AMD prepares three-core processors

[Ruptga]

I don't believe much of anything I read from the Inq, has anyone read anything else about this?

Edit: more links, though not much confirmation just yet

AMD to launch triple core on Monday

AMD triple core to arrive in Q1 08[/quote]

Tri Core[/quote]

Edit2: DT confirms

 

[Keysplayr]

Bad yields on quad core dies. Waste not, want not.

 

[ShawnD1]

Looks like a fake post. Even the first paragraph says it's a rumor.

 

[Lonyo]

Xbitlabs has the same story
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...ay/20070914212726.html

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Logically I can see this making sense, much in the same way as the Cell used in PS3's has a "core" or whatever you would like to call the SPE's disabled. Sounds like an elegant approach if you ask me, but personally I'd love to see 100% yields on the quads just for AMD's sake and market competition. If this was going to happen, one would expect intel to have already used this strategy as 3 cores would command a price premium over simply 2 (assuming that the quads that didn't work would have been binned as duals) but I know the intel quads are a little different and not "true" quads but I don;t know enough about them to say anything more.

 

[AmberClad]

Makes sense to me. The Intel Quads are really just two Duos glued together. You get a bad die and throw it away --> you only lose a dual core. With the AMD quads (which really are quads, not a hacked together dual Duo), it gets more expensive just to throw them away.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Makes sense to me. The Intel Quads are really just two Duos glued together. You get a bad die and throw it away --> you only lose a dual core. With the AMD quads (which really are quads, not a hacked together dual Duo), it gets more expensive just to throw them away.

The "elegance" of how a product is put together shouldn't matter if the performance is there.
What does it truly mean for you? And do you know for sure that if one core yields poorly on a C2Q that they throw away the core? Maybe use them as C2D's? So what do failed C2D cores become? Core 2 Solo? Celerons?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Makes sense to me. The Intel Quads are really just two Duos glued together. You get a bad die and throw it away --> you only lose a dual core. With the AMD quads (which really are quads, not a hacked together dual Duo), it gets more expensive just to throw them away.

The "elegance" of how a product is put together shouldn't matter if the performance is there.
What does it truly mean for you? And do you know for sure that if one core yields poorly on a C2Q that they throw away the core? Maybe use them as C2D's? So what do failed C2D cores become? Core 2 Solo? Celerons?

Well I believe some of the bad Merom dies become Celeron M's 5xx sequences, so Intel does do that sometimes, but usually yields are high enough that it makes more sense having a native SKU like the A1 Stepping Celeron 4xx sequence core's rather then using failed dual Core dies.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
Makes sense to me. The Intel Quads are really just two Duos glued together. You get a bad die and throw it away --> you only lose a dual core. With the AMD quads (which really are quads, not a hacked together dual Duo), it gets more expensive just to throw them away.

I see you bought into AMD's marketing nonsense, there is no such thing as "really" quad core, it is either Quad Core or it's not. The line is drawn of whatever is in a Single Socket. So Intel's Core 2 Quad's are Quad Core's just like the new Barcelona Opterons. The proper differentiation is MCM vs monolithic.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
The "elegance" of how a product is put together shouldn't matter if the performance is there.
What does it truly mean for you?

Yes, you're right that it shouldn't really matter. The lack of elegance just doesn't sit well with me. Just like the idea of a non-binary-based number of cores doesn't sit well with me , for those of you who think I'm being unfair only to Intel.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
The "elegance" of how a product is put together shouldn't matter if the performance is there.
What does it truly mean for you?

Yes, you're right that it shouldn't really matter. The lack of elegance just doesn't sit well with me. Just like the idea of a non-binary-based number of cores doesn't sit well with me , for those of you who think I'm being unfair only to Intel.

There is no law that says it must be 2^n where N is a Integer value.

 

[nonameo]

all they have to do is take a pair of tin snippers and cut the bad core out

 

[daveybrat]

If they can bring me a Tri-Core processor for $100, then i say....BRING IT! :thumbsup:

 

[Ika]

Isn't the XBox 360 CPU a tri-core?

 

[brxndxn]

I forget where I read it, but it says that three cores with AMD's interconnect system could actually be faster than four cores in some instances because there are 2 interconnects to each processor. This would mean that each core in a three-core Barcelona is only a single step away from the other cores when exchanging data..

/talking out of my ass maybe

 

[njdevilsfan87]

They should go for it. This could be their competition against Intel duos if Barcelona cannot match clock for clock. For the same price, the choice between a 3.0GHz duo (let's not forget overclocking) and at 2.5GHz tri would be pretty tough. AMD would need the future of multi-threading to work in it's favor.

 

[Deliximus]

I think it's a great idea.

 

[bryanW1995]

the inq is such a good web site...

 

[nanaki333]

even if tri-core can beat out quads in some aspects, most basic, dumb consumers are going to see a quad core system next to a tri-core and automatically think quad is better. just like back with the old P4s and such. more ghz = better!!!

 

[Viditor]

One other thought I had is that this gives them a product that has no competition...

Also, if you guys look at most of the QC benches we've seen posted that include core activity, you'll see that the vast majority of multi-threaded apps used on QC only really use 3 cores extensively.

Edit: OOps...I have just gone through the more recent apps, and this is no longer the case. Sorry...

 

[Viditor]

One other point on this that was pointed out to me is the fact that AMD can bump the clockspeed of a tri-core while keeping it at the same power draw as the quad-core.
In other words (for instance), a 2.3 GHz tri-core with the same power/heat draw as a 2.0 GHz quad core.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

sounds interesting...waiting to see what comes of this.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Deliximus
I think it's a great idea.

This is great for the customer, but I can't see how this is good for AMD. Either yields are bad enough for quad cores that AMD can make a whole new line of Tri core processors or sales of quads are so bad, AMD has to disable a core on a good quad to sell at a Tri cores lower price.

This is assuming that this will be a line of processors that gets sold to OEMs to put into finished computers and not something that will sold as chips only to retail buyers.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Deliximus
I think it's a great idea.

This is great for the customer, but I can't see how this is good for AMD. Either yields are bad enough for quad cores that AMD can make a whole new line of Tri core processors or sales of quads are so bad, AMD has to disable a core on a good quad to sell at a Tri cores lower price.

This is assuming that this will be a line of processors that gets sold to OEMs to put into finished computers and not something that will sold as chips only to retail buyers.

Agreed. This is something you would want to do if you owned the entire performance matrix top-to-bottom. But when you literally only occupy the bottom-end of the matrix, adding even more SKU's of lower performance is just Sempron'ing your product portfolio.

Also, doesn't Intel intend to offer something similiar in philosophy? I beleive their plan is to offer quad-core Penryn which can set one or more cores into sleep-like state and then boost the operating frequency of the remaining active cores to speed thru single-thread code even faster.

I'd rather buy processor that does this dynamically, giving myself the latitude of pushing 4 cores at highly threaded apps and 1 or 2 faster clocked cores at single-threaded multi-tasked apps, versus having the CPU supplier lock me into merely purchasing one product type or the other as this rumor on AMD is suggesting.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Deliximus
I think it's a great idea.

This is great for the customer, but I can't see how this is good for AMD. Either yields are bad enough for quad cores that AMD can make a whole new line of Tri core processors or sales of quads are so bad, AMD has to disable a core on a good quad to sell at a Tri cores lower price.

This is assuming that this will be a line of processors that gets sold to OEMs to put into finished computers and not something that will sold as chips only to retail buyers.

It's good for AMD as this would raise their effective yeild by about about 30%.

Yeilds on Barcelona are very low, so AMD has to try to generate some revenue from every chip they can.