[H]ard looks at AMD's triple core

[Capper]

AMD Triple Core Information

Take a gander at Kyle's article here, and tell us what you think......

[Yellowhello]

So pretty much defective quad-cores... Better than throwing them in the trash I guess. If the triple-cores end up being a ton cheaper than the quad-cores, I say it's a pretty good idea!

[Jokerswild]

"Qualifying is done on every part, but identifying a weak core and subsequently turning it off to allow the entire part to scale is something that certainly did not happen by accident. I think AMD has just managed to keep a secret for once."

What a AMD fanboy. Lets see, lets choke the life out of one of the cores that ought to make everything better.

[Capper]

I'm torn here. Part of me is screaming BS.....but part of me doesn't see the harm is releasing a cheaper tri-core part, especially with Quads not fully utilized by most software.

I do see a major marketing spin in the piece, but in all honesty, theres a point to it no? I mean, I might not have written is as rosey, but does the part not have its merits?

[Telexen]

I'm not sure how anyone with rational knowledge of how chips are designed and manufactured can think that it's as simple as just cutting off the defective core and making a 3 core die out of it.

[Yellowhello]

Ya, I like the idea... But ONLY if the tri-cores are A LOT cheaper... If it's a couple dollars cheaper, forget it.

AMD has the full native quad-core architecture, so isn't there more of a chance that one of the cores is going to defective? I mean, if Intel had a defective quadcore, they could just throw out 2 cores as opposed to 4, using 2 dual-core CPU's for their quadcores. Don't know if anyone got that, and don't know if it's true either, so someone please save me...

I do agree, that article was a tad fanboi-y.

[halutzparilla]

i dont know, when i started tinkering with computer, i was no idea that AMD was different company from intel... so right now, i'm a bit not impressed until i see result of the Tricore, taking in consideration nothing utilize quads for now but if Tricore is not cheaper by the hundreds against the quads still be hard to switch from duacore, i'm taking this in cases of people like me that have to tighten their wallet for getting the cheap bang for the buck...

and if speculations is correct that AMD just selling defective Quads, i wouldnt be surprise if this cost them a lot of RMA, in the first place the Piece is already 1 core defective...

[Stormcrow]

The ideology behind it makes perfect sense. A 2GHz Quad will spank a 2.8GHz Dual, but only if the supporting code and programs actually utilize all four cores. I noticed this problem with my X2 3800+. It has two cores both at 2GHz, but most of the games out there don't even support two cores. So there's only one core being used, and a 2.2GHz+ Athlon single core would outperform it. I kinda figured that the more cores you slap on the die, the harder it is for them to harmonize with each other. A 2.5GHz Tri-Core would be a better pick over the 1.8GHz Quad for the simple reason that usually you'll have about half those cores sitting idle or handling instructions which you manually isolate to them. If they both use the exact same architectures, I'd go for the tri-core because dual-core support is just now starting to become common let alone quad and the clockspeed will make a difference when you have one or more cores sitting idle and not using their full potential.

This does make me wonder, though. Wouldn't a tri-core be actually harder to utilize and scale then a quad? Just seems like that extra core would be a third wheel fighting for cache and not doing much. Like everyone else said, if the tri-core is cheaper then the quad by a substantial amount, its worth the purchase. If not, either a dual or quad would be the better buy.

[Telexen]

Originally Posted by yellowhello

Ya, I like the idea... But ONLY if the tri-cores are A LOT cheaper... If it's a couple dollars cheaper, forget it.

AMD has the full native quad-core architecture, so isn't there more of a chance that one of the cores is going to defective? I mean, if Intel had a defective quadcore, they could just throw out 2 cores as opposed to 4, using 2 dual-core CPU's for their quadcores. Don't know if anyone got that, and don't know if it's true either, so someone please save me...

I do agree, that article was a tad fanboi-y.

I'm just not sure how you "throw out" any core that's defected, or how you can really determine that a single core is defective rather than the entire die. When these wafers go through testers they test the die because that's how they're designed...then they're cut from the wafer.

I was under the assumption that with AMD all cores are being manufactured on the same die, and aren't just packaged that way later.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Telexen

I'm just not sure how you "throw out" any core that's defected, or how you can really determine that a single core is defective rather than the entire die. When these wafers go through testers they test the die because that's how they're designed...then they're cut from the wafer.

I was under the assumption that with AMD all cores are being manufactured on the same die, and aren't just packaged that way later.

I know in the case of GPU's, with the X1950GT it used the same chip at the X1950XT but with an entire quadrant of the GPU shut down due to pipeline errors or difficulty in scaling to the right clockspeeds. Perhaps the same can be done with a CPU. If it's not scaling to the proper speeds, due to defects or all 4 cores just not wanting to get along, one of the cores is shut down and isolated so that the remaining three can reach a higher and more effective speed.