[H]ard looks at AMD's triple core

[Telexen]

I'm no software developer, but I know dozens and I'm not in the dark when it comes to theory. From what I've understood about multithreaded coding, there is a misconception that to take care of 3 or 4 cores, the application has to be specifically written to do so. Sure it's possible to do so, but no self-respecting programmer who knows what they're doing would do it without a loop to run as many threads as processors without good reason.

This is not to say that just because you've written a multithreaded application means it will take advantage of all available cores. In many cases (as demonstrated with games) there's just not enough need of CPU power to pass work along to more cores.

Nonetheless, this silly game they seem to be getting into seeing who can pack the most cores onto a die or package into a chip is stupid. Not only is it EXTREMELY cost ineffective, there are much better things developers/engineers could be doing with their time. How about starting a move away from the ridiculously outdated architecture we know as i686?

[MantaBase]

A.) You can utilize as many cores as your OS will address. Of course, a single application may not be able to do this, but running a single application is so...Win3.1. In Linux and Windows you can either assign task to a core or pick one as preference - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

B.) It's not "difficult" to disable a core post etch, but its time consuming and pricey. That's not gonna lower the cost of a chip - it will raise it unless they are also getting a great deal of four cores out that are good and they are stock piling.

C.) My guess from their statements (assuming they are true) is that Kyle isn't thinking deep or devious enough (though I am sure he is capable of one or the other). I would guess the following if I were spying on AMD:

1). The quad produces too much heat in the current design and is also prone to electron jump - so it won't overclock well - and won't clock well in general (right now).

2). Shut off one core (before lithography) and you have three running at lower heat and with fewer problems - you can now up the clock.

COnsiracy Theory:

Knowing the above - make the core's enabling and disabling software accessible through a simple EPROM type circuit in the chip - as part of the design. Chips that come off the line can be quickly tested and configured for three cores to run at higher clocks. Leak the workaround to enabling the 4th core. Drive the enthusiast market crazy trying to open the forth core and arguing about 3 vs 4 core benches. Introduce a line of lingerie and t-shirts that say "Open the 4th Core". Hire a hack and write a book called "The 4th Core". Sell the rights to Warner for 1.2 billion - They make a movie called "TRON Rebooted: Enter The Fourth Core" with Jet Lie starring. Sell lots of little AMD dolls to kids. Sell more chips.

They should hire me.

Manta

[Yellowhello]

Originally Posted by MantaBase

They should hire me.

Manta

Most def man! Looks like you know your stuff...

[polobunny]

Originally Posted by MantaBase

A.) You can utilize as many cores as your OS will address. Of course, a single application may not be able to do this, but running a single application is so...Win3.1. In Linux and Windows you can either assign task to a core or pick one as preference - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

B.) It's not "difficult" to disable a core post etch, but its time consuming and pricey. That's not gonna lower the cost of a chip - it will raise it unless they are also getting a great deal of four cores out that are good and they are stock piling.

C.) My guess from their statements (assuming they are true) is that Kyle isn't thinking deep or devious enough (though I am sure he is capable of one or the other). I would guess the following if I were spying on AMD:

1). The quad produces too much heat in the current design and is also prone to electron jump - so it won't overclock well - and won't clock well in general (right now).

2). Shut off one core (before lithography) and you have three running at lower heat and with fewer problems - you can now up the clock.

COnsiracy Theory:

Knowing the above - make the core's enabling and disabling software accessible through a simple EPROM type circuit in the chip - as part of the design. Chips that come off the line can be quickly tested and configured for three cores to run at higher clocks. Leak the workaround to enabling the 4th core. Drive the enthusiast market crazy trying to open the forth core and arguing about 3 vs 4 core benches. Introduce a line of lingerie and t-shirts that say "Open the 4th Core". Hire a hack and write a book called "The 4th Core". Sell the rights to Warner for 1.2 billion - They make a movie called "TRON Rebooted: Enter The Fourth Core" with Jet Lie starring. Sell lots of little AMD dolls to kids. Sell more chips.

They should hire me.

Manta

Gotta love the conspiracy :P

Edit: Jet Li, by the way.

[Quakindude]

Originally Posted by MantaBase

COnsiracy Theory:

Knowing the above - make the core's enabling and disabling software accessible through a simple EPROM type circuit in the chip - as part of the design. Chips that come off the line can be quickly tested and configured for three cores to run at higher clocks. Leak the workaround to enabling the 4th core. Drive the enthusiast market crazy trying to open the forth core and arguing about 3 vs 4 core benches. Introduce a line of lingerie and t-shirts that say "Open the 4th Core". Hire a hack and write a book called "The 4th Core". Sell the rights to Warner for 1.2 billion - They make a movie called "TRON Rebooted: Enter The Fourth Core" with Jet Lie starring. Sell lots of little AMD dolls to kids. Sell more chips.

They should hire me.

Manta

DAMN YOU!

You made me giggle! loudly while at work! You just don't GIGGLE around Army guys!

[simple_inhibition]

if AMD is having bad yields of quadcore parts it only makes sense to disable the faulty core and market them as a tri-core. also take into account their current financial situation. they just dont have the money to toss out 3 perfectly working cores because one refuses to run properly. if they can bump the speeds of the tri-core above the quads and sell them for 3/4th the cost of a quad, then its a smart move. it brings them much needed cash without having to waste those 3 valuable cores. i dont think amd is targeting the enthusiast community with these parts due to the fact that they realize most of us will figure out that one of the cores has been disabled (if thats the fact). i believe theyre targeting the mainstream average joe user: the kind of person who in their mind thinks more is better than less but cant quite afford the cost of a quad-core.

thats my 0.02 on the matter

[Nasgul]

Can't quite afford the cost of a Quad-Core?

How much lower that price can it get? The Q6600 was $550 and now $280, and people were buying C2D E6600 for the same price (or lower) a year ago. Plus, lots of people that upgrades their system, end up selling the hardware that they're replacing the new one with.

Not to mention that K10 hasn't been the revelation that everyone expected. I'm sure Intel and their price war will probably lower the price of the Q6600 or bring the Q6400 back and then amd will be in a bigger whole.

[simple_inhibition]

no, what im saying is say joe snuffy has exactly $200 to spend, so that puts the Q6600 out of his price range. now you have a choice at a 2.66ghz dual core, or a 2.4ghz tri-core. the average guy is gonna think more cores = more performance because most people like that have little to limited knowledge about multi-threaded programs. look back to when dual core was just coming into the market. i swore by my 3700 back then. i eventually upgraded to an opteron 165 dual core even though it was 400mhz slower.i was worried i would see a difference due to the clock speed, but you know what? i didnt notice any difference at all other than how much more responsive my system felt. now, ill never go back to a single core system.
i like the idea of tri-core. i dont care who launches it first as it just means more choice and parallelism for the consumer.

[halutzparilla]

cheap and performance together will declare the next stage of Intel Vs.AMD war...
the more the supply and less demand the better the lower cost there will be, [got to love my previous economics teacher]

like S_I said, it doesnt matter who put the product out in market first, people will still love the choice...

with Manta's conspiracy theory =

[MantaBase]

I guess I'm trying to say, I doubt AMD is having a widespread bad yield on Quads. Now, they may not be yielding Quads with high clock speeds - but that's not bad yield - the chip would still work. The cost of figuring out which core is poor and disabling it after the fact is too high to justify doing it me thinks. So, what are you left with? They are disabling a core by design, or disabling the same core on each chip after the fact (and a check). Just my thoughts - crystal ball is in the shop

Yeah...Jet Li (not Lie)

Manta