another bright idea?

**Lips2001Ad** · July 7th, 2005, 07:13 PM

I was just wondering about the plausability of building a cpu socket adapter that takes 2 standard intel cpus, of the same speed and tricks the motherboard into thinking that its only one cpu with those fangled dual cores?

**MobilePCPhysician** · July 8th, 2005, 12:29 AM

* Moderator edit - irrelevant image

**confus-ed** · July 8th, 2005, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Lips2001Ad

I was just wondering about the plausability of building a cpu socket adapter that takes 2 standard intel cpus, of the same speed and tricks the motherboard into thinking that its only one cpu with those fangled dual cores?

No feasability study required, 'that'd be dumb'

..

- 'dual cored' chips are effectively a poor man's, multi-cpu setup, but you only get one lot of cache (which is quite often what accounts for much speed) - why would you want to create such a thing when you can currently buy multiprocessor capable motherboards anyway ? (& take full advantage of all the features on any chip) & do what a multi-cored chip is attempting to 'impersonate' ? ..

**BOB IROC** · July 9th, 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by confus-ed

No feasability study required, 'that'd be dumb'

..

- 'dual cored' chips are effectively a poor man's, multi-cpu setup, but you only get one lot of cache (which is quite often what accounts for much speed)

Maybe I am reading wrong, but the Athlon X2's and the Pentium D's both seem to list they have dedicated cache per processor core

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13043,00.html

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...um_D/index.htm

both show 2 times L2 Cache.

The only drawback is that the AMD chips share one memory controller, but the intel chips do that as well because their memory controller is on the motherboard and not the chip.

**confus-ed** · July 9th, 2005, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by BOB IROC

Maybe I am reading wrong, but the Athlon X2's and the Pentium D's both seem to list they have dedicated cache per processor core...

Ok !

.. I take that back, later chips generally do have seperate cache per core

, but you are still re-inventing the wheel !

& in your socket assembly you'd make everything go through one lot of pin outs, when I'm sure whatever chips we have, that all that info would get through twice as many pins, twice as fast.

**format c:** · July 10th, 2005, 01:53 AM

I think these dual core chips are pushed to those that multitask a lot, They can process two instructions at once
Unlike the buggy hyperthreading pushed by intel
I still would like to try the xp 64 x 2 cpu and run 3dmark 05 on it and compare cpu scores

**Radical Dreamer** · July 10th, 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by format c:

I think these dual core chips are pushed to those that multitask a lot, They can process two instructions at once
Unlike the buggy hyperthreading pushed by intel
I still would like to try the xp 64 x 2 cpu and run 3dmark 05 on it and compare cpu scores

They are near identical, most gaming apps are single threaded so they dont take advantage of the second core.

**slgrieb** · July 14th, 2005, 07:12 PM

Dual core will be nice in terms of running background processes more efficiently, but I'm not sure that many software developers will be too excited about the extra difficulty and costs involved in writing multithreaded apps. Dual core means that lots of everyday, routine tasks will execute more smoothly and efficiently, but most software may not exploit the new capabilities for years. Prices gotta come way down before I'll embrace or recommend dual core. Actually, I'm kinda having a love affair with the Sempron 64.