead have to utilize the MB's front side bus to communicate.