There is no thing like fake quad core, but there is a MCM(multi-chip module) quad core and there would be a native(single chip module) quad core.can anybody tell me what's the difference between a dual dual-core (fake quad core) and a real quad core?
With fake quad core I mean like 2 dual cores forged together
Really, nothing as far as you are concerned. I think even Intel would admit that their current solution is a stop-gap until they integrate everything on one die. But this situation is very similar to the one we were in way back when there was the option on having cache memory on die vs in a separate silicon die but wire bonded on to the same substrate vs cahe on the motherboard.can anybody tell me what's the difference between a dual dual-core (fake quad core) and a real quad core?
The trouble is that a benchmark compares everything in the system and given that we know that Intel and AMD give different results, you know that'll you get different results even if the 'real/false' causes no difference. But, as I argue above, just look at, say, benchies for the whole system and the cost of the whole system and ignore how its done. The biggest bang per buck is the biggest bang per buck. End of story.well we cannot derive much from comparison of AMD and Intel. Honestly I dont know if it matters either way. You may think that 4 cores on one die will communicate faster between cores ,But if the architecture is not as efficient it doesnt matter if its native quad or 2 dies.
While that's also correct, part of that is at the level of how the OS/Application ditributes the workload around and whether it ever has to move stuff around between cores. So, the CPU manufacturer can't really control that.Seperate dies can induce latencies with longer pathways unless its designed around that and through put doesnt rely on cross die communication which if not done right can also cause latencies.
Yes, well that's true, But Intel are using the FSB because that's what Intel always does (until some future arch comes along) and AMD are using the HT bus, because that's what AMD always does. So, the comment is correct as it stands, but it just doesn't come from 'true' or 'false' dual cores, just the difference in approach that the two organisations have in their architectures at this point.umm, i'm only a first year EE so most of that went right over my head...but i think AMD is shooting for something that doesn't have to use the FSB to communicate.
The QX6800, QX6700, and Q6600 are all quad cores, but they are two dual cores in the same package.isnt QX6800 and the Q6600 true quad cores? as apose to AMD's 2x2 FX71?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|B||Difference between i7 9700kf and 9700k?||CPUs||5|
|B||Will this upgrade make a big difference?||CPUs||3|
|D||Does 0,5 ghz make a difference?||CPUs||2|
|N||30 Degrees celsius difference between cores?||CPUs||2|
|M||Very different performance on similar CPU with Excel (I7 6700 - I7 4790)||CPUs||1|
|J||Different BSOD when running prime95||CPUs||3|
|D||Can companies tell the difference between a defect and fried cpu?||CPUs||2|
|T||I don't notice any performance difference after Upgrading CPU||CPUs||6|
|M||Should I push pull with different fans?||CPUs||3|
|N||4670k vs 4570 on a H81 Board ($30 difference)||CPUs||3|