jmke

The rather unique triple-core microprocessor by Advanced Micro Devices due in early 2008 is nothing else but a way to increase the amount of working processors based on the new micro-architecture and featuring so-called “native” quad-core implementation, claims chief technology officer from Intel Corp.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...008235249.html

__________________

Kougar

That Intel is trying to shoot the idea full of holes (And doing such a bad job of it) is only underscoring the point in my mind that AMD hit on a smart idea. Three "K10" cores would still be better than the typical C2D Dual-Core without OCing involved, and would force Intel to reciprocate if they don't want to give AMD the opening.

Or they would have to lower their Quad prices a bit more to make AMD's tri-core prices unattractive, depending on how AMD prices these.

Sidney

does not matter either way;
Insufficient ocing headroom, most gamers won't like it and certainly not from braggers.

Lower price than Intel Quad will be for sure or it can't get into OEM. The main player is still in dual core.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

Rutar

I wonder how the thermal properies and power consumption are, how that one disabled core is affecting it.

It is only a logical move if you got plenty of broken dies because producing an expensive 4 core die for something that will get less money than a cheaply made 2x2 solution.

Kougar

As I said, without OCing involved. I am not coming from the enthusiast POV, but a consumer's POV. Enthusiasts are only a small fraction of AMD's pie, especially since the simple majority migrated to Intel systems already or are still using EOL'd AMD platforms.

JumpingJack

Actually, if you read the wired inteview linked within, you will see that Intel stated that releasing a tricore is a 'yield improvement technique, pure and simple', this is not shooting holes in the idea this is simply stating the obvious.

If one of the four cores is faulty, AMD has a choice, throw the die a way or have it work with three cores and sell it (albiet at a lower price). Which do you think they would choose, get nothing for a die with 3 working core or lose less by selling a tricore CPU? It's not a good idea nor is it a bad idea, it is simply a means to improve yields from the wafer and improve the revenue per wafer.

If there is a negative to be taken with this -- it means that AMD's quad-monolithic yields are not all that great, and there is enough defective quad core die that they are comfortable releasing a defective quad as a tri core. Nonetheless, AMD could mask out a tri-core die natively and get the die size down -- but that would be a complete redesign as the L3 cache, cores, IMC everything would need a completely new layout. Not really ecomonical, but possible......

It will remain to be seen if this was really a good idea or not, since AMD will be selling a 283 mm^2 die for much less than they could get with a fully functional 4 cores on the die... if they create such a demand that exceeds their 'fail rate to tri core', then they could actually be shooting themselves in the foot by now intentionally disabling a good core just to satiate tricore demand.