Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011 - Page 11

post #101 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleannex;12462054 
He meant the Opterons are 45nm, but are clocked higher than their competition, all the first Bulldozers will be 32nm, so he's saying they will be clocked higher still. Hence why Gtech said he'd let the cat out of the bag. So many rumours have said Interlagos will be 3.5Ghz with 500Mhz turbo @ stock, that it almost written in stone.:

Thank you that make sense.
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
post #102 of 168
As Tim Allen would say "Argh, argh, argh!"

Keep the core race going peeps. Because as we've seen, what happened on enterprise level leads to the mainstream level.

And InB4MoreCoresMeanNothing: Tell me that again in a few years from now.
My gaming desk
(14 items)
 
Miner
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Sapphire 290x Patriot Viper Extreme Division 4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ Vertex 460 WD 1TB Blue Koolance 380A EK-FC R9-290X 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Monoprice 27" IPS-Glass Pro Panel DUCKY! Antec HCP 850W 
CaseMouse
Hand built wooden desk Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD A10 7850K ASUS A88X-Pro Sapphire 280x Sapphire 280x 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Patriot Viper Xtreme Div4 1866mhz 60GB Vertex2 WD Caviar 500AAKS XSPC Rasa 
OSPowerCase
Windows 7 64 bit EVGA 1000W G2 Thermaltake Level 10 GTS 
  hide details  
Reply
My gaming desk
(14 items)
 
Miner
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Sapphire 290x Patriot Viper Extreme Division 4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
OCZ Vertex 460 WD 1TB Blue Koolance 380A EK-FC R9-290X 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Monoprice 27" IPS-Glass Pro Panel DUCKY! Antec HCP 850W 
CaseMouse
Hand built wooden desk Logitech G700S 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD A10 7850K ASUS A88X-Pro Sapphire 280x Sapphire 280x 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Patriot Viper Xtreme Div4 1866mhz 60GB Vertex2 WD Caviar 500AAKS XSPC Rasa 
OSPowerCase
Windows 7 64 bit EVGA 1000W G2 Thermaltake Level 10 GTS 
  hide details  
Reply
post #103 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub50hz;12461059 
Think about that for a second. In order to turn a profit from a low-yield die, initially, defective Deneb product could be sold as 2- and 3-core chips in an effort to be less wasteful. AMD was able to retain profitability by fulfilling the needs of other market segments with those products, and as such, felt no need to develop a secondary nor tertiary die to satisfy the demand of X2 and X3 product.

So? This is still not the reason that multiple cores were developed. It makes sense economically, but when you think about it technically it does not.

You can just imagine the talk they had at AMD

So you're telling me that we should spend billions on developing SMP technology so we can cut our losses by minimizing the impact of silicon imperfections, instead of working on the issues that cause the imperfections themselves?

When you put it like that...

It just wouldn't have happened.

This wikipedia quotation is fairly good:
Quote:
Several business motives drive the development of dual-core architectures. For decades, it was possible to improve performance of a CPU by shrinking the area of the integrated circuit, which drove down the cost per device on the IC. Alternatively, for the same circuit area, more transistors could be utilized in the design, which increased functionality, especially for CISC architectures.
Eventually these techniques reached their limit and were unable further to improve CPU performance. Multiple processors had to be employed to gain speed in computation. Multiple cores ere used on the same chip to improve performance, which could then lead to better sales of CPU chips which had two or more cores.
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #104 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus;12473629 
So? This is still not the reason that multiple cores were developed. It makes sense economically, but when you think about it technically it does not.

I never said it was the reason that multi-core products exist, only that AMD developed a creative solution to their low-yield issue. You can't bin bad cores, but you sure can lock 'em out and sell the remainder as usable product.
post #105 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub50hz;12474565 
I never said it was the reason that multi-core products exist, only that AMD developed a creative solution to their low-yield issue. You can't bin bad cores, but you sure can lock 'em out and sell the remainder as usable product.

This is pretty much untrue, but thanks for playing. Yields are just fine. If yields were an issue then you wouldn't see people unlocking cores.
post #106 of 168
I really hope bulldozer kicks it up a notch or two.. AMD needs to make more powerful cores not just tack on more of them. I think with more powerful cores and quad Chanel memory they will do better, but currently there CPU offerings don't impress me on a performance level, just a good price level.
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
post #107 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12474689 
This is pretty much untrue, but thanks for playing. Yields are just fine. If yields were an issue then you wouldn't see people unlocking cores.

True dat.

Hmm I have always read that the cores are usually locked out for a reason though.. are you saying they are all perfectly working quad cores? and you just lock them for kicks? IDK if I would trust an unlocked cpu with my data if it has a chance of being flawed.

actually.. no way in hell would I trust an unlocked cpu for my personal computer, maybe my test bench/ work computer, but never would I trust my personal data to it, unless they are all in fact perfectly working quad core cpu's which then just begs the question why not just lower the price and just sell quads?
Edited by Killam0n - 2/21/11 at 5:03pm
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
Core
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 @ 4.0Ghz Asus P6X58D-E Diamond XOC 4870/512 @ 800//4400 Corsair 3x4gb DDR1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x500GB WD RE2 Raid0 Asus Combo, Asus Combo Corsair H80 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HP 2408h Wide Saitek Eclipse II Corsair HX850W Antec 900 Two 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech Mediaplay Cordless Black as in Dark abyss 
  hide details  
Reply
post #108 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12474689 
Yields are just fine. If yields were an issue then you wouldn't see people unlocking cores.

Conversely, not all cores unlock successfully. If all cores were indeed faultless, AMD's business model would have to be heavily based around selling enthusiast/mainstream 2- and 3-core Phenom II product in extremely heavy volume to recoup the losses from making every single one of them a successfully binned quad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12474689 
This is pretty much untrue, but thanks for playing.

I could have gone without the snarky reply, but I understand it's more your style to throw the bait and wait for someone to get upset about it, and then provide a true explanation.
post #109 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killam0n;12474715 
True dat.

Hmm I have always read that the cores are usually locked out for a reason though.. are you saying they are all perfectly working quad cores? and you just lock them for kicks? IDK if I would trust an unlocked cpu with my data if it has a chance of being flawed.

actually.. no way in hell would I trust an unlocked cpu for my personal computer, maybe my test bench/ work computer, but never would I trust my personal data to it, unless they are all in fact perfectly working quad core cpu's which then just begs the question why not just lower the price and just sell quads?

What I am saying is that there is not an issue with yields. Sometimes processors have cores locked down because there is more of a demand for quads during a certain tiem period. Actually, if there are unlockable cores that is more of an indication that yields are good but that demand does not match yields.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sub50hz;12475222 
Conversely, not all cores unlock successfully. If all cores were indeed faultless, AMD's business model would have to be heavily based around selling enthusiast/mainstream 2- and 3-core Phenom II product in extremely heavy volume to recoup the losses from making every single one of them a successfully binned quad.


I could have gone without the snarky reply, but I understand it's more your style to throw the bait and wait for someone to get upset about it, and then provide a true explanation.

You threw out a "yield problem" statement that was not true, but you positioned it not as "gosh I wonder if..." but instead as "AMD has...." What were you expecting.

Actually, the fact that there are unlockable cores actually indicates that yields are better than you are identifying.

My recommendation is that using "I believe" goes a long way towards an open conversation. Without hard data on yields, it is pretty dangerous to make a statement about yields on a public company, rumors can have an impact in the wrong hands.
post #110 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12475431 
You threw out a "yield problem" statement that was not true, but you positioned it not as "gosh I wonder if..." but instead as "AMD has...." What were you expecting.

Fair enough. What i was expecting was that my opinion/assumption was not so far from the truth. Knowingly selling a large quantity of functional quad core CPUs under X2 and X3 guise could only mean a couple of things (logically):

1. They're a hell of a lot cheaper to make than we (the general public) realize.
(Fast 45nm process maturation?)

2. Selling X2 and X3 CPUs in high quantity to make up for the loss incurred by making every single Phenom II as a quad.
a. However, is it possible that the money saved on development for a 2nd and 3rd die layout for X2 and X3 facilitated the use of all X4 chips? Again, this raises questions about cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12474689 
Actually, the fact that there are unlockable cores actually indicates that yields are better than you are identifying.

Perhaps, but a batch of pc enthusiast forums can't possibly be a sample size large enough to realistically say that, can it? The number of unsuccessful unlocks is seemingly as numerous as those which do, which does not, to me, say a lot about your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD;12474689 
My recommendation is that using "I believe" goes a long way towards an open conversation. Without hard data on yields, it is pretty dangerous to make a statement about yields on a public company, rumors can have an impact in the wrong hands.

Well, are shareholders privy to such information, either by default or request?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011