No, not trying to cause any FUD. The source I quoted is reptuable, and this is the only place I posted it.

I am not a "super-techie", and had a simple question: If having a quad-core comprised of two dual-cores slapped together is "technology", why is it apparently being abandoned to next create a native quad core?

Is Intel admitting that native quad core design is "better" than connecting two dual-cores?

Thus, is it all Intel marketing-hype when they say it dosen't matter that their current quad-core isn't native?

I am only asking that apples be compared to apples. Neither AMD nor Intel have a native quad core out at present. It will be very interesting when this comparison can actually be done next year.

Nothing wrong with Intel being the only girl at the dance for 8 months. I just may build a system within this time, and given my understanding of what is currently available in the marketplace, I would build Intel instead of AMD.

I read on internet as well that chicken have teeth, and there is aliens everywhere. it is nice to have 4 processors, it is an other task to produce millions for the billions of users!
Bottom line: for more than 8 months, no Quad core ... just speaking about it! and do you really think intel will sit and look?
They are way a head on process technology, this will make a huge difference.
I noticed that the answer your are posting here was posted in many different forums around the planete ... hummm hummm .... fudding?

who?

Intel manage to get the Quad Core out of the door and hence take an early lead. Using two seperate (die) cores makes it cheaper it allows them two get a product to market (they're already producing the actualy dies) So there is less development.
It may not be as elegant and almost certainly has restriction but we have it now and it is with out a doubt working well. I don't know about following AMD leads by bringing out a so called 'native' Quad, they I assume have been in development for a while. I was just quicker as they do not need to alter production much to use the 2xdualcore Quads. Of course since they can do this with the duals there is probably nothing stopping them doing it with the Quads and putting 2xquads on a processor, especially once they shrink them.

The larger a die is when it is being produced the greater the risk of failure.

Come a couple of years and we'll all be saying how pants the Core2 architecture is ;). Though I still will not be able to type any faster, but my spell checker will be faster :-D

---

Team mauisun.org

Nobody ever complain to Ferrari,Jaguar,BMW for not putting the 12 cyclinders of their V12 on the same side. BMW even used the engine management of their 6 cyclinders (M30) inline and doubled it on their V12 (M70), still nobody complained. bottom line, if you have 12 cylinders, you got the power!!!!! it is the same for the Quad core, native or not, you have it.

When you don't have a technology, and your competitor does, some people trend to critisise it. AMD does not have quad core, obviously 4x4 is a grand father (see anandtech). AMD keep distributing powerpoint presentation about bashing Intel's quad core. they should focus on getting one earlier, by doing a better planing and better competitive analysis. Negative marketing from the company itself is kind of cheap, isn't it? the official message from a company should always take the high road. We are in the 21th century, pushing people to hate each other should be illegale. We all have famillies, and we all are proud of what we do. But I respect my competitors, I even get beers with Mike G from AMD, and we have fun conversation, about cars or others.

That's my personal opinion, native or not, you got the power if you have one, the 12 cylinders are not inline, but it is screaming fast.


who?

Nobody ever complain to Ferrari,Jaguar,BMW for not putting the 12 cyclinders of their V12 on the same side. BMW even used the engine management of their 6 cyclinders (M30) inline and doubled it on their V12 (M70), still nobody complained. bottom line, if you have 12 cylinders, you got the power!!!!! it is the same for the Quad core, native or not, you have it.

If you take AMD and Intel multicore systems to the car analogy then you could say something like this: AMD's V12 is using an iron drive shaft, while Intel's V12 is using a wooden drive shaft. Sure you have the torque, unfortunately your memory architecture can't take it, so you might as well not have as much as you do.

---

I agree. Intel presently has kick-a** dual/quad cores in the marketplace. If TODAY I had to choose a processor, it would be Intel.

it is the same for the Quad core, native or not, you have it.

I am not "pro" or "anti" any manufacturer/technology.

When you don't have a technology, and your competitor does, some people trend to critisise it.

My personal opinion, and nothing more, is that Anandtech is biased against AMD. YMMV.

obviously 4x4 is a grand father (see anandtech).

I agree. Which is why I asked, and have yet to receive an answer: If a certain cpu manfacturer presently is stating "native" design is not at all important in regards to their current offerings, why are their next generation of offerings going to be "native"?

Negative marketing from the company itself is kind of cheap, isn't it?

I am happy that AMD and Intel compete. As a consumer, I win.

But I respect my competitors, I even get beers with Mike G from AMD, and we have fun conversation, about cars or others.

And I would not turn down an offer of a Kentsfield or Conroe! Donations graciously accepted!

That's my personal opinion, native or not, you got the power if you have one, the 12 cylinders are not inline, but it is screaming fast.

bottom line: look at the top 20 list ... you get it in 5 seconds if you look at the number of Cores in each computer.

Quad core is the way to go if you want to crunch, notice that my dual Quad core 2 (I call it "V8") machine runs on decent power usage, and it is pretty quite. it uses stock Xeon "woodcrest" copper heatthink. >-) i ll start clocking it up soon.

8 cores is the way to go for Rosetta. I can smell the Apple dudes preparing their machine to run Xeon 5355 in their macs

who?

Just for the info,

The OS name is correctly identified in the newer (5.7/5.8 development) boinc clients as Vista now.

---

Team mauisun.org