AMD six-core Opteron processor

[killadoob]

No i am saying that people say amd's quadcore is better because it uses 4 single cores where as intel uses 2 dual cores, i am not sure why.

Dude seriously have you seen the i7 920 vs amd in some benchies, not talking games but general tests. generally though those are just tests and you more than likely notice no difference for everyday use just like overclocking .

AMD's cpu's of course will be great for any use, my amd dual core is great for my games and even runs corel draw pretty well but then again i have an ssd on both my amd dual core and my q9550 so it could be that helping

i just cannot understand why their quadcores are said to be better implemented?

 

[TheRift]

Well, AMD do not have a competing product for the i7 so it's hard to compare them that way. The i7 920 is effectively 8 cores with its hyperthreading. AMD have nothing along those lines as far as I know. There was recent talk here of AMD offering hyperthreading, but not sure about that. Compare that to the i7 when AMD considering implementing it.

There's nothing wrong with Intels FSB approach to joining the 2 dual-core dies. It obviously works very well. Just for some it feels like a quick cop-out at the time to compete with AMD's single-die quad cores in the market. Architecture designs of a unified approach will always be deemed as better implementations compared to quickly cobbled together items, yet in practical day to day life either of them will work.

 

[ponder]

People say the core implementation is better but amd quadcore are still slower so explain to me how intel has implemented it poorly?

Give me some time and I'll try but I'm not promising anything. The bus architecture has nothing to do with the cpu architecture though. Intel just basically slapped two chips on a core which is not the way to do it. I'll be back, as an Intel user

if Intel implemented multi-cores the same way AMD did they would be even further ahead of the pack right now. (They stole a lot from amd but thats how the boerrie bends)

 

[TheRift]

You know, the one thing never taken into account when these PC hardware websites do reviews is the effect of the supporting motherboard chipsets. There could be something there that is key to the Intel performance in the benchmarks. For one, the ICH10R chipset from Intel came up trumps in transfer rates.

But then again... it could be the CPU making the chipset look good.

There are just too many variables amongst platforms to do comparisons. One has to view everything as a whole and not focus solely on a single component.

 

[PallBearer]

it all comes down to how the hardware and software interprets the commands and how it processes them.

If you had 16 Cores, and the hardware had to tell the code which core to use, then i would see why the overheads would kill the machine and make it act like a single core, but if the code was telling which core to use, then it would fly. there would be no "middle information man pointing where to go"

 

[TheRift]

Sometimes getting the hardware to tell the software which unit is free for use will be faster than software trying to figure this out. In such a case the OS which handles the request for a new thread would have simpler faster code rather than having to track which core it can use.