Tolliman X3 gets a name

[BaronMatrix]

The folks over at VR-Zone are reporting that AMD has named the X3 chips Phenom 7xxx series. The first two models are stated to be at 2.3 and 2.5GHz. They are reporting that they are quads with one chip disabled. Due date is supposedly Mar 08 or what should be right after Kuma.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/AMD_Triple-Core_Is_Phenom_7-Series/5327.html

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I thought they were going to be called Defecteron?

 

[BaronMatrix]

I thought they were going to be called Defecteron?

Wow, that was almost funny. Almost. Are you all just mad because IF they need to they can sell a 2.5GHz X3 rather than a 2GHz X4. That's binning not yield.
I would bet that there yield for fully functional chips is at about 70%+. The bin splits for above 2.5GHz may be under 50%, but I doubt it.

 

[mtyermom]

What the hell is the point of a 3 core CPU if you have to disable one of four cores on the die to make it so????

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Wow, that was almost funny. Almost. Are you all just mad because IF they need to they can sell a 2.5GHz X3 rather than a 2GHz X4. That's binning not yield.
I would bet that there yield for fully functional chips is at about 70%+. The bin splits for above 2.5GHz may be under 50%, but I doubt it.

Nope, I'm not mad. I'm just making fun of AMD's stubbornness and how their manufacturing process is a joke compared to Intel.

 

[MrCommunistGen]

What the hell is the point of a 3 core CPU if you have to disable one of four cores on the die to make it so????

Makes it so they can sell the chip rather than throw it away if it has a bad core.

-mcg

 

[yomamafor1]

DANG IT!!

I was opting for Oopseron...

As for binning and yield, Chris, you need to step away from your biased point of view, and accept that AMD's 65nm on K10 is currently pretty much in the toilet.

 

[mtyermom]

Makes it so they can sell the chip rather than throw it away if it has a bad core.

-mcg

But that's different than disabling a working core...

 

[yomamafor1]

What the hell is the point of a 3 core CPU if you have to disable one of four cores on the die to make it so????

Because if AMD can't sell those 3 core defective Oopseron, they're going to waste a good core by binning them as dual core.

 

[Scarchunk]

But that's different than disabling a working core...

Who said that it was a WORKING core? This is done to increase yields of otherwise defective chips.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Nope, I'm not mad. I'm just making fun of AMD's stubbornness and how their manufacturing process is a joke compared to Intel.

How can you say that when Intel admitted they couldn't - with all of their resources - make a viable native quad on 65nm?

 

[BaronMatrix]

DANG IT!!

I was opting for Oopseron...

As for binning and yield, Chris, you need to step away from your biased point of view, and accept that AMD's 65nm on K10 is currently pretty much in the toilet.

Don't call me Chris until you post your real name. And even then my name is Christian NOT Chris. Here you go again. So the TACC SuperComputer will be crap because it uses Barcelona? Or Dell was just lying when they said Barcelona creates the most powerful VM Host ever? Or perhaps the near 100% scalign with clock is a figment of everyone's imagination?

No, I know, Anand and David Kanter and everyone else who doesn't share your opinion is smoking CRACK? I can't prove their yields and neither can you. STFU!!

BTW, why are you so rabid?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Who said that it was a WORKING core? This is done to increase yields of otherwise defective chips.

Provide a link saying they have so many with defective cores rather than ones that don't bin as high. nVidia, ATi and pretty much every other chipmaker does the same thing. The chup won't clock to 2.6GHz because of a core? Disable the core and clock the others to 2.6GHz. By the time March rolls around I doubt they have greater than 5% of chips that have one or more defective (read: don't work at all) cores.

No matter how you feel AMD is an excellent CPU manuf. They have the first native quad core PERIOD. That means even IBM and Samsung don't have them. Tilera did release a 64 core chip, but it's more slower cores.

Oh BTW,

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!

 

[yomamafor1]

Don't call me Chris until you post your real name. And even then my name is Christian NOT Chris. Here you go again. So the TACC SuperComputer will be crap because it uses Barcelona? Or Dell was just lying when they said Barcelona creates the most powerful VM Host ever? Or perhaps the near 100% scalign with clock is a figment of everyone's imagination?

No, I know, Anand and David Kanter and everyone else who doesn't share your opinion is smoking CRACK? I can't prove their yields and neither can you. STFU!!

BTW, why are you so rabid?

Christian, since when did I state that K10 sucked? I stated that K10 will be outperformed in single threaded environment, but will do pretty good when scaled. You can do a search, ask people, or do whatever, but I've never said K10 will suck in terms of scaled performance.

On the other hand, AMD's 65nm sucked, because they can't yield Barcelona at an acceptable rate (a little bit more than 30%), and at competitive clockspeed. How do you think AMD's going to compete with 2.0Ghz Barcelona? How do you think AMD's going to save themselves if they can only yield at 30%?

What about Anand and David Kanter? I used both of them as a reference to my argument. I used Anand's figure on memory bandwidth and latency to illustrate that K10's latency is too high. I used David Kanter's comment to argue that K10 will fall short of expected IPC, and fall short of its competitor, who has been out on the market for 6 months!

Christian, as I said, stating your real name doesn't mean jack if you still can't get the most basic things right. You still can't distinguish between latency and bandwidth. You still can't accept the fact that having a tri-core is a yield issue, rather than a binning issue. You simply can't accept the fact that AMD is in the mud, and they're sinking day by day, while Intel is poised to move in for a kill. If AMD goes down like this, do you think FCC will go after Intel for its monopolistic behaviors? No, because AMD basically bled itself to death.

And cut the crap on Intel's "selling under-cost" argument. Just because Q6600 is 70 USD more than E6600, doesn't mean an E6600 die cost 70 bucks. You claimed that you were once a software programmer for Microsoft, yet you still haven't demonstrate that. Simply spreading mis-information, and use "because I was a software programmer from M$", is not an act of heroism, but an act of irresponsibility. As I said, you're embarrassing yourself.

By the way, why are you so rabid?

 

[yomamafor1]

Provide a link saying they have so many with defective cores rather than ones that don't bin as high. nVidia, ATi and pretty much every other chipmaker does the same thing. The chup won't clock to 2.6GHz because of a core? Disable the core and clock the others to 2.6GHz. By the time March rolls around I doubt they have greater than 5% of chips that have one or more defective (read: don't work at all) cores.

And where is your proof that every Tolliman is just a quad core with disabled core? You posted yourself, that the current X3s are all quad with one defective. Where is your proof?

No matter how you feel AMD is an excellent CPU manuf. They have the first native quad core PERIOD. That means even IBM and Samsung don't have them. Tilera did release a 64 core chip, but it's more slower cores.

No one said AMD isn't an excellent CPU manufacture, but we're saying AMD didn't do the smart thing by manufacturing a chip that's practical. By having a native quad core, AMD is late by 6 months, with sub-par performance, bleeing cash, and nothing else. Even with MCM, Intel is able to crush K8, K10, maintain an acceptable power envelop, launch at very high clockspeed, and excellent yield.

AMD, the smarter choice?

Oh BTW,

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!

I'm pretty sure you won't be saying that if Intel and AMD's role switched.

 

[killz86]

i am no fanboy. of amd or intel. i am just a hardcore gamer. that is all. i think amd is doing a good at trying to make a full quad-core like intel did. amd just needs to work on it some more. i mean really nor intel or amd have room. to talk they have both made awesome cpus in the past amd had the crown and now intel does. i mean i just got a q6600 and its awesome. i got my buddy a amd x2 and its awesome. i mean really all this comes down to is peoples person options. on this. i mean amd is for the budget builders. and intel is for the more powerful user's. but in the end both are good companies. i think its awesome amd made a cool x3 cpu. i think its awesome because its something differnet in the market. and i dont know how much they will cost. but amd and intel are both good companies. i know you think i am a noob or something. but i am just saying. like i have said before companys have there good days and there bad days just like we do. but amd is slacking right now. and intel is on its game this is just how i see it. i mean look at netburst. it was bad and look at barton core. they where both hot. and run ok. or good. which ever you pref. but in the end both are good companies. i mean as long as your ocmputer does what you want it to do its good. and awesome.


just saying it how i see it.

Brian

 

[jaguarskx]

Meh.

All this really proves is that successfully manufacturing a native quad core CPU is no walk in the park. The process is still in it's immature stage so it is reasonable to think yields are not as high as AMD would like. It will take sometime for AMD to improve the process. The short term consequences is reduced profit margins since less native quad core CPU can fit on a 300mm silicon disc.

While Intel does not have a "true" quad core CPU, their manufacturing model allows them to maximize their product potential because of lower risk of defective processors. The chances of a single core failing to meet design specs in a dual core is less than that in a quad core CPU.

The long term outlook for AMD will be that they are more likely to successfully manufacture native quad core CPUs than Intel will be. However, that does not mean a native quad core, will naturally outperform a quad core made of two "glued" dual cores.

As a loose analogy, the longer pipelines in a P4 didn't naturally mean it could outperform an Athlon XP or Athlon 64.

 

[randomizer]

I want an X3, screw X4! Cheap asses ftw!

I mean, I should be able to run Xbox360 ports better than anyone! w00t!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

How can you say that when Intel admitted they couldn't - with all of their resources - make a viable native quad on 65nm?

EXACTLY! That is the point. Intel knows that they wouldn't be as profitable if they made a native quad core at 65nm, SO THEY DIDN'T.

AMD is going to bleed because of their native stubbornness. So Intel, with its inferior design, has better performance and a quad core more than a full year ahead of AMD.


That's why Intel called it the non-naive quad core, rather than the non-native.


AMD 65 native quad core = FAILURE

Intel MCM quad core = SUCCESS



Evidence of this is the fact that you can buy a desktop quad core from Intel, and you can't from AMD.


So if a MCM is 'stupid' in your mind then what the hell do you call AMD's attempt at four cores known as "QuadFX". AMD basically said, "Damn, we can't even make an MCM, so how about we make a DUAL SOCKET motherboard!"

Gotta love how AMD has basically dumped everyone who bought "QuadFX".

So if non-native is inferior, then what do you call it when a company can't even get them in the same package?

I await your answer DELETED.

 

[randomizer]

EXACTLY! That is the point. Intel knows that they wouldn't be as profitable if they made a native quad core at 65nm, SO THEY DIDN'T.

Word. I remember seeing somewhere that an AMD exec said that if they had the time over again, they would have gone with 2 duals glued together.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

2 duals glued together.

May I also remind you that if Intel has used 'glue' then AMD has used scotch tape to make their only desktop quad option, the dual socket Quad FX.

 

[randomizer]

Oh? I need to do more reading, I thought they used candle wax.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Oh? I need to do more reading, I thought they used candle wax.

They tried candle wax. AMD is very energy efficient, but the high efficiency 230 watt quad fx cores melted the wax.


AMD'S DESKTOP QUAD CORE IS SUPERIOR! QUAD FX!!! 230 WATTS IS GOOD!

 

[masteryoda34]

It seems fairly obvious to me that the goal of AMD under Hector Ruiz is to "break the monopoly", even at the expense of profitability.

 

[randomizer]

Daaym.