AMD tri core

[reconviperone1]

I thought this was kind of interesting
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42369

 

[San Pedro]

Interesting plan if it is true.

 

[Falken699]

They should call it the Triforce, and have a little elf in AMD green slaying creatures in a "gaming" context. That would be AWESOME!

 

[weskurtz81]

Very interesting. I guess maybe they can create a sole market for themselves. All that really matter is if they can sell them and make money doing it.

 

[Heyyou27]

OMG XBOX360! :lol:

 

[nukemaster]

A tricore would be a good middle ground if priced right....

 

[Hatman]

TriPod

Use a pic of war of the worlds machine on the front.

Or mini-me.

 

[toasty2]

I really like this idea, good for AMD!

 

[Rabidpeanut]

I want 1, or 3...

Though if i ever graduate i will be able to afford a quad or even 8 core( if i can find one by then).

 

[weskurtz81]

heyyou,

the 360 is a much weaker cpu than what both Intel and AMD produce. I am sure you are aware of that though.

 

[reconviperone1]

@falken, i thought the same thing, a zelda amd tie in
@heyyou27, i think the xbox 360 is 3 dual cores for a total of six cores
@toasty 2, i think so too, especially if they can lower the tdp
Amd is kinda sucking right now, but you can't argue that they are'nt innovative.

 

[Heyyou27]

heyyou,

the 360 is a much weaker cpu than what both Intel and AMD produce. I am sure you are aware of that though.

Yeah, I know that the Xbox360 CPU is not a powerhouse; it just happens to be the only current CPU out that has 3 cores.

@heyyou27, i think the xbox 360 is 3 dual cores for a total of six cores

No, the Xbox360 "Xenon" CPU has 3 cores, each of which is capable of 2 threads per clock cycle. The problems lie within it's deep pipeline, narrow execution core, lack of out of order execution, weak to non-existent branch prediction, and the fact it's not even an x86 based CPU. :lol:

 

[weskurtz81]

I wouldn't say they are sucking, they have just been getting hosed by Intel for years now. I think K10 will be pretty competitive in the not so far future. AMD will do what they always do which is increase the performance with each core revision.

 

[nukemaster]

Lower TDP will be where a tri core will be good...if they can get it in or under dual core TDP it will be cool

I think the X86 vs PPC is pointless for now as a properly coded game should be ok with the PPC in the 360, but since i have a pc i have no reason for a console.....but its not weak for a console system....

@ reconviperone1 - Whats that DP? looks like a time ship

 

[crow_smiling]

Lower TDP will be where a tri core will be good...if they can get it in or under dual core TDP it will be cool.

To a degree they can do what they like with TDP by juggling the number of cores against the clock speed. But 3 cores at the same clock speed as 2 cores is going to have a TDP roughly 50% higher I’d have thought!

I see the advantage of 3 or 4 cores over 2 is that you get more performance per watt which makes cooling easier. If your process hits a voltage wall at 3GHz and your quad core part at that speed is within your TDP limit of say 95W, any attempt to overclock a dual-core well above 3GHz will result in the voltage and TDP quickly rising without matching the quad for performance. Tri-core gives a third option.

When you look at the current pricing difference between a Q6600 and similar speed dual-core C2D, there isn’t a lot of space for a tri-core to fit in. Until we see how Intel prices Penryn and how Phenom (X2/X4) compare performance wise it’ll be impossible to say if there’s a gap for them.
With the delay in K10 arriving it’s not unreasonable to wonder if tri-core is mainly a salvage job for any faulty chips. Who cares, if they do go ahead with it it’ll increase their earnings which can’t be a bad thing.

 

[NMDante]

AMD is probably doing this for two reasons; the lesser being salvage, the more important one being that Intel can't do it. Intel would have a far harder time making a tri-core part until Nehalem next September - it is easy to fuse off a core, far harder to MCM disparate cores.

Uh...what?
Why would Intel need a 3 core CPU in the first place? If one of the die fails on a dual core, it can be used as a Core Solo CPU. So, where exactly does Intel need a 3 core CPU.

Another thing is that AMD would be in better shape trying to market a 3 core CPU, just to not let their quads with 1 bad die go into the garbage.

The issue at hand is how to market a 3 core CPU.
What is the distinct advantage of 3 core CPUs over dual cores? And with quad core prices being low, what are the advantages of getting a 3 core over a quad core?

It's a nice scenario, if AMD markets it correctly, but unless they can show why a 3 core is better than both a dual and a quad, it might not really work too well.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

"There may be some salvage done on bad quads, but that is not the overriding reason to do this."

This is what the pro-AMD rag says. However, if the story has any truth the above would be the ONLY reason AMD would do this.

I hope it is true. It would be a great way for AMD to make a good thing out of a flawed manufacturing process. Take defective CPUs, shut down the defective parts, and sell them.

If true, this story hints at yield issues with an immature manufacturing process. AMD criticized Intel for "duct taping" two dual-cores together. However, Intel's way of doing this is brilliant.

Intel knows how to duct to cores together, presto, dual core.

Intel is capable of making dual cores, presto dual core; starts duct taping those together for a quad.

Next step, Intel's manufacturing process makes it possible to make quad cores. Presto, 'true' quad core; Intel starts working on duct taping those together for an Octo-core.


Of course, this is going to happen faster than software can keep up. The enterprise market will love it, but the desktop market will find octo-cores un-needed.


Now look at AMD's approach:

We can't make a quad-core, so we'll re-invent the dual-socket motherboard and do something worse than duct-taping.


Shame on AMD for pumping Quad-FX and then not coming out with any processor updates as they promised would be coming in June.

Quad FX = failure

Core 2 Quad = Success

Barcelona = Overhyped, underdelivered, but aside from the hype merely "acceptable" (as opposed to Conroe which was just plain "WOW")

 

[shargrath]

A Tri core would be a good way to use up the failed quad core's that had imperfections in one of the cores just like intel does with its C2D's that have some defective cache.

 

[misterd33]

In all honesty Im an intel man.

But I do see some advantages of 3 cores, it would give consumers that wanted more than 2 cores at their disposal an additional options, also with only 3 cores there is less heat to disapate and most likely easier to overclock as a result.

That being said they would have to beat the new intel line up for me to think about jumping ships.

 

[reconviperone1]

Lower TDP will be where a tri core will be good...if they can get it in or under dual core TDP it will be cool

I think the X86 vs PPC is pointless for now as a properly coded game should be ok with the PPC in the 360, but since i have a pc i have no reason for a console.....but its not weak for a console system....

@ reconviperone1 - Whats that DP? looks like a time ship

No, actually is a blackbird recon fighter off of the new battlestar galactica

 

[yomamafor1]

AMD is probably doing this for two reasons; the lesser being salvage, the more important one being that Intel can't do it. Intel would have a far harder time making a tri-core part until Nehalem next September - it is easy to fuse off a core, far harder to MCM disparate cores.

Uh...what?
Why would Intel need a 3 core CPU in the first place? If one of the die fails on a dual core, it can be used as a Core Solo CPU. So, where exactly does Intel need a 3 core CPU.

Another thing is that AMD would be in better shape trying to market a 3 core CPU, just to not let their quads with 1 bad die go into the garbage.

The issue at hand is how to market a 3 core CPU.
What is the distinct advantage of 3 core CPUs over dual cores? And with quad core prices being low, what are the advantages of getting a 3 core over a quad core?

It's a nice scenario, if AMD markets it correctly, but unless they can show why a 3 core is better than both a dual and a quad, it might not really work too well.

Agreed. Given AMD's extremely poor yield on Barelona, a tri-core Barcelona might save AMD a little bit.



I just find it laughable that AMD released tri-core barcelona was because of "market demand"

 

[BaronMatrix]

"There may be some salvage done on bad quads, but that is not the overriding reason to do this."

This is what the pro-AMD rag says. However, if the story has any truth the above would be the ONLY reason AMD would do this.

I hope it is true. It would be a great way for AMD to make a good thing out of a flawed manufacturing process. Take defective CPUs, shut down the defective parts, and sell them.

If true, this story hints at yield issues with an immature manufacturing process. AMD criticized Intel for "duct taping" two dual-cores together. However, Intel's way of doing this is brilliant.

Intel knows how to duct to cores together, presto, dual core.

Intel is capable of making dual cores, presto dual core; starts duct taping those together for a quad.

Next step, Intel's manufacturing process makes it possible to make quad cores. Presto, 'true' quad core; Intel starts working on duct taping those together for an Octo-core.


Of course, this is going to happen faster than software can keep up. The enterprise market will love it, but the desktop market will find octo-cores un-needed.


Now look at AMD's approach:

We can't make a quad-core, so we'll re-invent the dual-socket motherboard and do something worse than duct-taping.


Shame on AMD for pumping Quad-FX and then not coming out with any processor updates as they promised would be coming in June.

Quad FX = failure

Core 2 Quad = Success

Barcelona = Overhyped, underdelivered, but aside from the hype merely "acceptable" (as opposed to Conroe which was just plain "WOW")

Speaking of wow, that was perhaps the most scathing criticism I have ever heard. It seems obvious that the 90nm process has reached it's peak and that a 130nm chip can't be shrunk any more. AMD called it the QuadFather which implied that people who do incredibly multi-tasked environments can understand what one or especially two Phenoms would do.

Asus obviously feels it's worth something as XBIT previewed their new Phenom QFX board, which should overcome latency issues with faster HT and the supposedly fixed RAM divider issues with DDR2. Perhaps AMD should have made QFX an MCM but their first quad IS native at 65nm while Intel says they can't make it feasible before 45nm and Nehalem. That in and of itself should gain AMD innovation points.

But thank you for your comment.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Agreed. Given AMD's extremely poor yield on Barelona, a tri-core Barcelona might save AMD a little bit.





I just find it laughable that AMD released tri-core barcelona was because of "market demand"


So I assume you have yield numbers to back up your, what would that be... FUD?

Oh and by the way, the rumor is that this is desktop only, NOT SERVER.

 

[SMU_Pony]

Agreed. Given AMD's extremely poor yield on Barelona, a tri-core Barcelona might save AMD a little bit.





I just find it laughable that AMD released tri-core barcelona was because of "market demand"


So I assume you have yield numbers to back up your, what would that be... FUD?

Oh and by the way, the rumor is that this is desktop only, NOT SERVER.

The simplest answer is almost always the correct one... If it's not because of poor quad yields, then you're suggesting maybe they spent extra time and money designing a native tri-core CPU, and building all the equipment and such required to churn them out? If that's the case their entire management team needs to be hauled off to jail.

 

[yomamafor1]

Agreed. Given AMD's extremely poor yield on Barelona, a tri-core Barcelona might save AMD a little bit.





I just find it laughable that AMD released tri-core barcelona was because of "market demand"


So I assume you have yield numbers to back up your, what would that be... FUD?

Oh and by the way, the rumor is that this is desktop only, NOT SERVER.

Well in case you're aware, Phenom and Barcelona shares the exact same architecture. The only differences are the binning, and the validation of HT3 capable.

With that being said, let's take a look at a slide from AMD's technology analyst day.

The defect density is at 0.5cm2 range.

Then, the following article is from ICEC, detailing yield management.

http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/CEICM/SECTION3.pdf

Now look at Figure 3.9, and match up 0.5cm2 and 283mm2 die size, you'll get a yield of....

I'm not saying this won't change overtime. However, given the date of presentation (7/26), it is unlikely AMD would have some major breakthrough...

Now, BM, your rebuttal please?