Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD dual core not for gamers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Hardware is only as good as the software that supports it :P

    This reminds me of the Physics Processing Unit. It'd take a load off the CPU but hardly any games support the thing yet.


    And as for the topic of heat, hardware will eventually spit out so much heat we'll have to convert mini-freezers to system cases

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Kel
      And as for the topic of heat, hardware will eventually spit out so much heat we'll have to convert mini-freezers to system cases
      That's a great idea! Make the door clear and leave room for a 6-pack and it would be the ultimate gaming case!

      /runs to apply for the patent before anyone else can....

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Psycho Dad
        /runs to apply for the patent before anyone else can....
        You'd be too late. People have already done it

        Comment


          #34
          I'm sure that the migration to dual-cores will be just as snappy as the transition Apple's introduction of dual processors back in the nineties; not immediate, but with large companies showing results in under a year.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Kel
            And as for the topic of heat, hardware will eventually spit out so much heat we'll have to convert mini-freezers to system cases
            Give it time, it's still a very new technology. Games didn't really start utilizing things like hardware T&L, shaders, etc. for well over a year after those technologies were introduced. Heck, there are still very few native 64-bit games (I think UT2004 might be the only one, in fact).

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by ShmengeTravel
              Thats got to be the smartest thing I've ever heard on these forums. Server computers have Opterons/Xeons, Desktops have A64s/P4s, why not make a chip just for gaming engines? They would be as powerful if not more powerful than the server processors, and would be optimized for games.
              That's what high-end graphics cards are for. Processing graphics is done best on vectoring processors such as that in your video card. Vectoring processors have been used for well over a decade for graphics, but are unlikely to penetrate the desktop market and replace Pentiums.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by pbze
                spose this thread is similar, but better because i made it . well it's obvious really, until games are coded for multiple cores, single core games are gonna run better on single cores because of their higher clocks.
                If by that you mean multithreading, then yes.

                Comment


                  #38
                  MMMMMULTI POSTTTT!!!

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by placebo
                    MMMMMULTI POSTTTT!!!
                    ROFL

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by placebo
                      MMMMMULTI POSTTTT!!!
                      *chortle*





                      /That one word is the only thing Exit has posted for months...

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Few more minutes and he might have got a MEGAAA POST!!! in..

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Meh, didn't want it to turn into SSSSPPPPAAAAMMMMM

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by pbze
                            wonder how hot these cores will get? double the cores so surely if both cores are being utilised you'll get double the heat
                            Not necessarily. This does create a warmer climate, however, since the two cores are running at lower clock cycles, the temps should be fairly mainstream. Currently, the dual core Intel processors are actually two 90 nm cores working on the same die. This is a true "multicore" processor. A chip technically cannot be a multicore chip if the two cores are located on two separate die, even if both die (dice?) are strapped into the same socket.

                            Enter Intel's next gen chip. This process, dubbed Presler, will feature a dual core, but on two different die located on the same board. This is reminiscent of the old Pentium Pro, whic was a multichip module (MCM)due to the fact that the L2 cache was an externally added-on chip, hence the name multichip module.

                            The new Pentium class will be a 65nm process and will be the format for both "multi" and "single" core processors. Each core will have its own die, but both die will be strapped on the same cpu board for a single socket install. The only difference between a dual and single core is that one side of the cpu board on a single core proc will be empty. This is more of a money saving manufacturing concept than a marketing strategy. In the end, users won't know the difference.

                            As for heat transfer on a dual core versus a MCM, this remains to be seen. But I would imagine that MCMs would transfer heat just a tick better than a true multicore chip.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X