Pro/Forums - View Single Post - Dual Core AMDs Not for Gamers...Why Not, *if You OCed Them?*

maxSaleen · 04-23-2005, 09:10 PM

For those who think multiple cores are inefficient for gaming I say:
Don't look at the PS3. It's a perfect coutnerexample. The PS3's CPU is a chip engineered and produced by IBM called the "Cell". Initially it will use 16 (not a typo) cores. I forget the frequency of each core but I want to say 1.2ghz. One core will be dedicated to distributing tasks and data among the other cores. This thing is going to suck memory bandwidth. It is using a special type of memory manufactured by RAMBUS (remember them?) known as XDR RAM. Initially this type of memory will offer 4.2gbs of bandwidth, supposedly with the ability to scale beyond 8gbs (I didn't believe it either, but its there on their site).

About heat:
I doubt it will be an issue. Just remember that the TIM will become more effective by having two cores under it. More surface area for heat dissipation. The winnie cores have been pretty cool running so far, though that 190w number is disconcerting. I doubt that AMD would introduce such a product line without the foresight to see a thermal issue (though Intel did it).

About gaming performance:
Your not going to see anything magical with dual core chips. Not intially, anyways. What you will have is the ability to run more programs at once. I would like to be able to run anti virus/spyware in the background, possibly rip a DVD/CD, maybe do some encoding, all without taking a performance hit. You've got to admit that would be handy.

About overclocking:
Thermals aside, dual core will inhibit overclocking. It is one thing to find one good chip for overclocking. It is another all together to find two, and then you'd have to have two good cores on the same chip... your chances are getting slim. Plus you have the issue of voltage regulation through your mobo.

Why dual core:
No where else to go, really. Think about this. It costs money to run debugging and all the QC that it takes to raise the speeds of a certain core architecture; at some point fab processes have to be changed which is very costly. Both Intel and AMD are seeing pretty high yields, plus they probably have overcapacity (remember that IBM fabs AMD's chips and Mac's chips). It would be cheaper for the companies to stick with their current fab process and slap two cores onto one chip and label it a performance boost than to re-engineer a chips architecture. In my opinion, thermal management becomes easier. Think about it. It would be easier to dissipate the heat from two 2ghz cores than it would be to dissipate the heat from one 4ghz core, assuming that they are all the same size.

04-23-2005, 09:10 PM	#47
maxSaleen Cooling Savant Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 383	For those who think multiple cores are inefficient for gaming I say: Don't look at the PS3. It's a perfect coutnerexample. The PS3's CPU is a chip engineered and produced by IBM called the "Cell". Initially it will use 16 (not a typo) cores. I forget the frequency of each core but I want to say 1.2ghz. One core will be dedicated to distributing tasks and data among the other cores. This thing is going to suck memory bandwidth. It is using a special type of memory manufactured by RAMBUS (remember them?) known as XDR RAM. Initially this type of memory will offer 4.2gbs of bandwidth, supposedly with the ability to scale beyond 8gbs (I didn't believe it either, but its there on their site). About heat: I doubt it will be an issue. Just remember that the TIM will become more effective by having two cores under it. More surface area for heat dissipation. The winnie cores have been pretty cool running so far, though that 190w number is disconcerting. I doubt that AMD would introduce such a product line without the foresight to see a thermal issue (though Intel did it). About gaming performance: Your not going to see anything magical with dual core chips. Not intially, anyways. What you will have is the ability to run more programs at once. I would like to be able to run anti virus/spyware in the background, possibly rip a DVD/CD, maybe do some encoding, all without taking a performance hit. You've got to admit that would be handy. About overclocking: Thermals aside, dual core will inhibit overclocking. It is one thing to find one good chip for overclocking. It is another all together to find two, and then you'd have to have two good cores on the same chip... your chances are getting slim. Plus you have the issue of voltage regulation through your mobo. Why dual core: No where else to go, really. Think about this. It costs money to run debugging and all the QC that it takes to raise the speeds of a certain core architecture; at some point fab processes have to be changed which is very costly. Both Intel and AMD are seeing pretty high yields, plus they probably have overcapacity (remember that IBM fabs AMD's chips and Mac's chips). It would be cheaper for the companies to stick with their current fab process and slap two cores onto one chip and label it a performance boost than to re-engineer a chips architecture. In my opinion, thermal management becomes easier. Think about it. It would be easier to dissipate the heat from two 2ghz cores than it would be to dissipate the heat from one 4ghz core, assuming that they are all the same size.