Server Processors Face Off, Importance of ondie Memory Controller for dualcore chips

http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmin...=2&nct=4&cpcf=2&cpct=2&mf=250&mt=3800&o=0&o=1

I know that this is a server chip comparison but it's a good benchmark to look at nonetheless and does have some direct implications to the Core Duo. As you can see, as the cores move up from 1 to 4 cores the performance of the Pentium designs lag considerably behind the Opterons. What this benchmark reveals is the paramount importance of having an on die memory controller when moving from 1 to 2 and to 4 cores. As more cores are introduced to a system, the FSB of the Pentium systems becomes a huge bottleneck sapping the advantages of having the additional cores in the first place.

The Core Duo suffers from this same design strategy of the Pentium 4 and Pentium D due to its lack of an on die memory controller as well. An example of the effect of not having the on die memory controller is evidenced by a Dual Core Opteron clocked at 2200mhz beating the 4 cores of 2 Pentium 4 Xeons with each core clocked at 3000mhz!

In contrast, the Turion design includes an on die memory controller like the Opterons and can scale from 1 to 2 and then to 4 cores with almost perfect efficiency without the FSB becoming a bottleneck, even if the FSB and Memory are clocked at lower rates. The OnDie memory controller is that important and you only get it with Turions!!

And now with AMD's new AM2 socket for laptops soon to be released, users will be able to for the first time in history upgrade the cpu from 1 to 2 and even to a 4 core Turion processor, all on the same laptop. And these are extra cores that will ramp perfectly in performance just like those Opterons did in that Benchmark from Aceshardware. This is Truly Amazing stuff and Very Exciting!!!

I know there are some people here who after reading this will begin to really get excited and study AMD's AM2 socket and the HUGE scalability of the 64bit Turions. I for one can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

Uh, if you're trying to compare the Turion to the Core Duo, the Core Duo wins by a long shot. True, the On-Die Memory controller does help the Turion, but not enough to out do the P-M and certainly not enough to out do the Core Duo. We may begin to see new Turion X2s with this, which may help level the playing field for AMD, but with the advent of Merom, we may see another Intel victory over the Turion.

 

Who says the chipsets/bios/cooling systems will support the new chips as they come out? Lots of cpu's have shared sockets in the past, but that didn't mean much if the motherboard didn't support the upgrade.

 

Dude what planet are you on!?? If you took $300 bucks and spent it on a Turion, A Pentium M, or a Core Duo, that $300bucks would give you far far far more performance per dollar by spending it on the Turion. You are posting complete BS.

Proof of how much a better value a Turion is clock for clock than the overpriced Pentium M's and Core Duos.
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article300-page2.html

Even when you pit the Turion clock for clock against an overpriced Pentium M, the Pentium M loses and it's floating point sucks compared to the Turion.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=13

Lastly, the point is that core duo's platform wasn't designed to be a dual core system, Intel simply smacked 2 Pentium M's together in response to AMD's true dual cores that were designed from the ground up to be dual cores, and Core Duo cannot take advantage of the full effectiveness of a dualcore chip due to the Bus bottleneck. Even Merom does not correct this design defect as it only implements EM64T (A copy of AMD's true 64bit technology which is slower). Merom will still lack the onboard memory controller which means the chances of it outperforming the true DualCoreTurions at that time are low. Possible, but low odds.

Once again the Intel supporters post false fud hoping to convince others while I post links and evidence to back it up. The truth is on my side. A better chip is a better chip. And I didn't even have to get into the fact that Core Duos are an end of cycle dead end 32bit technology.

 

But don't believe me because all I speak is mistruth's and BS, atleast that's what all the Intel-aholics here say.
Listen to PC world instead. They just wrote the article today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060301/tc_pcworld/124900

Intel's dual and quad cores are fake multi cores, it's just another example of their PR hype machine. In contrast, AMD's dual and Quad Core's are desgined from the ground up to Maximize the multicore performance. Like I said in my earlier post where a moderator froze the thread, Intel is better at designing Hype than designing processors.
---------
"Intel hasn't said whether it architected Clovertown as a quad-core processor, or merely combined a pair of dual-core chips in a multi-chip package," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight64, in a research note. Clovertown is expected to hit the market in early 2007."

"While Intel has yet to offer details of the Clovertown design, Brookwood believes the chip uses two Woodcrest dice, or pieces of silicon, housed in a single package. Woodcrest is the codename of an upcoming dual-core Xeon chip developed by Intel, he said."

"Intel used a similar "ad hoc" design for its first generation of dual-core processors, which included either two cores on a single die or two single-core dice housed in one package, Brookwood said."
"The problem is performance. Intel's earlier dual-core chips contained two cores that shared a single front-side bus, which is housed outside the chip, Brookwood said. "
------------

Why don't you guys just give it up already and agree. You can't be that much in denial can you?

 

Why shoudl we agree with your BS. All the stuff you posted about the Intel dual cores being not true dual cores is only partly true. The Pentium D's are bad design, but the Core Duo' are the real dual core design...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=2

The rest of your post is more BS. What does Clovertown have to do with a laptop or even the Server chips???? The Pentium D also has nothing to do with the mobile chips either. The Pentium D/4 and the PM/Core Duo do not share the same architecture.

If you do whant to compare moble chip then find a review which compares apples to apples and is based on a laptop like this...
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=17

 

This shows how much you really know ... NOTHING

The dual core design of AMD is better, but not because of the on board memory controller ... that does nothing for the AMD

What the AMD design is better at is the per core bus, while Intel's design relies on squeezing the 2 cores thru 1 bus.

But you still forget. THIS IS A MOBILE MARKET AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT IS BATTERY CONSUMPTION AND MOBILITY, not cutting edge performance.

So please spare us all of your BS AMD propaganda, and NO YOU ARE AMD-AHOLIC ... IN FACT IT IS REALLY SAD THAT AMD HAS A SUPPORTER THAT IS AN IDIOT LIKE YOU

Finally ... Please **** OFF and leave this site in peace!