If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Haig said "1 item in particular is not true", so this basically means the rest is true - so I think it is NOT true that the card will be introduced when the site claims, BUT the preview, review, whatever will indeed appear in that magazine at that time
Why would you <I>start</I> with a dual core? If you need 2 processors to start with, then your design is in trouble.
Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.
Some advantages:
Easier to design
Easier to handle
Modular architecture (1, 2, 4 chips...)
The same what two CPU's (in SMP) will do or what dual-channel DDR or RDRAM buses do or what dual heads are do or two humans are doing err.... ähmm, wrong thread....
Speaking from personal experience, having two processors work together is much, much, harder to design.
It's more costly to manufacture, more costly to test, lowers yield, makes drivers much more difficult to write....
Besides, if you're going to go dual-core, you design fast single-core with dual capabilities designed inside. That way you can ship the first design (it had better be fast), and you have the time to get the multi-chip solution out later, as a market boost. Of course, it's usually better to just port & shrink the single-chip design instead.
Also, graphics is one of those things that doesn't parallelize very well.
Also, comparing a dual-<B>processor</B> to dual-channel <B>memory</B> is ludicrous.
Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.
No, listen, it WON'T pay in the end. It's just the wrong way to do this kind of thing. It's not more expensive "to start," it's more expensive all-around, and performance would suck.
jwb, both Greebe and I are under NDAs.
Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.
Originally posted by Wombat No, listen, it WON'T pay in the end. It's just the wrong way to do this kind of thing. It's not more expensive "to start," it's more expensive all-around, and performance would suck.
jwb, both Greebe and I are under NDAs.
While i agree with you that it's always more difficult to implement multichip solutions on a single board,the fact is that sooner or later there won't be any other choice really...
it's taking longer than ever to introduce new fab processes that allow chip makers to keep on adding new features to their chips while keeping it's size reasonable...
note to self...
Assumption is the mother of all f***ups....
Primary system :
P4 2.8 ghz,1 gig DDR pc 2700(kingston),Radeon 9700(stock clock),audigy platinum and scsi all the way...
Comment