AI
Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:54:35 AM
Can a dual core celeron be that far away. A $241 dual core chip may be a hot item (pun intended) for the enthuasist crowd contrary to popular belief the overclocker crowd have no qoms about high power systems if they give them the performance in return. In any event I think this spells falling ASP's for AMD in the second half of 2005, not that they are not falling already.
I think there's a mis-conception about Dual Core power in general. It appears that there is a general opinion among the population, that if 1 core = 80watts, then 2 cores must = 160 watts. This is not so. AFAIK, a slight reduction in linked core clock speed, can result in huge reduction of power consumption, while still improving performance, so linking 2 cores together, and slightly reducing the clock speed, can be made to result in NO Additional Power consumption, over the original single chip/higher speed. I think the naysayers are going to be quite surprised at the power consumption numbers of dual core. Wait, you'll see
I think there's a mis-conception about Dual Core power in general. It appears that there is a general opinion among the population, that if 1 core = 80watts, then 2 cores must = 160 watts. This is not so. AFAIK, a slight reduction in linked core clock speed, can result in huge reduction of power consumption, while still improving performance, so linking 2 cores together, and slightly reducing the clock speed, can be made to result in NO Additional Power consumption, over the original single chip/higher speed. I think the naysayers are going to be quite surprised at the power consumption numbers of dual core. Wait, you'll see
