Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 isn't real quad?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 19, 2008 7:31:22 AM

Hello!

oke yesterday i hear someone saying that a Q6600 isn't a real quadcore. i also hear someone saying that it are 2 E6600 on one chip. so what is it than? a dualchip like pentiumD was, or a dualcore with HT? => fake 4core but acctually a c2d with HT?

and what is the Q9XXX serie? are that real quads? man it's stupid to ask, but i know there are no stupid questions.

thanks for your comments, i'll be waiting to hear from you all.

More about : q6600 real quad

a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 7:45:54 AM

Currently all Intel Quads are 2x C2D on one die as opposed to AMD's Phenom which is known as "native" quad core.

There is no hyperthreading/SMT magic to make windows think there are 4 cores, there are 4 core albeit in a 2x2 arrangement.

the C2QX series however do have hyperthreading/SMT to give the impression of 8 cores/ 8thread ahndling. Hope this helps.

EDIT: Intel's native quad cores will be coming H2 2008 in the form of Nehalem
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 7:46:29 AM

Both Q6XXX series and Q9XXX series are 2 true dual core chips stuck in one package. So yes there are 4 real cores they just didn't start that way during manufacturing.

Producing dual cores then packaging them in a quad core is done to increase yields on the chip which help lower the cost. But really "True" or not the intel beats AMDS True quad core by leaps and bounds. so don't spend to muych tme worrying about it.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 7:47:30 AM

^ Q6600 = monolithic quad (2x2) 65nm
Qx9650 = monolithic quad (2x2) 45nm
Phenom = native quad (4x1) 65nm

Sure it may not be 'real' quad-core but it does perform well...
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 7:49:47 AM

both 9600 & 6600 are two C2D slapped together. each c2d has 2 cores. so 2 c2d makes 4 cores......so basically its a quad core but not a true or native quad core as AMD puts it.right now phenom is the only "true" quad core. but this argument is irrelevant in most cases as intel quad core bets phemon on most cases.
June 19, 2008 7:51:12 AM

I'll take the double cheese with Intel on it, over the Kids meal with the AMD toy any day.
June 19, 2008 7:59:19 AM

Hi,

Q6600 is a real quad-core, it's just not a native quad-core design as AMD was saying when they were promoting the Phenom.

The Q6600 is the equivalent of a bi-CPU packed into one. If you had a motherboard with 2 Intel duo-cores (let's say 2 E6600), you would have (more or less) the same thing as an Q6600. Indeed, within a Q6600 you will find 2 dual-core CPU which communicate between themselves via the FSB, so it's really the same as having a bi-CPU motherboard. Of course, packing the 2 dual-cores into one allows some optimisations but AFAIK it's not really significant.

OTOH, AMD with the Phenom did build a native quad-core design. The 4 cores are really part of the same CPU and they don't rely on any external component (such as the FSB for Intel) to talk to each other. FYI, this is the approach Intel is taking now with the Nehalem. But the Penryn (Q9xxx) are still using the Q6600 approach.

Of course, Intel "dirty approach" is more sensible if you consider that its percentage of defects is much less than AMD's who will lost a Phenom as soon as one core is down. More over, it allowed Intel to produce quad-cores sooner than AMD using parts (dual cores) that they already had a lot of experience with.

At the end of the day does it really matter ? Experience has proven that natively designed quad-core Phenoms are way behind the quick & dirty made quad-core Intels. Even though the 2 dual-cores in a Q6600 have to go through the FSB to communicate (which should be a real disadvantage) , their large and efficient cache is more than enough to compensate that issue.

So if you're planning on buying a Q6600 by all means do it. The 4 cores are really there, no tricks no HT, etc. And I can tell you from real experience that it really makes a difference with multi-threaded applications (encoding videos with x264 is just great :-)) Plus the Q6600 is easily overclockable, mine runs at 3Ghz and I've got the old stepping which wasn't that well-regarded. I've been told that with the current stepping (used on all Q6600 since July 2007) you can easily reach between 3.2 and 3.5 Ghz.

Hope it helps. You should also consider reading this site articles on that matter.

Cheers ! :-)
June 19, 2008 7:59:43 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
I'll take the double cheese with Intel on it, over the Kids meal with the AMD toy any day.


I am waiting for the supersized burger with Intel inside. Hold the double cheese... REAL tasty... :hello: 

AMD just leaves a bad taste in my mouth these days - oh whoops I ate the toy,,, :pt1cable: 

Bob
June 19, 2008 8:04:00 AM

Hi,

Q6600 is a real quad-core, it's just not a native quad-core design as AMD was saying when they were promoting the Phenom.

The Q6600 is the equivalent of a bi-CPU packed into one. If you had a motherboard with 2 Intel duo-cores (let's say 2 E6600), you would have (more or less) the same thing as an Q6600. Indeed, within a Q6600 you will find 2 dual-core CPU which communicate between themselves via the FSB, so it's really the same as having a bi-CPU motherboard. Of course, packing the 2 dual-cores into one allows some optimisations but AFAIK it's not really significant.

OTOH, AMD with the Phenom did build a native quad-core design. The 4 cores are really part of the same CPU and they don't rely on any external component (such as the FSB for Intel) to talk to each other. FYI, this is the approach Intel is taking now with the Nehalem. But the Penryn (Q9xxx) are still using the Q6600 approach.

Of course, Intel "dirty approach" is more sensible if you consider that its percentage of defects is much less than AMD's who will lost a Phenom as soon as one core is down. More over, it allowed Intel to produce quad-cores sooner than AMD using parts (dual cores) that they already had a lot of experience with.

At the end of the day does it really matter ? Experience has proven that natively designed quad-core Phenoms are way behind the quick & dirty made quad-core Intels. Even though the 2 dual-cores in a Q6600 have to go through the FSB to communicate (which should be a real disadvantage) , their large and efficient cache is more than enough to compensate that issue.

So if you're planning on buying a Q6600 by all means do it. The 4 cores are really there, no tricks no HT, etc. And I can tell you from real experience that it really makes a difference with multi-threaded applications (encoding videos with x264 is just great :-)) Plus the Q6600 is easily overclockable, mine runs at 3Ghz and I've got the old stepping which wasn't that well-regarded. I've been told that with the current stepping (used on all Q6600 since July 2007) you can easily reach between 3.2 and 3.5 Ghz.

Hope it helps. You should also consider reading this site articles on that matter.

Cheers ! :-)
June 19, 2008 9:09:31 AM

oke guys! you have teached me something today! oke!

yes i'm looking to buy a quadcore, but at the end of summer or late 2008. because of my queest in hardware searching i ran into this question about the quads. now i hope that the new nehalem will come soon, and i can specc on that

thanks!!

topic is closed :p 
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 9:27:52 AM

Topic is nearly closed!

Prices on Nehalem chips will be extremely high for at least 6 months after they're released, porbably for 9-12 months even! I believe they also only have a controller for the more expensive DDR3 RAM. You will also need a new mobo with a LGA1366 socket.
June 19, 2008 9:45:24 AM

Nehalem will seems like get an extreme amoun of erformance out of itself. dpends on it's name.
June 19, 2008 10:39:50 AM

oke, no end on this topic than!

will it say i opend a good topic! (yes!)

oow, nehalem only ddr3 and new socket? aauwts! what are the prices you guess?
June 19, 2008 10:47:57 AM

mi1ez said:

the C2QX series however do have hyperthreading/SMT to give the impression of 8 cores/ 8thread ahndling. Hope this helps.


They have SMT instructions and are modified somewhat but no more than any other Core 2. Windows won't see more than 4 cores as it is no Hyperthreading and won't assign threads accordingly. The processor itself is able to handle multiple tasks better, but until Nehalem we won't see anything resembling Hyperthreading.
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 10:57:35 AM

mi1ez said:
Currently all Intel Quads are 2x C2D on one die as opposed to AMD's Phenom which is known as "native" quad core.

There is no hyperthreading/SMT magic to make windows think there are 4 cores, there are 4 core albeit in a 2x2 arrangement.

the C2QX series however do have hyperthreading/SMT to give the impression of 8 cores/ 8thread ahndling. Hope this helps.

EDIT: Intel's native quad cores will be coming H2 2008 in the form of Nehalem


Since when did the Core2 series currently out support HT? I thought only the up coming Nehalem was to bring it back?
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 11:21:05 AM

amdfangirl said:
^ Q6600 = monolithic quad (2x2) 65nm
Qx9650 = monolithic quad (2x2) 45nm
Phenom = native quad (4x1) 65nm

Sure it may not be 'real' quad-core but it does perform well...


Makes you wonder wether Intel's dual die quad core chip's have advantages because of 2 independent L2 caches, rather then AMD's share between 4 etc?
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 11:47:11 AM

Slobogob said:
They have SMT instructions and are modified somewhat but no more than any other Core 2. Windows won't see more than 4 cores as it is no Hyperthreading and won't assign threads accordingly. The processor itself is able to handle multiple tasks better, but until Nehalem we won't see anything resembling Hyperthreading.


My bad. Can't remember where I read that then!
a c 117 à CPUs
June 19, 2008 12:07:18 PM

vochtige said:
oke, no end on this topic than!

will it say i opend a good topic! (yes!)

oow, nehalem only ddr3 and new socket? aauwts! what are the prices you guess?


What do you plan to do with your computer?

If you are a gamer a faster dual core will work 'Just Dandy' for a long time.
June 19, 2008 12:09:58 PM

Has the OP been talking to Sharikou by chance?
June 19, 2008 2:14:14 PM

rodney_ws said:
Has the OP been talking to Sharikou by chance?


no, what is Sharikou?
June 19, 2008 2:16:49 PM

Wisecracker said:
What do you plan to do with your computer?

If you are a gamer a faster dual core will work 'Just Dandy' for a long time.


Yes, in fact i'm a gamer. i always said, if i want new pc i want a 3.0ghz back. i know that a c2d 3.0ghz outperformce a 2.4 2.5 quad. but the prices aren't so diffrent. i'm just looking around for the hardware i want. 3 years ago i couldn't get a highend one for 1000euro, now you easely have a highend one for 1000 euro. btw i only want to spend 500-700maximum. i keep the case, dvdwriter, psu (if it would be still good enough) and 1 of my 2 hdd.
June 19, 2008 2:29:37 PM

Do you need a monitor too? How about speakers? Go Q6600, OC to 3.0 to keep up with E8400.
June 19, 2008 2:36:09 PM

It is a real quad. 4 cores on one processor. AMD has a different approach that is more complex. However, Intel has been able to do better in most benchmarks than AMD. AMD's monolithic design and other manufacturing issues is limiting how high their monolithic "real" quad cores can clock.

So what's the difference to the consumer? None. They both put four cores in one package.

AMD and Intel have a lot of good offerings in the $200 and lower range.

But if you seek more performance and you're willing to pay more for it, Intel has the big boys, AMD does not.
June 19, 2008 2:45:24 PM

no, monitor is fine. i'll keep my 17" one until it implotes.
mmh no, i'm not a fanboy, but my notebook had amd turion and it performce well for only 1.6 duocore. but it's HOT!

i've got a logitech Z4 speakersystem, good enough. i'm just looking for new cpu, gpu, ram, hdd (as it must psu)
June 19, 2008 2:55:50 PM

Good Corsair/Antec/PCP&C PSU will be fine.

E7200 @ 2.53GHz or Q6600 or E8400 (Your choice, I'd go with Q6600, quads are the future).

8800GT 512mb/4850 512mb

GA-(E)P35-DS3L or GA-P45-DS3L will be great.

If no OC, stock Intel with AS-5 is good.
June 19, 2008 4:59:13 PM

quad is today! what will quad be in the future? is it safe to say it would serve me 5 years? would a quad stay strong enough for future games? all questions we don't know. i guess hoping that a system will hold 5 years is to much asked. i know 4 cores will make it more safely.

i really want a new system. pc is just a hobby, after school, when not seeing my girlfriend when she is in her studiehome. i just hate it that my p4 has problems with new games. and that c2d e 4300 we have here, isn't much better for future games. (1.8 c2d minimum for the most)
June 19, 2008 6:45:43 PM

The future is multithreaded, so to be future-proof I would go with a quad. 5-years? Hell no. Nothing lasts that long. I would recommend buying a quad in the $200 range, so both AMD and Intel will have offerings for you. I never buy top of the line, because you just don't get a big return on your money.

vochtige said:
quad is today! what will quad be in the future? is it safe to say it would serve me 5 years? would a quad stay strong enough for future games? all questions we don't know. i guess hoping that a system will hold 5 years is to much asked. i know 4 cores will make it more safely.

i really want a new system. pc is just a hobby, after school, when not seeing my girlfriend when she is in her studiehome. i just hate it that my p4 has problems with new games. and that c2d e 4300 we have here, isn't much better for future games. (1.8 c2d minimum for the most)

June 19, 2008 8:31:56 PM

what you said technology is great! i just want new stuff, but if i want a Q9300 i have to spend more money than at a Q6600. i don't overclock. and to keep cheap, so i will be save for, lets say 3 years. what should you get? 3 years! my p4 is serving me for 2.5 years (march 2006). i just want to game the newest games. i'm bored with the games i play. you can see my xfire profile if you want. http://www.xfire.com/profile/vochtige/

as you can see i need something new! something with awsome multiplayer. and for that i need new components (the most expensive one to upgrade) i've milked my current build to the maximum i guess, now i oc'd it to 3.3 but i don't get extra fps :p  only 0.70 in css-stresstest :p  not so much he!

oke

mmhh i already want the new build.

the reason why i want to keep the case is because my parents wont argue with me for buying new one. i had a q6600 in my possestion, but it sucked (packerd bell). that was the reason to stay with homebuildsystems
June 20, 2008 5:58:32 PM

Quote:
no, what is Sharikou?


Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together
a c 117 à CPUs
June 20, 2008 6:04:45 PM

^^^^
Bow down to your Intel masters and mercy may be given to you
June 20, 2008 6:07:23 PM

thunderman said:
Quote:
no, what is Sharikou?


Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together


This may be the most comical thing I've ever read on these forums.
a c 117 à CPUs
June 20, 2008 6:09:22 PM

Some of us old SMP guys have been told (for 10 years at least) that ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!"" ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!"" ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!""

It ain't here yet. Don't count on it anytime soon. Software will be optimized for SSE4 long before programs are completely rewritten to run parallel threads across multiple cores.
a c 117 à CPUs
June 20, 2008 6:12:12 PM

uguv said:
This may be the most comical thing I've ever read on these forums.


Bow down to your AMD masters and you will not be 'Left Behind'.

:lol: 
June 20, 2008 6:44:53 PM

thunderman said:
Quote:
no, what is Sharikou?


Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together


Thats a very amusing 'spoof' blog... I've added to my Steve Balmer fake blog bookmark!! :kaola: 

Wonder what the kickback is from AMD??

Bob
June 20, 2008 7:59:46 PM

I think thunderman is Sharikou
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2008 10:35:01 PM

I think they are Theo Valich, no wait they are more coherent
a c 117 à CPUs
June 20, 2008 11:29:14 PM

rfatcheric said:
I think thunderman is Sharikou


or maybe Baron Matrix :ouch: 
June 21, 2008 10:45:33 AM

thunderman said:
Quote:
no, what is Sharikou?


Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together



June 21, 2008 2:30:24 PM

What quad is depends on what someone defines it to be.
There are some differences in Intel and AMD design today.
Intel doesn’t scale well but runs single threaded applications fast.
AMD scales well but doesn’t run single threaded applications as fast as Intel.

Intel has a slow FSB that you need to overclock in order to get get better performance, now with speedier memory and faster GPU’s the FSB may be to slow anyway. Intel quad can’t synchronize cache data for small threads, it needs to go through the slow FSB and that takes time. But you won’t notice this if the application doesn’t use memory or isn’t developed using small threads.
AMD hasn’t got these bottlenecks and scales very well. AMD doesn’t degrade as much if you throw more demanding applications at it or if you run more applications at the same time. AMD also runs smother compared to Intel.
Here are some links:
The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead

Video: http://www.intel.com/technology/quickpath/demo/demo.htm
June 21, 2008 2:45:40 PM

nice post!

interesting that Amd is accually better in technologie and 'would last longer with more demanding applications.

so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....
June 21, 2008 3:12:16 PM

vochtige said:
so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....

Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.

June 21, 2008 9:30:21 PM

kassler said:
Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.


No it's not.

Word, Playa.
June 21, 2008 10:09:10 PM

Benchmarks don't lie.

Fanboys do.


(Desktop Market-->) Any Intel quad is superior in most benchmarks to any AMD quad.


vochtige said:
nice post!

interesting that Amd is accually better in technologie and 'would last longer with more demanding applications.

so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....


kassler said:
Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.


June 21, 2008 10:56:54 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Benchmarks don't lie.

Fanboys do.


(Desktop Market-->) Any Intel quad is superior in most benchmarks to any AMD quad.

Yes when you run singlethreaded applications or applications that don't use a lot of memory and can take advantage of the speedy LARGE L2 cache.
If Intel are so good, why have they totally changed the design for Nehalem?
In fact, Nehalem is even more designed to run small threads than phenom.
L2 cache on Nehalem is 256 KB – L2 cache on phenom is 512 KB
L3 cache (yes, Nehalem has copied phenom design) is 8MB – L3 cache on phenom (65nm) is 2MB and on the next 45nm will be 6MB.
Nehalem has a memory controller as AMD Phenom. The old FSB solution is gone.

June 22, 2008 12:26:10 AM

kassler said:
Yes when you run singlethreaded applications or applications that don't use a lot of memory and can take advantage of the speedy LARGE L2 cache.
If Intel are so good, why have they totally changed the design for Nehalem?
In fact, Nehalem is even more designed to run small threads than phenom.
L2 cache on Nehalem is 256 KB – L2 cache on phenom is 512 KB
L3 cache (yes, Nehalem has copied phenom design) is 8MB – L3 cache on phenom (65nm) is 2MB and on the next 45nm will be 6MB.
Nehalem has a memory controller as AMD Phenom. The old FSB solution is gone.


Because they are aggressively moveing towards SMT (Hyper Threading), there is no possiblity that such a feature could be used on the dual dual core that intel currently uses. By their own development map its clear to do this they much goto the superior memory subsystem of a ondie controller. Larabee is also a sign on the same development mantra that follows core 2 superior resource usage via smart prefecting, low latency internal memory, wide execution window, and dinamic power management. At this point it's become a nessecity.

Cache size can be reduced because of much lower memory latency honestly I thought they would go with 128k due to transistor budgets.

Maybe because they know it helps, they have been useing L3 for a long time abeit off die in the beginning but it was still present.

Word, Playa.
June 22, 2008 9:18:34 AM

spud said:
Because they are aggressively moveing towards SMT (Hyper Threading), there is no possiblity that such a feature could be used on the dual dual core that intel currently uses.

Do you know what Hyperthreading is?
It is a Little strange that they have added hyperthreading in Nehalem because it is questionable if it does any good (it will not do any bad either).
Hyperthreading is a technology that is used when one core is waiting for memory to arrive, then it could switch to another thread and execute some instructions there until the memory arrives. That was a nice feature on Pentium 4 because that processor had a long instruction pipe and it took some time to switch data when there was jumps etc. I think that they didn’t put it on the core processor because that processor doesn’t like cache trashed. Nehalem have done a lot to speed up the process when threads are getting memory so it doesn’t need to wait as long as core processors or Pentium 4.
There are some differences on other type of operations but those have little effect on performance, some are better on Intel and some are better on AMD.

Hyperthreading explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
June 22, 2008 2:17:59 PM

kassler said:
Do you know what Hyperthreading is?
It is a Little strange that they have added hyperthreading in Nehalem because it is questionable if it does any good (it will not do any bad either).
Hyperthreading is a technology that is used when one core is waiting for memory to arrive, then it could switch to another thread and execute some instructions there until the memory arrives. That was a nice feature on Pentium 4 because that processor had a long instruction pipe and it took some time to switch data when there was jumps etc. I think that they didn’t put it on the core processor because that processor doesn’t like cache trashed. Nehalem have done a lot to speed up the process when threads are getting memory so it doesn’t need to wait as long as core processors or Pentium 4.
There are some differences on other type of operations but those have little effect on performance, some are better on Intel and some are better on AMD.

Hyperthreading explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading


Ya... ya I do know quite a bit about hyper threading but thanks for the wiki link :/  .

You didn't just say cache thrashing and the Core 2 in the same sentence did you? Wow dude the mechanics behind HT are to keep execution units busy, each virtual thread is tagged and the associated memory blocks are tagged as well. AMD has no technology remotely similar including the fabled reverse hyper threading. The fact of the matter is they hit the wall on execution utilization with the core 2 line it's time to bring some new technologies in to get that performance higher, not because of potential cache thrashing has been resolved.

Word, Playa.
June 22, 2008 3:11:12 PM

spud said:
Ya... ya I do know quite a bit about hyper threading but thanks for the wiki link :/  .

You didn't just say cache thrashing and the Core 2 in the same sentence did you? Wow dude the mechanics behind HT are to keep execution units busy, each virtual thread is tagged and the associated memory blocks are tagged as well. AMD has no technology remotely similar including the fabled reverse hyper threading. The fact of the matter is they hit the wall on execution utilization with the core 2 line it's time to bring some new technologies in to get that performance higher, not because of potential cache thrashing has been resolved.

Word, Playa.


Could you give some references? Everything isn’t 100% effective as you might know. Switching threads isn’t just a snap, there needs to be memory in the cache for that thread etc.
The L3 cache on Nehalem has a latency of 39 cycles, squeezing in another thread there will not be easy.

June 22, 2008 3:21:20 PM

amdfangirl said:
^ Q6600 = monolithic quad (2x2) 65nm
Qx9650 = monolithic quad (2x2) 45nm
Phenom = native quad (4x1) 65nm

Sure it may not be 'real' quad-core but it does perform well...


To say monolithic quad, sounds like you're implying all of the 4 cores on current Intel quads are on the same piece of silicone die. While Itel's current dual cores are certainly monolithic, the quads are an MCM (multi-chip module) utilizing two separate dual core dice, much like the 900 series Pentium D used two separate P4s an in MCM fashion.
    • 1 / 11
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!