![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The first Pentium D chip (dual core) was just 2 Pentium 4's "glued" together to make a dual-core processor. The 2 "cores" on the die couldn't communicate with each other directly - they communicated via the Northbridge. They were horrible. This was back in 2005.
Ah, the Summer of the Turion 64.
I took a turion 64 dual core to Iraq and it worked great, the next time I came back with a core 2 duo with a 7900gs go and that was a terrible mistake. Those were a long few weeks for a reliable in hot weather computer showed up again. We played bioshock, battlefield 2 and mods for it, fallout 3 and new vegas, Empire Total War, and some other things on a parade of laptops. I learned the hard way to buy 2 or 3 at a time with 16 and 24 port network switches. Laptops, fruits, socks and books were all I asked for from home.
Why can't they split it across both CCDs?
Damn that's like Nvidia's average GPU performance annual increase over that time frame. Would be really wild if AMD could match and/or maintain this cadence for CPUs.
Timing is a bit different and GPU generation sku way more changing and hard to match, but say from 2018->2022, NVIDIA went from a 445mm² 2060 to a smaller 380mm² 4080 that has +200/230% the performance (i.e. 3.3 to 1 ratio) or so despite being smaller, AMD st was about +55%/60% from 2019->2023, GPU are still probably moving faster (and their price tag).
They can, but the effect would be diminished. In most games, there are one or two primary threads that are the bulk of the bottleneck. You want those one or two threads to get as much of the cache as possible so there's less pulling of data from RAM. If you split that among both CCDs, inter-CCD communication latency comes into play. It will also castrate the single CCD part as compared to the 7800X3D.
Gotcha. I guess I'll wait for the 9850X3D, or whatever it ends up being called, if I can squeeze one more year from my current rig.
