Vikingod

Source: Tech ARP
___________
AMD has just announced the addition of triple-core AMD Phenom processors to their desktop processor roadmap. Yes, in an age of dual- and quad-core processors, AMD has decided to add number 3 to the mix. Scheduled for release in Q1, 2008, these triple-core processors will be the world's first and only triple-core processor.

According to AMD, these new processors represent a "multi-core triple threat" to Intel's current hegemony in the multi-core desktop segment. They claim that current quad-core desktop processors (the Intel quad-core Core 2 processors, in other words) only represent less than 2% of the market. Hence, AMD believes their triple-core Phenom processors will fill the market's need for more powerful processors without paying for more expensive quad-core processors.

__________________

Falstaff

I think I read about this in Maximum CD magazine recently, AMD is bouncing back, now I hope ATI can as well.

__________________

mike2h

i think theses are failed q cores. still an interesting option if the price/perf is right.

__________________

Judas

Would be pretty slick if there is a way to reactivate the dead core....

__________________

mike2h

wouldnt even try, there is a reason they are 'dead'

__________________

Judas

...i don't know...

that's what they said about ATI's 9500's.. with a few "dead pipes"... which when renabled via a bios flash or software hack.... restarted them, and quite a number of people ended up with bargain 9700's that worked perfectly....

So it wouldn't surprise me if amd were to misread a cpu as having a dead core... when in fact it may end up working.. specially after they dry up on naturally dead core cpu's. I think i'd rather have a 4x2ghz cpu then a 3x2.4ghz cpu... wouldn't you? (8ghz of total juice + running 4 completely multi thread processes... vs 7.2ghz with only 3 multi thread apps? )

__________________

josh2thad

Ill stick with my Q6600 no part of it is "dead"

mike2h

big difference between a couple of pipes on a gpu core & a whole cpu core..
bty, 4 cpu's at 2ghz does not equate to 1 cpu doing 8ghz of work. it equals 4 cpus going at 2 ghz each(assuming you were using all 4 cores 100%)

__________________

Judas

I would expect a single core running 8ghz running 4 processes would perform some of the processes much faster and the others much slower....

theres a reason that we are getting multiple cpu's (cores)... theres an obvious advantage to it all.... if it weren't the case.. we'd be still pushing for high frequency cpu's with single cores.

__________________

mike2h

wtf, i was reffering to your silly claim about '..8ghz of total juice..' should have known better than to respond. sorry judas. lol.

__________________

Vikingod

Judas, before you speak, do a little research

This is a good article explaining some of the reasons behind the multicore craze. Its rather substantial, and they are several parts to it. Read them all and understand them. It will give your notions some "meat".

__________________

Judas

imo, that article is a wee bit old now..

__________________

Necrosis

Multi Processor/core/thread is still the same so the article is still very relevant.

__________________

Judas

yes but.... more and more programs are making more use of it...

but the way i understood the article.. was that it agreed either way... the difficulty of increaseing the frequency without having major thermal/leakage problems was getting out of hand, considering that for every bit they increase the clock... there was much more heat generated... so dual core or multi core would resolve the heat issues while maintaining an ever increasing amount cpu power overall.

__________________

Necrosis

Point was that you can't add up processors or cores then equate that to frequency.

__________________

mike2h

ty. you said it better than me

__________________

Matth

Single core hit the maximum clockspeed wall.

Now a task which only excercises one core / thread, will gain only slightly, due to background task offloading.

We have seen some ways demonstrated of using 2 cores, with feeder / worker thread division, or "divide and conquer" in traditionally CPU demanding tasks such as rendering.

The basic problem of multicore (versus the remaining singles), is that:
1. Threads < cores = incomplete utilization and wasted performance
2. Threads > cores = wasted scheduling & communication overhead

One problem that could face triple core... what if programs were written to use only single or even numbers of threads?

__________________
Mary had a little lamb,
Her father shot it dead
Now Mary takes her lamb to school,
Between two crusts of bread

mike2h

was wondering about that 'even threaded' thing myself. i dont know wether programmers code for a specific # of cores or less - ie can use for cores but will use any that are available under that #- or use 1, 2, 4, 8 etc, depending on what is available.

__________________

Judas

i know you can't directly related single cored frequency to "added" multicore frequency.... just saying that i'd rather have a 4 core cpu then a 3 core cpu... and if you could take a 3 core cpu and reactivate the 4th core, but even suffering a small drop in the rated "ghz" of the cpu.... i think there is a plenty number of applications that will soon be better off with the lower ghz 4 core cpu then a higher ghz 3 core cpu.

__________________

mike2h

if you truly think that, then you should edit post #6 to clarify your whatever it is you were trying to say.

__________________

Judas

na... i don't think it's nessary... orginally intended that comment as a "simplified/basic" reasoning...

__________________

mike2h

lmao. your call.

__________________

Monkeyboy

Should be easy enough to set a flag in the software to record the number of cores in the PC and run the software accordingly.

Monkeyboy

Some will almost certainly be chips where only 3 of the 4 cores measure up; others will only be three core from the start. Remember, wafers are circular. Due to the shape, the edges of the circle will only allow three cores with the fourth being incomplete due to the arc of the wafer's circular edge.

In that respect, it makes good financial sense to me that they're doing three-core chips. Mid-range product that greatly reduces wastage and increases yield per wafer.

dj_stick

thatm ay be the case, but how often do PC users use only one program? setting windows to use one core, and a dual threaded app to use the other two will greatly improve overall performance imo

__________________

Necrosis

It could be nice for laptops.

__________________

Matth

Good point, and if a triple core ends up seen as "2 and an overflow", then that will not be good for it's price point.

If quad core yields do not leave a sizable chunk of triples without resorting to disabling perfectly good cores, then I hope AMD would be lokking to reduce quad core prices, rather than take the negative step of artificially turning quads into triples.



A 3 core CPU just seems so incongrous in the naturally binary world of computing, Like having 768MB of RAM instead of a GB, shows you were too mean to get a pair of 512's and used one and a 256.

I rather doubt that the triple will be seen in the retail/component channels, I can see it being purely OEM.

__________________
Mary had a little lamb,
Her father shot it dead
Now Mary takes her lamb to school,
Between two crusts of bread

Judas

i see no reason why a triple threaded program wouldn't excist or a program wouldn't be able to try and use all 3 cores.


just look at the xbox360, it's a triple core CPU..... it works quite well.

__________________

mike2h

& the xbox is purpose specific.
triple core is just a way for amd to maximise their wafer profits, there will be no wafers made for triple core use. if amd can make it work- & their marketing is already rolling- then they will make some $$ of what would otherwise be basically waste. not sure how they will make the price point work though.
i also dont think we will see a lot of these compared to other cores, unless they are having quality issues.

i didnt know windows or apps could be 'set' t ouse one core while other things used other cores...

matth- i agree with you.

__________________

Judas

Actually in windows, you can set the affinity to specific cpu's.... you can on a quad core, set a process to use 1, 2, 3, or 4 cpu's.... In any combination....

And with vista's much much better memory and cpu managements, i'm fairly CERTAIN that windows vista will quite efficiently balance any combination cores with exacting ease.

__________________