Slashdot Mirror
AMD Announces Triple-Core Phenom Processors
MojoKid writes "AMD has officially announced their triple-core Phenom multi-core processor offering, suggesting a triple-threat of processors, from dual-cores to triple-cores and native quad-cores coming to market this year. While the term symmetric multi-processing (or SMP) suggests a balanced approach of multiple cores in an even number of engines working together on a single workload, AMD offers that an odd number of processors can slice at that workload just as efficiently. Time will tell how this architecture will scale amongst various multi-threaded applications and real-world usage models. AMD is definitely moving to make use of these quad-cores that don't quite make the cut by testing them fully as triple-cores and realizing some revenue, rather than throwing them away."
Damnit, I haven't even used up all the cartridges that came with my Intel Core Duo!
I'm holding out for a processor that goes to 11.
Why Yes. Yes it does. From HERE: Inside, the Xbox 360 uses the triple-core IBM designed Xenon as its CPU. While graphics processing is handled by the ATI Xenos which has 10 MB of embedded eDRAM, its main memory pool is 512 MB in size.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
SMP doesn't suggest the number of cores should be a power of two, it doesn't even suggest "even number of cores".
It's about multiple cores processing simultaneously. Check the article I link to, even the damn example diagram has 3 cpu-s.
SMP refers to the fact that all the processors are identical and share the same memory (in contrast to NUMA designs like multi-chip Opteron systems). However, I've seen more and more people refering to cache coherent NUMA designs like multi-core opteron and the upcoming CSI based intel systems as SMP systems which, while a stretch of the definition, is at least reasonable.
Suggesting that SMP has anything to do with having an even number of processors is just DUMB. It may be the case that SMP systems usually have an even number of cores (I don't know) but that's not what the writeup or article seem to be saying.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The picture clearly has a quad-core processor in it. Is this just a binned quad-core processor where one of the cores has a defect (like what Sony did with their Cell chip?)
This is what the article authors suggest, but no, it's a separate architecture. While I suspect it's possible a subset of the 4-core Phenoms to be relabelled as 3-core Phenoms, the bulk of 3-core Phenoms will be built as 3-core parts from the very start.
And, to add insult to injury, this is a quad-core Phenom on the picture, since it's all the authors of the fine article could find. In other words, they are idiots.
There are a few possibilities:
1. The core is there and locked off via microcode like the extra quads on a cut-down GPU (e.g. Radeon x1900GT vs. x1900XT) and can be enabled with a microcode flash.
2. The core is there but the fuses that connect it electrically to the rest of the die are blown, so it is there but not able to be enabled.
3. The core was never there as the die only has three cores in it in the first place- you have a fully-functional piece of silicon, so there is nothing extra to enable.
Either way, it's really long odds you'll get a free core enabled. Nobody has been able to even upward-unlock the K8's multiplier and I know for a fact that is set in microcode (some guys on ExtremeSystems got a JTAG and found that out but not how to change it.) They will probably use the same method they used to disable one core on a dual-core die and sell single-core Manchester and Toledo-die chips and AFAIK nobody has unlocked any of those. I bet they have a few of the X3s be X4s with a bad die, but the X4 is a darn big chip at nearly 300 mm^2 and the cost reduction by using a native 3-core die would be mighty attractive to them so I guess that most will be #3 then.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
This reminds me of the joke about the 3 dollar bill. Counterfeiters mistakenly make a 12 dollar bill, so they go to a rural state, like Idaho, to try to pass it off. Going into a store they ask for change. The clerk asks "would you like four three's, or two six's?"
Best regards.
Would someone tell me how this happened? Intel was the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The Core Duo was the processor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-core processor. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Core Trio. That's three cores and an fan. For cooling.
But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened -- the bastards went to four cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three cores and a fan. Cooling or no, suddenly we're the chumps.
Well, fuck it. We're going to five cores.
Quite possibly the best post ever.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The Barcelona/Phenom architecture allows each core (plus the northbridge) to run on its own power plane, and for cores to be turned off completely. Of course, core 0 is the bootstrap processor, so that core has to always be enabled, or they have to have a way to change which one is core 0 before it leaves the factory. Otherwise the BIOS won't be able to bring the other cores online.
The idea of post-factory error detection isn't so far-fetched. If a chip passes QA, the sorts of defects you'll see later in its life are likely to be thermally induced, and the likelihood that the defect will manifest prior to loading of the BIOS is very low. You're not using the MMU or the FPU at all, you're not using much of the cache, you can be running at your minimum power setting, and you're not doing it long enough to heat up much. If a core gets marked bad due to an excess of MCEs, similar to how many systems can mark DIMMs bad on excessive multi-bit ECC errors, the BIOS simply doesn't need to bring it online at boot time. Even if core 0 is the faulty one, you can probably load just enough of the BIOS to bring a good core online and finish booting, since you're not straining it enough to cause thermal problems, and you're only using a tiny fraction of the instruction set and die transistors. This sort of High Availability feature probably won't make it to the desktop right away, but as core counts keep increasing, it's inevitable.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Firstly, for any general multi-node graph, it's entirely possible for three, four, eight, or any number of nodes to be only one hop away from each other. See fully-connected mesh. For the four-node case, imagine a 2D square, connected on the four sides, plus two links connecting the "diagonals" of the square. In that topology, each of the four nodes are only one hop away from each other. Of course, as the number of nodes increases, the cost of fully connecting them increases, as does the processing cost to multiplex and process transactions into the node from the (n-1) incoming links, but with only four nodes it's entirely possible to create a fully-connected network.
Wiith AMD multi-core processors, all of the cores communicate using a fully-connected crossbar switch in the on-die northbridge - meaning all cores on the die are one "hop" away from each other, including the four-core case. What you're probably thinking of is a multi-socket system that only has two coherent links per socket - that would prevent you from making a fully-connected coherent interconnect for a 4-socket system.
It's actually kinda sad for AMD. In other markets they'd be making money.
After all their stuff:
1) Actually works (and is reliable compared to other computer stuff - RAM, HDD, motherboards, etc)
2) Is cheap
3) Is available in sufficient quantities
4) Performs ok
Only prob is Intel is now significantly ahead of them in many areas.
That's what you get for being in a high tech commodity market where lots of buyers actually go by specs and price and not by covenience or brandname.
If AMD was number two in the orange juice, soda pop or cooking oil market with just 15% share they'd still be making money. And they could sell the same standard juice/soda/oil for years without investing billions in fabs and processes.
AMD has lots of smart people working for them.
It's better to be number 9 in good industry than number 2 in a crappy industry.
Kids, learn from this. That's why smart parents discourage you from trying to earn a living as a movie star or singer, the number #10000 star/singer in the world doesn't make as much as the number #10000 lawyer/doctor.