Upendra09 :
Upendra09 wrote :
The quad core qill be worth it. but get a second opinion, i am kind of new to this.
The Q9550 is not a quad core processor. It is a Multi-Chip Module.
That's why Intel called it "Core 2 Quad". Two cores placed side-by-side (core 2) in a Multi-Chip configuration, "Quad".
The problem with a MCM is, both cores communicate with each other through a narrow gateway.
A MCM will not run as fast as a Quad Core processor because of it.
So r u saying there is no real quad core on the market?
The Core 2 Quad is a real quad. It has 4 cores, therefore, it is a quad core (whether or not those cores happen to be on the same die is somewhat irrelevant for definitions). A fake quad would be like some of the Pentium D Extremes that intel released with 2 cores and hyper threading, so it looked like 4 to the OS.
Now, in bandwidth limited apps, it is true that the Core 2 Quad will fall behind the Phenom and i7 designs, but almost no desktop task is bandwidth limited, so it is a somewhat irrelevant point. Enigma is just looking for some way to make intel look bad, since he is a rather adamant fan of AMD. Besides, the Core 2 Quad actually beats the Phenom in almost any desktop task, and is roughly even with the Phenom II, showing that it is in no way inferior to a native quad core for home use.
As for Intel's naming, Core 2 has nothing to do with the number of cores - it is the architecture (Second gen core architecture). That's why the dual cores aren't just called "core 2", they're called "core 2 duo" (I.E. Core 2 architecture, dual core). Hence, Core 2 quad is in no way Intel's admission of its status as a fake quad (which is isn't), it is simply stating that it is a Core 2 architecture chip with 4 cores.