Reply to post: Well, what exactly is a "core" anyway?

AMD sued: Number of Bulldozer cores in its chips is a lie, allegedly

Unicornpiss
Meh

Well, what exactly is a "core" anyway?

It's implied by the lawsuit that a core is a completely separate processor, but that's not true in anyone's chip, now is it? If you're going to draw the line and equate a core with a complete CPU, then each core should have all of the guts it needs to operate utterly independently of each other core, including power regulation, thermal management, cache, etc. Nobody does this. Perhaps in some ways Intel's chips are somewhat more independent than some of AMD's. But you can't use all of the features of every core simultaneously unless each one has separate buses for for everything and enough intelligent management (including software and the OS) designed to utilize everything in a true parallel configuration. And again, no one on our world does this yet. The way this guy is screaming that he's been victimized, you'd think he bought 4 computers and discovered that 2 of them were just cases filled with sand. (I know silicon is basically sand)

Intel chips have been proven faster in multiple benchmarks. But AMD chips often 'feel' faster to me in real-world use, though this is just one man's subjective opinion.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon