Re: Dual Core chips??
- From: George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:24:05 -0500
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:16:29 +0000, Chris <ithinkiam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:
Current dual core chips are backed off on clock speed slightly from
what can be done with a single core but not by much... and not enough
where you'd regret getting the dual vs. the "faster" single-core.
Only on Intel systems.
AMD won the performance crown over many years because it threw out the
'more cpu cycles, the faster the processor' dogma of previous
architectures. It developed more efficient processors that did more per
cycle and so its cpus preformed much better and ran a lot cooler than
Intel's electric heaters. Its dual-cores were/are exactly the same as
the signle core equivalents.
I believe it was AMD's intention to sell backed off dual cores - they said
so back before C2D came along to put a wrench in the works, and initial
product was so aligned. C2D plus price pressure forced them to a different
path, though I believe the top MHz AMD64 is still a single core CPU.
Now that Intel has taken this onboard and released some very efficient
processors which run with slower clock cycles than the previous
pentiums (pentium Ms excluded) it has regained the performance crown
after many years of playing second fiddle to AMD.
But did they really?... play "second fiddle"?:-) I think only to the
cognoscenti - amazing what FUD, Mikey & Co. and guys in blue bunny suits
will do:-)
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dual Core chips??
- From: Chris
- Re: Dual Core chips??
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual Core chips??
- Next by Date: command on vc switch
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual Core chips??
- Next by thread: Re: Dual Core chips??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
