Phenom II: Unlocking Cores

Old and yea mostly does not work :).

sounds like a story aimed at selling more x3 chips but anyhow :p. If you want 4 cores buy a quadcore amd.
 
I dont get why amd would put 4 cores on a 3 core chip.Would this not be a wast of money for them? Or does it work out cheaper to just include the 4th core and disable it?
 
no not cheaper but then they sell more...would be cheaper to just disable one core than to make a whole new tri core.

And incase one of the cores arent up to speed, they wont need to bin the cpu but rather sell it as a tri...win-win from my point of view
 
Tejen said:
I dont get why amd would put 4 cores on a 3 core chip.Would this not be a wast of money for them? Or does it work out cheaper to just include the 4th core and disable it?
Click to expand...

Often they will make 4 core chips and if they find a faulty one (one that does not pass all of the tests at a specific speed) then they will disable it and sell the processor as a 3 core.
 
My 4th core unlocks fine. Got batch 0904. In my case however its not prime stable, but havnt really tweaked the voltage or multiplier much to try get it stable
 
Nameite said:
no not cheaper but then they sell more...would be cheaper to just disable one core than to make a whole new tri core.

And incase one of the cores arent up to speed, they wont need to bin the cpu but rather sell it as a tri...win-win from my point of view
Click to expand...

AMD did this because intel cannot. Basically they saw a gap in the market. The stupid thing is that their quadcores are more expensive and the tri cores i would imagine cost just as much to produce, so instead of selling really cheap quadcore, they sell cheap tri-cores.

Very silly they could pull massive market share if their entry level quadcores cost as much as the tri-core but they don't seem to keen on gaining some market share other than the fanboys.
 
killadoob said:
AMD did this because intel cannot. Basically they saw a gap in the market. The stupid thing is that their quadcores are more expensive and the tri cores i would imagine cost just as much to produce, so instead of selling really cheap quadcore, they sell cheap tri-cores.

Very silly they could pull massive market share if their entry level quadcores cost as much as the tri-core but they don't seem to keen on gaining some market share other than the fanboys.
Click to expand...

Yet, 3 cores are better than 2...
 
No quite sure what your point is, my point is they are disabling the 4th core so the manufacturing process must be the same for quad and tri cores, so in theory the cost of producing quad and tri core is the same, so why not sell the quadcores at the tri core price point and get market share.

I have not disputed that 3 is better than 2, read my above question and then try give me an answer to a question i asked.
 
killadoob said:
No quite sure what your point is, my point is they are disabling the 4th core so the manufacturing process must be the same for quad and tri cores, so in theory the cost of producing quad and tri core is the same, so why not sell the quadcores at the tri core price point and get market share.
Click to expand...

Because they are unlikely to make money that way. They would probably lose a lot in a battle for market share with Intel who can afford to go that route. The quads that they are selling as tri-core's are ones that did not make the grade and would have been tossed in the bin.
 
hmmm. thing is, do we know that all the tri-cores are in fact cut down quad core? I don't feel like googleing this :). but if say AMD makes tri-core cpu (that only have 3 cores) and the odd batch are 4 cored cpu's that either consume too much power, the one core isn't up to scratch or the 1 core is damaged badly. that could mean that instead of wasting the "bad" 4 core cpu's, they re-use them, maximizing profits.

For the life of me, I can't see why AMD would make 4 core cpu's and just start disabling cores, that just doesn't make any sense (that would derail profits, which is really not what they need), unless they just reusing the "broken" 4 cores.
 
Well if the tri cores happen to be busted cores then i understand now, if they are not damaged cores and are infact disabled then it makes no sense.

Anyone have an article backing up the claim that amd make tri cores because of damages?

if that is the case then my question has be answered :).
 
scotty777 said:
For the life of me, I can't see why AMD would make 4 core cpu's and just start disabling cores, that just doesn't make any sense (that would derail profits, which is really not what they need), unless they just reusing the "broken" 4 cores.
Click to expand...

Intel did that in the past (a long time ago). If I remember, the first Celerons were P4's with cache and other parts disabled. Or something like that.
 
"Another potential benefit Brookwood points to is production efficiency. If AMD finds it is having many of its quad-core Opteron processors coming off the production line with only three of the four cores fully functioning, then it can still market those as tri-core instead of chucking them into the trash can."

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore

Makes note of both disabling or using quads with a defective core, seems they prepared to go either way.

It makes sense that if tri's are selling better it would be better to disable a core and sell it as a tri then at least you are making a sale and getting money in whereas non selling quads earn you nothing.

p.s. I am sure they are still making a profit on the tri's even if a bit less than on the quads
 
QX6700RULZ said:
"Another potential benefit Brookwood points to is production efficiency. If AMD finds it is having many of its quad-core Opteron processors coming off the production line with only three of the four cores fully functioning, then it can still market those as tri-core instead of chucking them into the trash can."

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/09/tricore

Makes note of both disabling or using quads with a defective core, seems they prepared to go either way.

It makes sense that if tri's are selling better it would be better to disable a core and sell it as a tri then at least you are making a sale and getting money in whereas non selling quads earn you nothing.

p.s. I am sure they are still making a profit on the tri's even if a bit less than on the quads
Click to expand...

but if the tri's are selling better, then surely it would make sense just make purely tri-core cpu's??? I mean, that way they don't have to waste the extra silicon and time(which quickly equates to more money being p!ssed away) on making 4 core cpu's.

However, I think AMD are in a very tough situation, and that they simply aren't in any position to make 2 core, 3 core and 4 core cpu's. they probably are working on making 4+ core cpu's.
 
killadoob said:
No quite sure what your point is, my point is they are disabling the 4th core so the manufacturing process must be the same for quad and tri cores, so in theory the cost of producing quad and tri core is the same, so why not sell the quadcores at the tri core price point and get market share.
Click to expand...

Heard of ROI? Also selling the defective quad as a tri at least means they make a sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X