Intel creates multi-core processors by combining die to form a multi-chip package, while AMD’s yet-to-be-seen quad-core uses a monolithic design. There has been some complaining about it as well.
In the end it is the quality of the product and not whether it is 4 cores on one die or two dual-cores put together that will make a difference.
So here is a description about the difference between the monolithic and multi-chip package (MCP) manufacturing methods.
For the monolithic approach, all cores are manufactured on a single die. The Intel E6700 has two cores on one die. The multi-chip package combines two chip die on a single chip. That is, the dual-core die can be packaged either individually as dual-core processors or together as quad-core processors. Intel's front-side bus (FSB) architecture allows this flexibility. Having a more complicated point-to-point bus architecture, like AMD’s HyperTransport, would result in a more difficult conversion and a prohibitive loss of performance if used for a multi-chip package. That is why AMD is slow to create new products or respond to Intel lately.
“Yield” refers to the number of usable chips on a wafer. Yield is higher for the smaller die sizes used in MCP processors. With the larger die for monolithic processors, you’re likely to discard more chips due to defects during the manufacturing process. MCP chips are more efficient for Intel to produce and allow more flexibility. First, Intel can use cores from the same wafers in dual- and quad-core processors, as in Woodcrest and Clovertown. Second, the difference in production yields increases the cost of a monolithic processor by about 15 percent. Intel has used MCP to get dual- and quad-core processors into production ahead of the competition, as it did with Clovertown and the performance is equal in either case.
The monolithic approach is a choice to be made when the customer requires extremely high performance and efficiency and can tolerate a higher cost for it. Intel's usage was the quick, less expensive, and easy way to get the product out first while keeping quad core performance. If they are designed for faster access to memory and communication between the cores, monolithic processors can offer higher performance within the same power envelope. Some estimate it would be approximately 10-15 percent higher.
In the end it is the quality of the product and not whether it is 4 cores on one die or two dual-cores put together that will make a difference.
So here is a description about the difference between the monolithic and multi-chip package (MCP) manufacturing methods.
For the monolithic approach, all cores are manufactured on a single die. The Intel E6700 has two cores on one die. The multi-chip package combines two chip die on a single chip. That is, the dual-core die can be packaged either individually as dual-core processors or together as quad-core processors. Intel's front-side bus (FSB) architecture allows this flexibility. Having a more complicated point-to-point bus architecture, like AMD’s HyperTransport, would result in a more difficult conversion and a prohibitive loss of performance if used for a multi-chip package. That is why AMD is slow to create new products or respond to Intel lately.
“Yield” refers to the number of usable chips on a wafer. Yield is higher for the smaller die sizes used in MCP processors. With the larger die for monolithic processors, you’re likely to discard more chips due to defects during the manufacturing process. MCP chips are more efficient for Intel to produce and allow more flexibility. First, Intel can use cores from the same wafers in dual- and quad-core processors, as in Woodcrest and Clovertown. Second, the difference in production yields increases the cost of a monolithic processor by about 15 percent. Intel has used MCP to get dual- and quad-core processors into production ahead of the competition, as it did with Clovertown and the performance is equal in either case.
The monolithic approach is a choice to be made when the customer requires extremely high performance and efficiency and can tolerate a higher cost for it. Intel's usage was the quick, less expensive, and easy way to get the product out first while keeping quad core performance. If they are designed for faster access to memory and communication between the cores, monolithic processors can offer higher performance within the same power envelope. Some estimate it would be approximately 10-15 percent higher.