h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
AMD and INTEL are working on dual core processors
AMD is using two 64 bit cores.
why not use one 64 bit and one 32 bit core.
Isn't that cheaper to make and won't it allmost preform the same?
Other configuration:
1X64 bit + 4x32 bit
1x64 bit + 4x32 bit + 16 x 16 bit
[link]
|
| |
I was hoping for some combination of hardcore and softcore.....Oh well, another fantasy goes by the wayside. |
|
| |
[normzone] that exists already it's called crap hardcore |
|
| |
Why not? Because then you'd need an OS to support it. The 64 bit processor has at least some differences in its instruction set if you're using it to its full potential, so the two processors will have to be running different code. Someone could make an OS that boots on one processor, then has a completely different set of code for the other processor to run, but why bother? |
|
| |
Any slight cost savings in manufacturing would be completely outweighed by the cost of development, plus the cost of hard disk and memory needed to hold all the extra code. If you want a computer with almost the same performance as a dual core 64 bit processor, get one that runs at slightly lower speed or get a dual core 32 bit processor that runs at a slightly faster speed. You won't get a better cost/perfomance ratio by having mismatched parts. |
|
| |