There is gonna be Press Release regarding triple-core CPUs in Q1 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
FUD as usual :rolleyes:
Printable View
There is gonna be Press Release regarding triple-core CPUs in Q1 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
FUD as usual :rolleyes:
Those stats dont look right. Specially with the fully defect compared with the others. And there seems to be artificially high number of tricores compared to fully defect and the others.
Compared with who? Who makes such complex quads?
Process is tweaked for quads. AMD has enough single and duals already.
if your reply is to the planet3dnow.de link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ive read the thread and the info the member Dresdenboy posts are pulled out if his ass more or less.
besides that his post is over a year old.
Compare the diesize of places that would kill any option for a CPU with the cache and cores. And even than cache would in most cases not end as a defect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
It just doesnt add up logically. It would _maybe_ be true if any cache defects killed it completely. But it doesnt.
i don't know much about CPU yields, but that looks kinda bad. does anyone know what the yields are for intel's c2d dies for conroe and kentsfield, for comparison?Quote:
27,3% defekt (55/Wafer)
0,4% Single Core (fast 1/Wafer)
4,6% Dual Core (9/Wafer)
23,2% Triple Core (47/Wafer)
44,5% Quad Core (90/Wafer)
a single core with 2mb l3 would be a pretty cool freakshow of a CPU for browsing or HTP :)
but i doubt they'll sell any.
dont pay any attention to those stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
they were calculated based on alot of rumored data. and besides that they were calculated in 2006.
AMD to package up defective quad core Phenoms as "triple-core" Phenom X3 for Q108.
Yields of fully-functional, all-cores-binning-high parts must be really bad, despite AMD's protestations to the contrary.
Leave it to AMD to try to market a failure as a feature.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070917/20070917006584.html?.v=1
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/news...&cm_ite=NA
Those stats are entirely reasonable. Grab a yield calculator, and plug in AMD's announced (at July Tech Day) defect density of <= 0.5 / cm^2, Barc die size of 283 mm^2, and see how bad it is yourself. About ~60 functional QC Barcs can be expected per 300mm die, across all bins. They have to do something with the remaining partially-broken ones. Of course, they should've just sold them as DC parts, but to try to get a little extra $$$ they'll sell some of them as Triple-core, and kill their own QC pricing in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
http://www.betanews.com/article/AMD_...nom/1190069821
http://images.betanews.com/media/994.jpg
:lol:
prices to be adjusted as process yields change as with all chip manufacture :rolleyes:Quote:
and kill their own QC pricing in the process.
if it is a way of selling lower bins, then y not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
It isn't a way of selling lower BINS, it is a way of selling partially defective K10s. But they should've elected to sell potential tri's as duals, IMO.
There isn't enough room for a tri-core segment in between dual and quad. When AMD launches them, they're going to find it very difficult to charge much more for an equivalently clocked QC.
The only way this makes sense is if yields are so horrendous that K10 wafers yield (or bin high enough) mostly dual and tri-functional dies, with hardly any QC parts. In that case, who cares about QCs, if you don't have many...
Intel, in response, should simply price QC Penryns at the same price as 3-thread-performance-equivalent AMD Phenom X3 parts. Same price, an extra core, and much better overclocking. I don't think they should bother releasing their own tri-core parts, though it should be trivial to fuse off one core on a Harpertown if they wanted to. Not sure where these claims of "it will take them a long time to do it" come from.
The other issue with these parts is that they are quite clearly "partially defective". (If they sold them as Phenom X2s, which they are also making a 2-core die for, there'd be no way to tell short of looking up the OPN, or checking under the heatsink, and most consumers wouldn't do that) Now, in reality, who cares if one core is bad if you aren't using it, but that's never a good association for a product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
FudZilla
Well.. that should be in about........................ now.
Just few more hours to see if the rumor is true or just the usual *.
Hey, He actually got it right this time :eek: :p: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3599/amdgt1.jpgQuote:
AMD's first triple-core "Toliman" part will be released in the first half of 2008, along with the dual-core "Kuma" chip.
a second "Heka" next gen triple-core chip will follow in 2009.
Source @ ExtremeTech
Interview: AMD's Simon Solotko and the Third Core
Official Press Release
can be expected doesnt make it a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
And if u could read german you would see that he isnt even shure about calculating it the correct way (asin using the correct nrs) and that hes guessing some numbers and is making a few assumptions.
So i wouldnt put to much trust in those numbers.
and again pls check the date of the post in wich the guy makes those calculations 19.09.2006.
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3599/amdgt1.jpg
looks like they just made some room :hehe:Quote:
There isn't enough room for a tri-core segment in between dual and quad
splitting hairs, but yeah i agree.Quote:
it is a way of selling partially defective K10s
anyways i'll end up with a phenom and a penryn :ROTF::banana:
Shouldn't the codename be "Brokealona" ? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
ahuk; woteva you say; perhaps this thread should just close now; so you can go back to your intel fanclub; and i can go back to counting all the money i am not spending :lol:
Perhaps I wasn't clear: AMD provided the 0.5 def/cm^2 figure in JULY 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
ill take two Brokealona's please and cancel the penryn order. :up: cheers
Very mature and informative..Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Not sure about the "mature" part, but it does capture the "partially defective" nature of the X3 parts, doesn't it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
TWO?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
You expecting the first one to blow another core shortly after installation, or what? :D
ahuk; yeah that's right; tricores are a hoax and even if they do appear they'll break.
ahuk; id better order three then; but ill have to sell my intel crap first; then i can buy more amd crap.
It seems alot of Intel fan boys criticizing without reason.
As the cores go up, so will the die size, and so will the failure rates.
This is simple statistics.
Also, ATI and Nvidia have been crippling their high end parts for years, because the money is in the midrange and lower end, not the high end.
This move lets AMD fill out its product line in the area most profitable, while keeping material waste to a minimum.
This move is smart in many ways. And trust that if intel COULD do it, they would.
Good article at extremetech.
While AMD says it "isn't about yields", it quite clearly IS about overall yields of fully-functional QC parts, and yields OF SPEED and POWER bins,as they admit in the same breath:
And the additional three-core chip also made smart business sense, AMD executives explained: if one of the four cores failed to achieve its rated speed, the company would either have to clock the entire chip down or simply discard the part. In what an AMD spokesman called a hypothetical example, AMD could launch a 2.8-GHz tri-core Phenom as well as a 2.6-GHz quad-core chip.
... ("hypothetical" example? I think not.)
One of AMD's goals is to keep its latest generation of microprocessor cores within the power constraints of the prior generation, which disabling a core helps achieve.