I don't think I'd care one way or the other about a 'hacked up job' so long as it worked just the same.
Actually, you're quite right there. <i>So long as it works the same,</i> who cares? I mean, lotsa people keep whining about Intel not being technically dual-core, but personally, who gives a damn? It will work in just E-X-A-C-T-L-Y the same way! Who cares? Presler is even two chips on a die! But who cares? I certainly don't. I don't buy the product because of the aesthetical values (heck, I don't buy apple)! Who cares what the chip looks like if it works just the same? It simply doesn't matter. Period.
So I couldn't really agree more, slvr_phoenix. Thermals and bad clock rates and performance are the problem with smithfield, not the fact that it's just two prescotts on a die. Exactly.
Think about it, dual-core has no real added benefit if compared to dual-CPU Opteron and Xeon setups. Well, maybe a <b>very few</b> percentage points in performance because of chip integration and signal travel distances. But negligible at best. <b>It's most likely that a dual nocona 3.2Ghz setup will perform exactly like a Pentium EE (3.2Ghz) in most cases; in fact, I'm kinda surprised noone compared them both yet. </b>It should have been the number one test! I mean, all dual-core does is make 2-CPU systems more affordable, that's all. In technological terms, it's not exactly breaking news.
I'm also rather curious to see how a dual-core Opteron at 2.0Ghz compares to a typical dual Opteron 246 setup that has been out there for two years. I'm willing to bet that there is actually surprisingly little difference between them both. Except, of course, price.
<b>Why doesn't anyone test that?</b> Come on, I can't be the only one thinking this way about dual-core... Isn't there a single review site that has been given a Pentium EE to test and <i>also</i> happens to have a 3.2Ghz Nocona somewhere?... :frown: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 04/12/05 03:02 AM.</EM></FONT></P>