Barcelona or Agena

[Biscuit]

so im guessing DDR3 is still not something worth thinking about.

[will101]

Hello AMD Quadcore

[Biscuit]

almost pleased i havent bought a C2D

[aidanjt]

The Q6600 C2Q is now around £350, it's here, now.

[kalniel]

That's not true quad core though, like how the pentium D wasn't true dual core

[shaithis]

Doesn't sound great IMO.

Limited production will probably cause it to have a premium, it probably won't be that much faster and by the sounds of it, it's going to run hot compared to C2D.

Plus, they don't mention dual core CPUs, my guess is that only the quad core part outperforms Intels counter-part due to memory bandwidth limitation.

So, it sounds good for 3D rendering people, or anyone else you needs to max out 4 cores, but probably inferior for anything else.

I am hoping that they have a trick or two up their sleeves as otherwise CPU prices might be set to rise if Intel keep a stranglehold on the market.

[aidanjt]

That's not true quad core though, like how the pentium D wasn't true dual core

If by 'not true quad core' you mean not having 4 cpu cores on the same die that's true, but it still has 4 cores regardless and it is still very powerful.

[DanceswithUnix]

Plus, they don't mention dual core CPUs, my guess is that only the quad core part outperforms Intels counter-part due to memory bandwidth limitation.

I believe the initial design is quad core with a cut down dual core part to come later. Lack of existing dual core silicon would explain the lack of results (along with single core)

[will101]

That sounds quite plausible.

AMD are tackling design methodology in the opposite way to Intel:

Intel start with a dual core and tape two together to make a quad core.

AMD start with a quad core and cut it in half to make a dual core

[Biscuit]

If by 'not true quad core' you mean not having 4 cpu cores on the same die that's true, but it still has 4 cores regardless and it is still very powerful.

Yes but when they are all on the same die you eliminate cross die traffic

[badass]

Hello AMD Quadcore

That's an article from Fudzilla - not the most accurate site ever and like most other snippets there has nothing to back it up.

Perhaps I'll just make up some graphs in paint and say they represent the performance.

[aidanjt]

Yes but when they are all on the same die you eliminate cross die traffic

Well it's still even less expensive than a traditional SMP design.

[DanceswithUnix]

Well it's still even less expensive than a traditional SMP design.

Expensive in terms of money, or performance? It should cost less to buy than traditional SMP, but in terms of performance the Intel 2 die in one carrier setup is identical: they just moved the traditional 2 sockets *really* close together

[kalniel]

Well you lose ccNUMA, but gain better latency having 2 die in one package

[aidanjt]

Indeedy kalniel, I was referring to performance.

But there is price benefits also. You have to consider the cost of SMP motherboards (which are frequently over £250+) and 2 Xeon CPUs, plus fully buffered DIMMs, which are also very expensive.

[DanceswithUnix]

I know this is all academic because, lets face it, the system is fast. I would even go so far as to say it proves that sometimes "a pig in lipstick" is exactly what you need

But...

Price, I agree the system is cheaper.

But performance, no. The tradional Intel approach is to have one northbridge with 2 CPU loads hanging off it. The "quad core now" approach wires the 2 FSB interfaces together of 2 CPUs, and puts them into a single carrier so they can be put on a motherboard.

Both approaches have one northbridge FSB talking to 2 CPU dies. Electrically and logically, they are identical. The Inquirer said the arrangement gave mobo manufacturers nightmares getting this out of balance loading up to decent FSB speeds (Intel SMP systems always have slower FSB than single socket) which would explain the need for specific quad core approved motherboards.

So I am impressed that Intel have upped the FSB on this approach as far as they have and totally agree that the system is fast enough for all practical uses, but it isn't pretty.