I am sorry, the whole article is in German, but I thought it might be interesting to look at the graph attached.
Link to the pictures:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=...&show=original
Source:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=622354
Printable View
I am sorry, the whole article is in German, but I thought it might be interesting to look at the graph attached.
Link to the pictures:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=...&show=original
Source:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=622354
seems ok if they set it at a good price !!
Looks like it's closer to a quad than a dual.. If only the price is right, it can be a hit.
Is the x3 its own chip design or is it an x4 with a disabled or just not there 4th core?
oli you missed a E6850 in the graph
same question as above is it a really 3 core cpu?
i think that it's both, just like phenom X2 and athlon 64 single cores ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
makes sense, all software devs said they are finding it hard to split up the work to more than 3 main threads
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
It's a quad core with one of them disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
Let's hope for a good price on these 3X.
Yes one core is disabled. A real triple core could be a little slower as it maybe has less L3 cache. I didnt do the testing and I have to admit that I am not really familiar with the exact X3 specs.
Dosent make sense. Do they profit somehow when they disable an existing core?, Why not just let it function as it normaly would?.
It is a good concept to get better profitsQuote:
Originally Posted by G80
not all chips have 4 working cores,if like 30% of the chips you make are a bit broken,that only 3 cores of them work properly,you would have to throw them away...
but if you want to save those chips,and want to make profit on those you just sell them as tricores and disable the 4th core completely
These are X4's with a faulty core. So instead of throwing the CPU away they disable the faulty core and sell it as an X3.
Its broken..not working. And I bet they also got a specific real tricore.Quote:
Originally Posted by G80
Ummm?:confused: My E6600 hits 2966.Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
EDIT: oops, ok: mine is OC'd to 3.333 Ghz. Sorry!
Sounds like it is put to good use then, since they cant re-use the silicon from previous cpu's AFAIK.
Cheater.... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
before anyone starts to make claims about what this CPU really is...
how about some proof?
cause I get sick of people saying "its a quad core with 1 core disabled".
"its a broken quad core".
cause the simple fact is... you dont know.
show me a core picture shot, showing the actual architecture of the CPU or something like that.
if you cant, then all you got is rumours, hear say and guessing.
guessing isnt news.
This is definitely a quad core that has nothing broken and they are using the AMD software to turn a core off and this is similar to hardware france's report from Lake Tahoe for instance
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/694-...enom-9600.html
No doubt this is from the same location and the same idea.
Regards
Andy
It's mentioned by AMD reps themselves:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2184275,00.asp
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-T...ed-67862.shtml
http://www.digit-life.com/news.html?09/31/76
How about it is the most logical step for maximizing financial efficiency? Not to mention they have done it before, by knocking down dual cores to single cores. It is just like speed binning to the next level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
Oh yeah, how about AMD saying so?:rolleyes:
How about, you dont know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa
you never made a CPU have you?
have you designed one?
as for "AMD said so".
who pointed that out?
oh yeah, not you.
Wanna see some pricing
man why do you get this way in a petty subject like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super strokey
same here :).. just curious as I have not $ :P
And you expect what? That AMD made a big caution statement on there website?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
" Caution, phenom X3 are broken phenom X4 ?"
Do you understand what is on this kind of website?
A sample:
Does it look to the truth?Quote:
The new, all-AMD “SPIDER” platform.
AMD’s enthusiast platform, code-named “SPIDER,” brings together an all-AMD processor, graphics card, and chipset for the most complete computing platform ever. Combining these best-in-class components gives you the ultimate computing experience with amazing scalability and exceptional efficiency.
Incredible Computing
* True quad-core performance for an incredibly powerful multitasking experience
* Superb graphics with awesome performance and stunning effects for an intensely visual experience
* Amazing performance tuning with AMD OverDrive™ technology*
* Phenomenal full resolution playback for HD-DVD and Blu-ray content
Amazing Scalability
* Extraordinary platform flexibility so you can buy for today and build towards tomorrow
* Scalable graphics you crave on your budget—up to four cards all running in
ATI CrossFireX™ mode, with support for up to eight monitors
* True PCI Express® 2.0 support allows you to take full advantage of the next generation of high-speed components
Striking Efficiency
* Incredible performance-per-dollar, per watt across the entire platform
* Cooler and quieter operation with enhanced power optimization technology including Cool‘n’Quiet™ 2.0 technology and ATI Radeon™ HD graphics accelerators
* Constant monitoring of system workload and adjustment of power consumption and performance to meet user demands
The AMD “SPIDER” platform. Never before have all of the components of a platform been designed to work together so well, to push each other so far, and to enable a PC experience so complete.
You have contact with AMD executive, to say that:
Is bs?Quote:
AMD Confirms Addition of Three-Core Phenom Chips
By Mark Hachman
AMD Microprocessor Roadmap, Sept. 2007
SAN FRANCISCO—Advanced Micro Devices is adding a triple-core Phenom processor to its roadmap, AMD executives said Monday, selling processors that it would otherwise throw onto the scrap heap.
You believe that was never discuss nowhere before september 2007 because this is a wonderful secret weapon, ?
How about this is old news(the concept) with new benchies? Nothing really impressive as there is barely any room in the lineup between the duals and the quads, might as well nix the duals unless there are tons of bum Phenoms with only 2 cores operating at production frequencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
How about we stop the "how about"?
woah, so its weaker than a quad core but stronger than a dual core.
i could never have guessed lol
Haha, ye! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Who cares how it's made? Let's just hope AMD sells enough of them to stay in business. We all need the competition! :D
MY E6300 @ 3.5GHz hits arround 3100. So ur telling me amd's X3 & X4 are that slowwwww!!
Actaully, it does make sense. AMD has designed a rather large die for their quad core, the side effect of doing monolithic. If one core has one defect, rendering one transistor useless, then that core is dead. They cannot sell it has a quad core because one of the 4 cores is nonfunctional.Quote:
Originally Posted by G80
They now have a choice, throw away that defective quad core and get no money for it, or disable one core call it a tri-core and sell it for something, albiet less than they would sell it as a quad.
It is not hard to understand, get something or get nothing. AMD chose to get something.
How would these chips overclock? They are quad cores, but because 1 core is disabled they generate less heat, right?
There's nothing wrong with AMD selling 4 core cpu's that can only function as 3 cores due to a faulty 4th core, your neighbourhood graphics supplier has been doing that for years.
A 3 core part has a lot of advantages actually if you can enable or disable cores on the fly. It still has to be said that most software nowadays still likes single or duel cores best and so the extra cores up to four do a lot of times just wasting electricty and intial cost. Best to run a dual core most of the time and then enable the 3rd core for some of the time when needed. This depends on pricing though, if it is too close to Intel 4 core then that advantage is wiped out immediately.
Really AMD have to price the 3 core at the same cost as Intel 2 core, especially as Intel 2 core is faster.
Regards
Andy
I wouldn't mind if any CPU MFG allowed disabling cores on the fly through the OS with these new technologies. If they can throttle them, they should be able to do this to some extent. If possible, like Andy said, I would be running two cores most of the time and only enable the additional when needed.
For comparison, my E6600 @ 2300mhz scores 2070. I'm interested in the pricing.
Yes it was explained in the roadmap announcement, attached somewhere in the first page, so i think its pretty covered by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Well they seem to be doing that at Tahoe. Whether they had to reboot between settings is another matter of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
What AMD need is something like the game profiles part of nvidia control panel where you set the parameters for that game when you use it like AA and AF etc.If AMD can do that then you can set the Phenom to run 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores for whatever EXE you are doing without having to think about keep setting it manually.
I guess we will have to see how it goes.
The main problem of course is that everyone has been waiting for a very long time for this. It seems like forever, and now we are being asked again to wait for another length of time to get rid of bugs, get the overclocking up and to wait for the supporting platform and software to be polished.
It's not surprising that people are just jumping for the currently far better product.
Lets hope for the real enthusiasts, and by here I do not mean the driveling fanboys as per my sig, that things get closer so either the performance or the cost boundaries are pushed to our advantage.
Regards
Andy
You can not enable or disable CPU cores on the fly in mainstream OSes.
They simply aint designed for it. They would turn their guts out if you disabled a core while they ran.
You can effectively disable cores with even XP. All you do is prevent threads from running on it, which would keep it idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
A cookie to the first person to find an phenom x2 with a clipped quad under the hood. It would be telling if that scenario popped up.
It seems the bad core ratio is high enough to complete an x3 line??
TDP might be a reason to clip a core.
You dont build good cores and disable them, that would be better yield on quads = lower price or correct profit.
Lets see a cinebench 10, does all the cores run evenly?
Yorkfield, core 4 always finishes first.
Currently there are constraints we know about which involve the BIOS more than the OS because every time an interrupt is received or a broadcast sent the core not disabled through the BIOS will have to become active and woken up. That's not the case with a disabled core since the OS doesn't recognize its existence. But if you could cut core frequency to near zero and OS schedulers can assign threads to specific cores before execution with a future OS, then that would be a decent work around.
There's a program which allows you to do something similar although it won't disable a core, you can choose the affinity of every executable to a specific core. It's called SetAffinity, I've used it for quite a long while now. ;)Quote:
What AMD need is something like the game profiles part of nvidia control panel where you set the parameters for that game when you use it like AA and AF etc.If AMD can do that then you can set the Phenom to run 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores for whatever EXE you are doing without having to think about keep setting it manually.
The Phenom X3 is just a Phenom X4 with one core disabled, which is probably damaged. The same goes for Phenom X2.
The only reason I would get one would be for the cool name
tri-core :)
Stop beating the guy up he was just asking for proof :shrug:
I wonder if the Xbox360 has anything to do with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
whats kinda bugging me is that in the benches shown there the phenom X2 is hardly performing over the old athlon X2. i would have expexted a larger difference between a previous and new generation CPU to be honest.
i only just got my quad core (good old poor students) and its hardly broken a sweat on anything yet, its my first intel core since i got into computers years ago as often the AMD ones were cheaper and clocked nicely (mainly reffering to the 1700xp's that could clock to 3000xp's).
but i've been very impressed with the new quad, it clocked very very well, was priced well and it feels leagues ahead to be honest.
There is a universal proportional difference between avoiding a thread to run on a core. And then tell the kernel and HAL what to do...Quote:
Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa
And idle is a far far difference from being disabled aswell. The idle can still run code.
How much difference in thermal output does 3 vs 4 make... assuming they get a handle on their process, a tricore may be a good fit in the mobile market, vs a higher clocked dual... of course depending on tdp.
Ooops. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by G80
if tri core cheaper than intel quad then they may sell some.
Obviously for MANY price is the most important limiting factor...or else everyone would have a penryn quad :rolleyes:
so it needs to be significantly cheaper than q6600 imo.
It's gotta be.... if a Phenom 2.3 GHz is going for roughly the same as a Q6600, then an X3 at 2.3 GHz must be less than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
i wish intel would make a tri-core :)
of course they can't, given their MCM quad-core design.
What makes you think they can't? One chip dual core, another chip single core....Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
They won't do this though, they will simply drop quad prices down to the Tri-core level... or at least that is what I would suspect.
My E6300 @ 3ghz in the CINEBENCH R10 did 5979
mm cheaper quads....but i dont think they'll need to as the performance advantage is still with the intel quad....Quote:
They won't do this though, they will simply drop quad prices down to the Tri-core level... or at least that is what I would suspect.
but as intel seem to have every other niche filled....how about cheaper 9300/9450's :D
that's called marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
I am sure you do not have the fastest cpu and best mobo with graphics you're self, so what do you have to say then you bought something bad?
it's all about price/performance/features if there was no chooise like in the past we would still pay more then 2x the price.
The use and budget of you're system is most important. most don't care about max performance and best oc because they don't have the knowledge to maximize it, just bought for a friend a 5000 black with 790x and 3850, now that is value for money for a medium gamer and for this comby is easy to oc for him, he just needed a different multi to get it to 3.2 with ease, no troubles with possible htt/fsb change or memory change, just default cas4 ddr2 800.
I use 100% vmware (job) so i am happy that my system is an amd, because on medium-havy load my system performs 15-25% faster then an equal clocked c2d and global response is much better due to memory, now that is a fact and phenom/barcelona will only increase the difference.
But it's not. In VMMark, 2 socket Clovertowns match the performance of 4 socket Opterons and Harpertowns are faster still. And when price/performance (to say nothing about reduced footprint and lower power consumption) is factored, it becomes a massacre for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
And AMD still lacks the confidence to publish any meaningful Barcelona scores.
The reason I am thinking this way is because ultimately Intel has a more cost effective model, their quad cores will costs less to manufacture than AMD's tri-cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
If Intel is really wanting to put the hurt on AMD, they will drop quad core prices down to Tri-core price points, balanced with performance that is...
The jury is still out on whether the tri-core idea is good or bad, it may end up backfiring on AMD... much depending on Intel's response.
You cannot disable a core while running windows with the Phenom, at least not that I know of, but what you can do is lowering the multis on each core individually, so you can run one core at full speed and the other three at a very low one, saving energy. At least in theory. AMD Overdrive didn't really do what it was supposed to do when I tested it.
Phenom X3 will be competing with Wolfdale. In performance and in price. I think that has to be obvious.
I am not so sure, we don't know what Intel will do in the face of the X3 .... X3 will compete in price/performance against anyting within that price/performance range.... be it a dual core or a quad core.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
In single threaded code, it will lose to wolfdale, in multithreaded code it probably would beat wolfdale (dual core). I am not so certain Intel would simply not populate the price points of the X3 with Quads that perform equal or slightly better in single threaded and whollop it in multithreaded.
Again, at a die size of 214 mm^2 compared to 283 mm^2, Intel has much more pricing power than AMD does.
You can specify the number of usable cores in the boot.ini file.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Here is the procedure, not in my words, just googled.
Of course this is at the OS level, not sure how programs/OS communicate to schedule threads on cores if the OS is only 'aware' of one, two, or three cores.Quote:
You need to right click on "My Computer" -> Properties -> Advanced -> Startup & Recovery;
There, you will find a button named "edit" - by pressing it you can edit the Windows Boot.ini file manually.
at the end of the line add the following code:
/numproc=1
save the Boot.ini file and reboot
Your Windows XP Install will now only use one Processor Core.
The games which I had problems with before are now fully functional.
This site also did a X2, X3, and X4: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/694-...enom-9600.html
However the french tanslation of how they did it was not clear:
Quote:
In addition to the Phenom 9600 in its original configuration, we also tested by activating only 2 then 3 core. In Configuration 2 core, this allows us to better understand the performance enhancements related to architectural changes
it is only simulated test, one core is off ...?
I don't know... I have never tried it (using Boot.ini) ... I will, to see what it does... not tonight, it is getting late.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
What you can do is set the processor affinity in the task manager as well, this will schedule only threads on that process that is running.
Try this...
1. Run Cinbench R10, the multiCPU test as normal.
2. Open task manager. Go to the processes tab, and find the executable for Cinbench R10, right click and select Set Affinity.
3. For dual core you can select 1 or 2 processors (checked), in this case check just one, say CPU 0.
4. Run the multiCPU bench again.... it will score and thread the same as if you ran the single CPU bench.
I have done this on two dual core systems for both Cinebench and SuperPI 1M, interstingly the scores are always lower for CPU 0 than for CPU 1, I wrote that off as a scheduler issue with Windows, where some background processes only use the home node.
Jack
And how do you think 107mm^2 would fare, then. Two 3.16 GHz cores vs three 2.3 GHz ones. 6.32 Intel GHz vs 6.9 AMD ones (I know it's not such an easy calculation, but it's not that far off, either).Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Just think how much it would hurt AMD's pride.
And just don't get started on overclocking.
Yes, title is:Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
I don't speak german, but it's enough clear without translation.Quote:
Da sich beim AMD Phenom einzelne Kerne der CPU deaktivieren lassen, haben wir sowohl einen Dual-Core-Phenom als auch einen Triple-Core-Phenom simuliert und mit einem Quad-Core-Phenom und einem Athlon 64 X2 4400+ verglichen.
Well, when I stated the die size I was effectively taking 107 mm^2 x 2 which is the MCM total aggregate die size of Yorkfield (Intel upcoming 45 nm quad) AMD has already released the 283 mm^2 for their quad, and a tir core will be the same die size (one core simply disabled).Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
It would be inappropriate to simply additively add up clock speed to make a relative compare, because in doing so you are assuming perfect scaling for a singular app broken into multiple threads -- this would violate Amdahl's Law.
So I suspect, for most multithreaded apps a Tri-Core AMD 2.3 Ghz K10 core would beat a 3.0 Ghz C2D Wolfdale dual core... this is just a guess.
The success of tri-core against Intel dual core will depend on how the effective consumer desktop software landscape is at the time. With enough apps taking good advantage of tri-core, it could prove to be lucrative.
My concern about this approach (and honestly, I do not see any other way for AMD since they insisted on a monolithic design) is that it throws a kink into the price/performance curve, and puts out another price war so to speak.
In that, Intel could lower the price of their quads such that they win on the multi threaded performance front for the price against Tri-core -- what this does is effectively wipe out AMD's quad core offering right off the bat. AMD would need to lower quad prices, and consquently tri-core prices and it is a death spiral.
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...mark06_cpu.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I know what you are trying to say, but according to these results (courtesy of legitreviews.com) Intel doesn't need a cheap Quad Core to compete with AMD 3Cores. At 3.33GHz, Wolfdale is much closer to full blown Quad Core Phenom, than to its 'crippled' 3 core brother.
A Wolfdale at 3.33ghz will be closer to full blow a Intel quad core at 2300mhz also, so your point is?Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Well, you bring in a good point.... but a 3.33 GHz wolfdale is likely a top (or near top bin) dual core. I just don't have enough data nor a good enough sense of scaling to figure where the tri-core will fit within the performance curve to make a good estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
If I follow, you are arguing that Intel will have enough power/pricing in their dual core line up to compete with the tri-cores, you might be right I cannot be certain.
Jack
So ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
To be honest nobody can predict on this thread how a tricore will suceed $$ wise as there is not enough expertise here. I don't think AMD or Intel know either, so we lot have no chance.
It does give AMD more flexibility, that is all that can be said at the current time.
Regards
Andy
Very true Andy. ;) For now, these are just conjectures.
anything in the pipeline about having 2x 3 core dies on one chip for a 6 core cpu? now that would be a good seller.
I would argue the opposite, the monolithic design has forced them into concieving the tri-core... it is a yield manuever, if yields were hunky-dory I don't think we would have seen a tri-core announcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
Yeah, Intel calls it a "yield improvement technique".Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=allQuote:
Originally Posted by Intel CTO Justin Rattner:
What he mentions is very obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Well, as it appears a 3GHz Wolfdale part (or even 2.83) would be quite enough to match the tri-core, at least in the 3dm06 test. And with way smaller die size, the price can be set pretty low.
English version of the news with additional graphs:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=622388
maybe some one can "unlock" the xtra core and turn it into quad. kinda like that one guy that accidently turned his single core s939 into a dual core 3800 x2 here on XS cant remember where the thread went tho.
i dont think thats possible, especial when the core is physical disabledQuote:
Originally Posted by tvdang7