Re: Dell vs. eMachines T6420

First of all, communicating through the caches is no better than having to
communicate through the NB. You failed to acknowledge my response to that
issue. I still maintain that Intel "Core Duo" chips are multicore, and not
true dual core. Allowing communication across the L2 cache limits the use
of *ONE* cache per clock, thus negating the advantage of the speed increase
by allowing communication across the L2 cache. It does not matter how
"independent" the caches are when they cannot be used simultaneously for
on-die I/O.

Perhaps you fail to understand the point I am making, and you may not have
taken the time to think things through.

Intel itself has admitted several things about its "Core Duo" philosophy:

1. The original "Dual Core" Intel procs were rushed to market simply to
beat AMD to the retail shelf with a dual core proc.

2. Intel admits it fuses independent cores because it is cheaper and easier
for them to do so. It is this "cheaper and easier" philosophy that is
hurting their competitiveness.

3. Single core Intel procs of the same core speed will outperform "Core
Duo" chips of the same speed. No one seems to be bringing this up except in
a few articles here and there.

While I don't think being a supporter of Intel is a bad thing, I think being
blindly led around by the Intel spin meisters and ignoring real world
testing *is* a bad thing.

I am sorry that you are offended that AMD processors outperform Intel. It
is quite possible that Intel may once again be the best, if they just change
their current mindset. That would be a good thing, as it would stimulate
more competition from AMD. In the interim, AMD continues to outperform
Intel, continues to outsell Intel, and has earned the place it now holds.

As for your last comment, you are guilty of a lack of intellectual honesty.
You deny every published test that shows that AMD outperforms Intel. It is
as simple as that.

Being able to see the truth, and think independently, does not mean I have
lost
my intellectual honesty. It means I have made an informed decision based
upon research and personal testing. If saying that AMD is better, and that
Intel does not make true dual core consumer level chips, then I guess that I
am guilty as charged.

Bobby

"User N" <usern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Me-dnd4IDPt1xGTeRVn-pQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"NoNoBadDog!" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bK8Kf.29924$6f2.19780@xxxxxxxxxxx

[] Add to that the obfuscation that Intel deals in; it's rebranding and
new logos, its reluctance to manufacture a true consumer level dual core
processor ( all Intel core duo processors are multi-core, the two cores
cannot see or communicate with each other...Intel itself admits it does
this because it is easier to manufacture and costs less).

Obfuscation eh? Just last week in a previous thread about Core Duo, I
called you on a similar remark:

Intel chips are not true dual core; they are two separate chips fused
together. and they cannot see or communicate with each other on the die.
They can only communicate by going outside the die through the
Northbridge chipset,

and pointed out to you that the cores in Core Duo communicate via the 2MB
on-die smart cache. Making such a similar statement and suggesting that
Intel
would admit otherwise seems rather disingenuous to me. First hit:

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/smartcache.htm

This isn't the first time you seem to have gotten things ass backwards in
a
convenient sort of way. Back on Jan 21st in a thread about Smithfield and
Presler processors you said:

AMD processors are true dual core, have independent dedicated L2 caches
(Intel is shared, despite what they "say")

Both Smithfield and Presler have independent dedicated L2 caches...
Paxville
too IIRC... and it is the mobile Core Duo that has the shared. That you
were
aware that Intel has implemented shared cache makes the latest two
statements
by you seem even more disingenuous.

Yes, I am anti Intel. I am pro AMD.

The latter isn't a problem, the former becomes a problem when you are
willing
to forgo intellectual honesty.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dell vs. eMachines T6420
    ... communicate through the NB. ... Then you said Core Duo cores can't communicate with each other without ... Core Duo rather than something that is on the horizon), ... of *ONE* cache per clock, thus negating the advantage of the speed increase by allowing communication across the L2 cache. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Dell vs. eMachines T6420
    ... to communicate through the NB. ... Then you said Core Duo cores can't communicate with each other without ... communication across the L2 cache. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Intel introduces "Core 2 Duo"
    ... When AMD runs at 2GHz, then *YES* 533 MHz is very measly. ... cache, taking the L2 cache away from doing its real job, has no ... But it is still relatively inefficient and adding more cache does not compensate for the loss of clock cycles from haveing to communicate through the L2 as opposed to direct communications. ... I have always posted that I will acknowledge it is Intel gains the lead. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: $300.00 difference?
    ... Intel Duo Core T 7300 2.0 GHz ... AMD Turion 64x2 Dual Core Mobile 1.8 GHz ... 512KB+512KB L2 Cache up to 1600 MHz system running AC ...
    (alt.os.windows-xp)
  • Re: CPU question
    ... Intel has announced that it will no longer develop *ANY* P4 core beyond what ... L2 cache and dual core did not offer a viable way to increase speed, ... Prescott nevertheless features a slew of enhancements to its ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)