Quad core problems

[drdeathx]

Look dude give the blog or forum not looking for an argument. Plain and simple. Quit dancing.

[TequilaChaser]

Look dude give the blog or forum not looking for an argument. Plain and simple. Quit dancing.

Hey Dude, he did give it, bout 3 or 4 post ago............here it is below, quoted from his post .....

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=2

[drdeathx]

The original quad core design had performance problems. So instead of decreasing frequencies and increasing voltage like some manufacturers  would do, they disabled 1 core and sold them as tri core(Again they were not defective). The problem is now fixed that is why they are now quad cores. If you read about the intel quad core the performance was about 8% greater with quad core  opposed to duo core and they probably did some frequency or voltage correction to  obtain that . This is all interpretation. The reply in this post was amd was shipping tri cores with a bad core. Its a disabled core and if the research was done fully... well I will leave it alone.

Intel has been much better  in performance than AMD. I am not saying that AMD is better. I am very happy with the 9850 and it was a nice start for AMD in quad core technology and they were priced a bit under the Q6700. The new quad cores will be out soon from both AMD and Intel. It will be interesting to see how they fair.

AMD had good write ups with the venture into quad core. They scored decently. Most testers gave them about a 90% score as far as performance and a thumbs up.

[Chalenge]

Then we have Phenom. At 285 mm^2, Phenom is huge and AMD can't make that many per wafer, plus with such a large die the yield is lower than on a smaller chip. The triple-core Phenom X3 gives AMD something to do with those quad-core die that have a single defective core, rather than throwing the entire chip away it can now be repackaged and sold as a triple-core processors.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3293&p=2

[drdeathx]

sheesh a writers interpretation go to amd and read why they disabled 1 core. It is not a bad core(performance issue) or defective. This is old news. Anyway like i said the issue is fixed and these were used as tri cores like i said. It is all interpretation. Some body threw the word defective out there and it is being used. The original testing of the quad core had performance isses so AMD disabled 1 core.

They are indeed quad cores that have failed to meet standards so the bad core is disabled. This saves them from having to throw away otherwise perfectly good tri-core processors and make some money. Intel has been doing the same thing for many years turning failed Pentiums into Celerons typically with reduced clock speeds and memory cache. Same with the Semprons.

[Chalenge]

Thank you for finally acknowledging the situation.

[drdeathx]

That the cores WERE NOT BAD. Disabled for performance issues. Terminolgy and interpretation. Some dissed Intel many years ago for basically the same deal. AMD is trying and the new quads will be out soon. Hopefully they will catch up. I wish they would because AMD always seemed to put out a product that wa more affordable. Again the current quad cores got a decent review.

By the way,check your video card. I returned mine. Both gpus were not working(only 1 was working) on the 4870 x 2. I benchmarked higher with 2 (512) 3870's crossfired(15500 compared to 14700 with 3dmark06) I should have benchmarked 17000 - 18000 so I called Diamond. The tech acknowledged  only 1 gpu was semed to work and we could not figure it out why(pc wizard and 3dmark showed both working).The benches were too low for a 2g card. The entire 3800 and 4800 series seems to have heat, bios, driver and gpu issues. Check amd forums and you will see a lot of problems. Remember, those posts only go back only so far. 1-3 months ago, there was litterally 5-10 posts a day on various issues. The card did out perform anything on the market but..... The Nvidea gtx280 seems to have absolutely no problems so I eexc'd the 4870 for the nvidea. Same deal for ATI, they always put a more affordable product than Nvidea.

[Chalenge]

I dont use 3Dmark06 but I do use games to see how video cards compare and on my new system using the 4870 X2 I tried FSX with all settings maxed and with Active Sky X loaded and X Graphics (DX10) too I normally get 47-57 fps which is as smooth as I have seen. Flying from the Auburn airfield is tougher and framerates drop to about 38-48 but all things considered I find that acceptable and far beyond anything the 8800s I was using could deliver (12-22 at Auburn).

AHII has always been at whatever the refresh rate of my monitor is (I typically use 60).

[drdeathx]

search your frame rates compared to gtx280 and other 4870's.. Also check temps... they are running in the 70's unless you have updated bios. If the frame rates are better than gtx280 you are good if not your paying for 2 gpu's and only using 1. I get a consistant 75 fps. In heavy heavy traffic, my frame rate went as low as 38 for a short time with the card maxed out with smooth as can be. I would check it out.



download video card stability test from this link its free quick d/l

http://freestone-group.com/video-card-stability-test.htm



I bench 478 fps with Nvidea gtx 280... With the 4870 x 2 I was benching barely 300fps. Let me know what your score is.