backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by bfellow.. on Feb 20 at 11:32 AM
System makers to introduce tri-core AMD processors this week

Roadmaps from AMD indicate Dell and Hewlett-Packard will introduce low-end computers based on triple-core AMD Phenom processors this week.

Dell Optiplex computers, targeting the sub-$600 market, will be the first to receive the new triple-core treatment.  HP Pavilion desktops will follow shortly after in the sub-$600 and sub-$500 segments.  True to the botched announcement earlier this month, Dell will not introduce any of the new AMD processors in its Inspiron desktops. 

The new systems will begin to replace Optiplex and Pavilion computers that use AMD Athlon X2 dual-core processors. AMD was to discontinue the majority of its Athlon X2 lineup, but delays with its quad-core Phenom architecture continue to stretch the lifespan of its K8 architecture. 

The new triple-core processors, codenamed Toliman, will debut with frequencies as high as 2.3 GHz.  Toliman processors feature all of the same capabilities of the high-end Agena processors with the exception of one disabled processor core.   This includes 2MB of shared L3 cache and 512KB per core of unshared L2 cache.

In addition to the B2-stepping Toliman processors, AMD will introduce one more B2 Opteron this month: an energy efficient quad-core Barcelona processor. These two processors are the last B2 processors in AMD's arsenal -- the company will officially unveil its B3-stepping processors late next month. 

AMD would not comment when, or if, the tri-core processors would make a splash into the retail channel.

B3 processors are unaffected by the TLB bug announced by AMD late last year.  Although the bug is extremely difficult to replicate, the AMD-mandated B2 workaround can hamper Phenom and Opteron performance dramatically.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disaibled core?
By geddarkstorm on 2/18/2008 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, if the fourth core is simply disabled to yield a "tri-core" processor, I wonder if it would be possible to reactivate with bios hacks or whatnot.




RE: Disaibled core?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/18/2008 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
It's my understanding that its physically severed. The next-gen triple-core stuff will not be quad-core disabled; it will actually be manufactured as three cores.


RE: Disaibled core?
By ajfink on 2/18/2008 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 5
If, when the time arrives, they feel spending the resources on creating a native tri-core processor is worth it. To me, it seems perfectly logical to simply disable a problematic core and sell the remaining three. Wasting resources on a tri-core redesign? Meh.


RE: Disaibled core?
By inighthawki on 2/18/2008 2:28:08 PM , Rating: 5
Correct me if i'm wrong, maybe i'm not up to date on some stuff, but didn't amd mention their tri-core cpus consisting of (at least some of them) quad core cpus that had a malfunctioning core, thus making only three working ones? I could've sworn i read something on that, but feel free to correct me.


RE: Disaibled core?
By rum on 2/18/2008 2:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree here, that AMD's Tri-Core Processors are Quad Cores with a bad core and that Core is disabled. How I have no clue, but does it matter if it is a bad core??

Seems like a good way for AMD to make money, selling bad Quad Cores as Tri-Cores, well at least it beats throwing them out, if the sell them cheap enough.


RE: Disaibled core?
By StevoLincolnite on 2/18/2008 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
And if the demand is great enough, they may simple just turn a fully working Quad into a Triple Core, Providing the demand is great enough... A good example was the Geforce 6200A where demand was actually rather large, thus nVidia Disabled some pipelines on the 6600 and called it a 6200 - Thus users were able to "mod" they're card into the much more expensive 6600.

Still, This is good news for AMD, they can maximize Profits, which ultimately is a good thing for them right now.
Also, If they actually market the crap out of this, People may think it is better than a Dual Core, Ultimately using Intels old tactics against them!


RE: Disaibled core?
By eye smite on 2/18/2008 6:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'll buy one. This is what I've been waiting for personally. I just don't really want a quad core, but a tri core would be very nice. Of the 7 systems I have running here, usually this one is gaming and processing world community grid med research units at the same time, the rest are on the grid 24/7. So moving to a tri core for gaming and crunching med research at the same time would please me more. As I've said in the past, it all comes down to preference, not who's is fastest or rated the best.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins


RE: Disaibled core?
By cheetah2k on 2/18/2008 7:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe disabling 1 of these cores to yield a "tri core" cpu fixes the errata issue with the shared Cache.

If this is truely the case, then this is a feasible way to get rid of the current wafer stock with errata issues IMO.


RE: Disaibled core?
By matriarch wolf on 2/18/2008 11:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a plan.


RE: Disaibled core?
By bfellow on 2/20/2008 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
That still doesn't explain why their "fastest" Tri-core is only 2.3Ghz


RE: Disaibled core?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/18/2008 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's always been thought that the tri-cores are quad-cores with one bad core disabled. However, AMD never confirmed this (and probably never will), though that is standard practice in processor binning.

Intel did the same thing for a while on its dual-core single-die processors -- binning some of them as single-core processors even though two cores are physically on the die.


RE: Disaibled core?
By retrospooty on 2/18/2008 6:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
" their tri-core cpus consisting of (at least some of them) quad core cpus that had a malfunctioning core,"

Correct. one core is either malfunctioning, or not able to function at the rated speed.


RE: Disaibled core?
By jtemplin on 2/18/2008 8:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yea I think they are binned. The quad cores that have a faulty core will be sold as tri-cores. This way some of the problems of lower yields can be re-diverted into a useful product.


RE: Disaibled core?
By christojojo on 2/18/2008 11:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
When you said "physically severed" it made me wonder how many naturalist and homeopathic people will be asking if the chip "cries".

or

If a chip is neutered in the woods will it regret not having children?


RE: Disaibled core?
By phattyboombatty on 2/18/2008 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the processor is tri-core, rather than quad core, is because one of the cores is defective. Rather than toss out the entire processor because of the one defective core, AMD wisely chose to simply deactivate that core and sell a tri-core processor. That's why AMD can sell these for cheap--because they were headed for the trash bin originally.


RE: Disaibled core?
By Omega215D on 2/18/2008 3:31:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yet some publications (MaximumPC) say that AMD not being able to turn out reliable Quad cores is bad news. I have no problem with Tri-Core parts because maybe it'll be more cost effective than a Dual Core. Besides nobody complained when the XBOX 360 is running a Triple core IBM processor... probably where AMD got the idea from.


RE: Disaibled core?
By eyebeeemmpawn on 2/18/2008 3:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
As stated in the comments below, whether AMD admits it or not, the tri-core is a quad with a defective core disabled.

RAM is typically designed to have extra memory space so they can re-map defective addresses to the functional repair addresses. This can be done for individual bits, or larger blocks.

I believe similar practices are used to remove defective on-die cache regions so a processor can be sold at a lower binned performance level. Now they're doing it with cores. It's almost like pulling money out of the dumpster.


RE: Disaibled core?
By StevoLincolnite on 2/18/2008 3:57:41 PM , Rating: 3
It works doesn't it? It allows AMD to gain more sales which ultimately allows them to release faster and better products in the future in order to be competitive against the competition.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD released Defective Quads as Dual Cores or even single cores in the near future.


RE: Disaibled core?
By imperator3733 on 2/18/2008 4:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD released Defective Quads as Dual Cores or even single cores in the near future.


The only reason they would do that is if two or three cores were defective. (Which hopefully wouldn't happen too often) If three cores are working and they sell it as a single or dual core, something is wrong.


TLB Bug
By HaZaRd2K6 on 2/18/2008 1:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... the AMD-mandated B2 workaround can hamper Phenom and Opteron performance dramatically.


Ain't that the truth? We've got an AMD system on display at work that should actually be damned good. Phenom 9500, 2x1GB 1066 Dominators, Crossfired 3870s and an ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe board. And yet, it struggles to run Crysis at 20FPS with everything on medium settings (some on low) at 1680x1050. A $1700 system would be much better served by an Intel/nVidia mashup.




RE: TLB Bug
By ajfink on 2/18/2008 2:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you think the hardware should be performing better, disable the patch. The chances of it resulting in a crash are immensely tiny.

Also, you may be having system configuration issues if you're running into an FPS problem. Installed Crysis 1.1 patch and latest Catalyst?