Slashdot Mirror
Hidden Cores On Phenom CPUs Can Be Unlocked
An anonymous reader writes "One of the major ways a semiconductor manufacturer manages to make the most of its chips is through binning. Chips able to cope with high clock speeds with all cores running end up as premium product lines, while others end up as models rated at lower speed grades, or with fewer cores. In the case of AMD's Phenom CPUs, dual and triple core models are quad cores with some disabled, while some newer quad core CPUs are actually six core models with two disabled. To this end both ASUS and MSI have announced that they have modified versions of AMD 890FX- and 890GX-based motherboards to unlock these hidden cores. Much like overclocking, there is no guarantee that you will gain anything by unlocking the hidden cores — everything depends on just why your CPU ended up in a certain product line."
Unless this is a rehash of when Intel were (alleged?) to be selling 486DX processors as 486SX with perfectly good maths co-processor cores disabled ...
Uh, yeah, basically that's what the article says.
Whale
They might not necessarily be flawed. It quite probably is a 'rehash' of what Intel were doing, and for good reason:
If all the chips come off the same line, then they might have an average cost of, say, $150. If there's a huge demand for quad-core chips at $200 and little demand for six-core chips at $350 then it's probably going to be more profitable disable two cores, bulk up the stock already consisting of chips with only four working cores, and take the $200 rather than have a chip sitting on a shelf. Thus some quad-cores are perfectly good six-cores, others aren't. They couldn't, however, afford to market all the six-core chips at $200 because the yield would be too low - there'd be nothing to do with all the faulty ones, thus pushing the average cost above $150.
Right. And given that there is *always* a yield rate somewhere below 100, it's a guarantee that not all of the partially disabled parts are in actual fact fully working. You'd have no way of knowing if you do. In fact, given that the yields are private information, you don't even know the *probability* that your unlocked unit will work properly.
The manufacturer will *always* bin the partially flawed parts as their low end units first. They will only use intentionally crippled units to fill the low end volumes if they run out of partially flawed units. Historical experience with yields indicates that they're more likely to get not enough fully functional units than they need. This was the case with single core parts, and I'd assume it's even more the case with multi-core parts, becoming more of a problem as core counts increase. I doubt AMD or Intel have the latitude to pick and choose the relative outputs of their units; I doubt the yield curves are such that they end up having to cripple many units because they have too many fully functional parts and not enough to fill low-end volumes.
Even if there *were* a decent percentage of fully working CPUs on on the market, you'd have to be pretty stupid to spend that amount of money on a high end motherboard to turn your CPU into a *maybe* working higher model that *may* totally destroy your data. Either that or the work you're doing is so trivially unimportant that you probably don't need a computer in the first place. Why not just buy a normal motherboard and spend the saved money on the real fully featured part.
You're showing a complete lack of understanding of, well, just about everything.
I hate printers.
And you underestimate the profit product differentiation can generate.
If you have $300 to spend and you can choose between two products, one for $100 and one for $500. Which will you choose?
Now if I take that $500 product and turn it into a third product, $300 and slightly tweaked to perform less than the $500 product. Which will you choose?
You and I might take the $100 product and pocket the rest, but many buyers will go for the $300 one. As long as manufacturing costs are low it's more profitable to have a range of prices.
This sig is intentionally left blank
This reminds me of "processor affinity" or "affinity mask", whereby you assign software to a particular processor or core. If you want to setup your software so that only less cpu intensive software (cooler) runs on the questionable core, you can do this in Windows 7, and likely for at least some software in Linux (I'm really not sure here), then yes, in theory, you could do this so only Word runs on core #3.
But please remember the wisdom of Yogi Berra when trying to apply a theory like this: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
In other words, your mileage *will* vary.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!