homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.180.223
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Hardware and OS Related Technologies / Webmaster Hardware
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Webmaster Hardware Forum

    
AMD Introduces Multi-Core Chips
bill




msg:3612905
 2:34 am on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

AMD comes out swinging with 2 quad chips and a triple core [computerworld.com]

Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which took a lot of heat for falling off its game last year, looks to be back in the fray with today's unveiling of three desktop processors.

AMD announced that it's releasing Phenom X49000 processors for high-end desktop systems, along with the 65-watt quad-core Phenom X4 9100e and the Phenom X3 8000 triple-core processors.

Some are saying that the AMD quad-core designs are better than Intel's. Intel supposedly puts 2 dual-core chips together to make their quad-core, while AMD's design is a 'true quad-core'.

 

Lord Majestic




msg:3612913
 2:54 am on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that AMD has got serious yield issues - triple cores are effectively quad with one broken core that is disabled. I reckon those people that thought native design will be better are having some second thoughts.

lammert




msg:3613081
 9:37 am on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

triple cores are effectively quad with one broken core that is disabled

This practice is not unheard of in the processor industry. IBM produces the Cell processor where the processors with one failing mathematical core are used in the Sony Playstation 3.

It has been a long time since AMD was able to produce chips that could compete with Intel's high-end processor line. I am not sure if releasing three new processors will get them back in the race.

kaled




msg:3613197
 12:21 pm on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that AMD has got serious yield issues - triple cores are effectively quad with one broken core that is disabled.

No chip manufacturing process has anywhere near 100% yields for CPUs, so this is just good business. Also, both Intel and AMD have released CPU packages with disabled features. It's simply a means of using a single production line to create chips to cover a wide price range.

Historically, slow versions of chips have often come from the same production run as fast versions, with testing used to sort the best from the worst. Incidentally, golf-ball manufacturers have been known to do this too.

Kaled.

Lord Majestic




msg:3613535
 5:09 pm on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)

No chip manufacturing process has anywhere near 100% yields for CPUs, so this is just good business.

True, but some yields are much worse than other and this forces companies to follow track that is hardly a good business - it's so-so business, which argueably better than bad business (throwing it away completely).

When AMD first started talking about tri-cores Intel's reply was along the lines of: "we actually have good enough yields not to HAVE to do it".

A much bigger issue for AMD is that they can't clock their chips now and even at that clock they are not as efficient as Intels quad cores.

Note here - I am not Intel or AMD fan, I just use the stuff that is best value wise: I have 5 X2 AMDs, but switched now to quad cores from Intel as they simply rock.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Hardware and OS Related Technologies / Webmaster Hardware
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved