imperialreign
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,043 (1.11/day)
- Location
- Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name | УльтраФиолет |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved) |
Motherboard | ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB |
Cooling | Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler |
Memory | Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T |
Video Card(s) | Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970 |
Storage | (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA |
Display(s) | Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10) |
Case | Cooler Master Stacker 830 |
Audio Device(s) | Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1 |
Power Supply | Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular |
Software | Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 |
Benchmark Scores | 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313 |
Yeah I knew that. But it was rumored to be multi-chip, so I thought they were refering to many dies on the same pcb. I have searched a bit and it seems that it's dual core as you said. Honestly with the Phenom disaster still in my mind, this is nothing I would be happy to confirm. The same could happen to R700. Only time will tell.
Anyway, one thing is what they want to do, and another one is what they can do. Complex architectures as Phenom have associated very poor yields and a widespread number of different "workable products" and that wouldn't work very well on GPUs. They can use dualcore chips for high-end and single core ones for mainstream, but what about the others? And how would they use defective cores? And two differently deffective cores on the same die?
That's what happened with Phenoms. "One of the four cores is darn slow, do we make a slow quad or do we make a fast tricore?"
yeah, it's definitely a gamble any way you look at it. I'm kinda hoping that they're bridging two different technolgies together with it, though - following ATI's GPU architecture with AMD's die architecture. ATI have demonstrated in the past that they can design some killer GPUs, and if AMD's technology can tie those two cores together as effectively as they've done with some of their CPU's - they'll be looking good.
But, as you've mentioned, it could go the other way, and the whole project (which looks good on paper and in theory seems stellar in the R&D department) might go belly-up once it's actually out in the hands of consumers, being faced with various hardware and software setups.
Perhaps it's why we've seen very few rumors about the new GPU, and perhaps why AMD/ATI is taking their time with it. But they've been put into a position where they've got very little to lose anymore, and that can equate to a company willing to try and re-break trodden ground and take a risk that a more solid company wouldn't even consider. Hopefully, though, they won't go the way 3DFX did when they started shooting for extreme solutions