Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tolliman X3 gets a name

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 8, 2007 8:15:17 PM

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

More about : tolliman

October 8, 2007 9:15:13 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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.
Related resources
October 8, 2007 9:29:39 PM

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????
October 8, 2007 9:32:40 PM

BaronMatrix said:
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.
October 8, 2007 9:45:41 PM

mtyermom said:
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
October 8, 2007 9:51:08 PM

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.
October 8, 2007 9:52:34 PM

MrCommunistGen said:
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...
October 8, 2007 9:55:00 PM

mtyermom said:
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.
October 8, 2007 9:58:30 PM

mtyermom said:
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.
October 8, 2007 11:25:25 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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?
October 8, 2007 11:30:07 PM

yomamafor1 said:
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?
October 8, 2007 11:36:55 PM

Scarchunk said:
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!!!
October 8, 2007 11:58:17 PM

BaronMatrix said:
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?
October 9, 2007 12:03:36 AM

BaronMatrix said:
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?

Quote:

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!!! said:

Oh BTW,

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!

I'm pretty sure you won't be saying that if Intel and AMD's role switched.
October 9, 2007 12:18:04 AM

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
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 À AMD
October 9, 2007 12:51:26 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:04:14 AM

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

I mean, I should be able to run Xbox360 ports better than anyone! w00t!
October 9, 2007 1:19:00 AM

BaronMatrix said:
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.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:22:30 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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.
October 9, 2007 1:24:08 AM

randomizer said:
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.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:28:38 AM

Oh? I need to do more reading, I thought they used candle wax. :heink: 
October 9, 2007 1:30:55 AM

randomizer said:
Oh? I need to do more reading, I thought they used candle wax. :heink: 



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!
October 9, 2007 1:32:41 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:32:51 AM

Daaym.
October 9, 2007 1:34:32 AM

we'll so far i like the quad-core. its awsome. i did a prim95 test and never went over 107F with 4 running full load. which i think is good. unless i am wrong but amd will make its cpu better it just takes some time.

Brian
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:35:15 AM

masteryoda34 said:
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.

Duopoly son. ;) 

Speaking of duopoly, imagine M$ and EA combined *shock and horror*
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 1:36:19 AM

killz86 said:
we'll so far i like the quad-core. its awsome. i did a prim95 test and never went over 107F with 4 running full load. which i think is good. unless i am wrong but amd will make its cpu better it just takes some time.

Brian

They don't have time!
October 9, 2007 1:45:15 AM

very ture lol. but still amd it lacking. we cant make then hurry up only they can do that. i look it as if amd really wanted a quad-core they would have done. i think maybe they are being lazy or something. i mean i dont keep up on computer news until now. i never did before but now i do. because i have my new computer so i try to keep up on it
October 9, 2007 2:00:48 AM

masteryoda34 said:
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.


They'll break the bank first.
October 9, 2007 2:18:07 AM

AMD is not going anywhere.For a company as small as AMD,taking such risk is the American way period.They have come close to bankruptcy be and survive.Besides Intel needs a company to kick around til it gets bet again.AMD will smoke Intel in 09.naive errr native will mature then
October 9, 2007 2:47:40 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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 Fudrix.




I'll just say you can get more Barcelona dies from 65nm 300mm than Opteron dies at 90nm 200mm.
October 9, 2007 4:04:05 AM

BaronMatrix said:
I'll just say you can get more Barcelona dies from 65nm 300mm than Opteron dies at 90nm 200mm.

...not if you taken yield into account...
October 9, 2007 2:41:58 PM

The folks over at VR-Zone have some more K10 news. It seems that AMD has listened to people who said that the origina naming convention was too complex. They have now changed all desktop chip names except Phenom FX.

The part formerly known as Phenom GP will now be Phenom 9-Series.
The part formerly known as Tolliman X3 will now be Phenom 7-Series.
The part formerly known as Kuma X2 will now be Athlon 6-Series.

So rather than Phenom GP-7100, it's just Phenom 7100, 7200, etc.

http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspics/Oct07/09/Phenom.gif

http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspics/Oct07/09/PhenomFX.gif

AMD as you can see has also released final speeds and shipping dates. MSI has already announced their Phenom and Opteron boards so there will be boards. ASUS is said to be right behind so we may get a nice amount of 9500s and 9600s with boards in November. The Sapphire board used at WCG should also be ready. If all the features demoed in the BIOS by the Inq are there, it will be a godsend. The board allows turning off unused slots, mem dividers, etc.


From VR-Zone:

Phenom 9600 and 9500 clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.2GHz respectively will be the first quad-core Phenom processors to hit the market in Nov. Phenom 9700 clocked at 2.6GHz will come along slightly later in Dec. A faster iteration of the quad-core Phenom will come along in Q2 2008 while DVT samples will be available in Q1. Most likely, it will be called Phenom 9800 and clocked at 2.8GHz.
October 9, 2007 3:35:21 PM

They're still 1 year behind Intel... I'd prefer to have an AMD system, but technology moves too fast to buy something that's already a year behind.
a c 96 à CPUs
October 9, 2007 4:00:25 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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.


I wouldn't necessarily say that AMD's manufacturing process is a joke at all. AMD has been able to get 800 more MHz out of their 90 nm process on similar chips with little to no increase in TDP, which is NOT a trivial feat. The first 90 nm dual-cores went up to 2.40 GHz and had 110-watt TDPs. The current 90 nm duals go up to 3.20 GHz with a 125-watt TDP and the 3.00 GHz unit has an 89-watt TDP.

What AMD lacks in manufacturing is the ability to do process shrinks and ramping as fast as Intel does. This is not all that surprising since AMD has two main fabs with one at 90 nm and one at 65 nm. Intel has roughly a dozen big fabs with several at 65 nm and a couple at 45 nm. They have the fab capacity to shut one down, install new tooling, and then ramp while AMD has to be very careful with transitioning as they need the fab to remain somewhat operational during the retooling period.

And as far as stubbornness goes, I am pretty sure you're referring to AMD not making dual-die MCM multi-core chips. This is also not surprising as AMD's IMC platform is not nearly as amenable to it as Intel's FSB platform is. It's as easy to put two dies in one socket as it is two dies in two sockets with an FSB. An MCM with an IMC is a little trickier to accomplish. The best way to accomplish that is by having one IMC per die (two per CPU) and a wide backside bus between the two dies (such as HT 3.0). This necessitated a redesign of the die to accomplish- specifically the independent 64-bit IMCs per die and HT 3.0- and AMD waited to incorporate this into the 10h rather than port it to the K8. They had to redesign the core anyway, so why not make a quad-core version while they were at it?

I think neither camp is more stubborn than the other. Intel is finally getting rid of the reincarnation-of-RDRAM FB-DIMMs and the FSBs in their servers, both of which are overdue. And AMD has 8-core dual-die MCMs in their roadmap as well.

What will be interesting to see is how Intel handles its first IMC chips...
October 9, 2007 4:04:09 PM

Cool! ... so where are the DELETED processors already? :??: 
a c 96 à CPUs
October 9, 2007 4:05:36 PM

Quote:
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.


Spreading misinformation is SOP for MS programmers. They all want you to Get the Facts: http://www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/default.mspx

Sorry, couldn't resist :D 
October 9, 2007 4:15:23 PM

Somehow, I'm not excited. Barcelona was supposed to be out last spring, was officially announced a month ago, and is finally barely starting to be avialable now. And I've still seen no real reviews of it in comparison to Intel's chips, overclocking, game performance, etc. Just the canned reviews handed out on Sept 10. Ok, maybe something exists that I haven't taken note of, but nothing on Tom's or Anandtech.

So I need to build a computer in the next month or so because my present one will be going to my son for use in his business. So what are my choices for that build? Maybe a Phenom based chip will be out next spring, maybe not. That leaves me with either building a slow, dated AM2 system or building a fast, modern Intel system. Of course, I could try a near mythical Barcelona which hasn't been shown much and is more of a server chip rather than a gaming one. Guess I'll have to think this over. Yeah, right.
a b à CPUs
October 9, 2007 4:28:31 PM

Thanks Baron ... I imagine the desktop parts will be a big improvement over the early Barcelona chip reviews to date.



October 9, 2007 5:57:10 PM

Quote:
Cool! ... so where are the f*king processors already? :??: 



Is it November? No? Then they're not out yet. If only my lowly Turion wasn't more than fast enough or my 4400+ wasn't screaming through VMs I'd be worried. I can stay where I am for another year. I'd rather they had Newegg volume when they launch so I'd advise them to take their time.
October 9, 2007 6:00:35 PM

Quote:
They're still 1 year behind Intel... I'd prefer to have an AMD system, but technology moves too fast to buy something that's already a year behind.



What does that even mean? What's a year behind? Quad core? AMD beat Intel to 1GHz, mainstream 64bit OS', Dual Core servers, native quad, IMC, Coherent Bus. It seems like you all want to live vicariously trough a company that would gladly leave you with a nub in place of your arm and leg.

That's kind of weird.
October 9, 2007 6:00:47 PM

Good. Hopefully they will bump up the speed by then, and fix the yield issue.

Because clock for clock, Phenom is not going to perform similarly to Core 2, while dissipating more heat.

I'm getting really tired of this hoopla and no show.
October 9, 2007 6:04:57 PM

Quote:
What does that even mean? What's a year behind? Quad core? AMD beat Intel to 1GHz, mainstream 64bit OS', Dual Core servers, native quad, IMC, Coherent Bus. It seems like you all want to live vicariously trough a company that would gladly leave you with a nub in place of your arm and leg.

That's kind of weird.


...and I remembered AMD charging 300 USD for a X2 3800... :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 

AMD's a year late on 45nm, a year late on quad core, a year late on HK/MG, a year late on "tick-tock" strategy....

As I said, AMD64 doesn't mean much to most people, as they're still using x86. Native quad cost them 0.6 billion per quarter, lowered stock, possibility of going bankrupt, and nothing else.

Time to look at the future, Baron, i mean, Christian.
October 9, 2007 6:05:42 PM

yomamafor1 said:
...not if you taken yield into account...



YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR YIELD IS. NEITHER DO I. DELETED
Did you notice that?

I hope their yields are better than industry standard, Intel also.
October 9, 2007 6:08:18 PM

Amd made a huge mistake buying ati, the concept is solid but the price was too high. AMD is only going to get back in the game with dirt low prices which they can't do or very impressive new technology which they don't have.

The future is not so bright that they have to wear shades. :pt1cable: 

TC :ange: 
October 9, 2007 6:09:04 PM

MU_Engineer said:
Quote:
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.


Spreading misinformation is SOP for MS programmers. They all want you to Get the Facts: http://www.microsoft.com/canada/getthefacts/default.mspx

Sorry, couldn't resist :D 




Wow, I didn't see the post you quoted. I guess whoever said that wasn't here last year when I posted some sample code that everyone and their mother Googled. I wonder if they felt stupid when it turned out to be mine? I was an automation programmer in test at Micorsoft. Now I mostly do websites.
October 9, 2007 6:11:06 PM

BaronMatrix said:
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR YIELD IS. NEITHER DO I. DELETED
Did you notice that?

I hope their yields are better than industry standard, Intel also.


You're right, I don't. But I can guess, based on the data available, right?

Based on AMD's own slide, current 65nm Barcelona are yielding at 30%, maybe a little more. Then AMD came out and said, "look, we really can't make 2.5Ghz Barcelona now, but 2.0Ghz will do". After a while, AMD said, "hey, let's launch a new processor that was never on the roadmap."

Don't you think 30% yield has a little merit now?
October 9, 2007 6:13:11 PM

Quote:
Good. Hopefully they will bump up the speed by then, and fix the yield issue.

Because clock for clock, Phenom is not going to perform similarly to Core 2, while dissipating more heat.

I'm getting really tired of this hoopla and no show.



DELETED. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT AMD\Intel's yields are. Any algorithm is theoretical and materials science changes the effectiveness of litho. I heard one place say that both companies sat around 75% or higher, depending on process maturity.
!