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."

Comments

If it was Intel, maybe.

[pyrr]

But AMD? They've pretty much always been a laggard. Historically, they've:

• Produced processors that ran a bit hot at rated clock speed, shortening CPU life. Forget about overclocking, the tiny gain wouldn't be worth much and would decrease system stability dramatically.
• Produced processors that failed to handle overheating gracefully, and severely damaged motherboards when they overheated.
• Produced a lot of flawed multicore processors, such as those triple-core units, which were just defective quad cores.

My employer is currently experiencing a rather high rate of failure in 64-bit Athlon processors, primarily in workstations that are right around 4 years old. Intel desktop processors seem to last much longer, I can't remember the last time I saw one fail. It's looking like nothing has changed. Now if you could underclock and maybe turn-off cores so the AMD processors would last longer and be more reliable, that might be a feature worth having. It's easier just to buy Intel, which aside from a few high-profile stumbles, have a reputation for producing rock-solid processors that really do stand a chance of being more capable, underrated processors than they were sold as.

It just seems unlikely that anyone is going to get much of anything for nothing here, but gamblers will gamble.

Re:If it was Intel, maybe.

[DrMrLordX]

I want you to go to AMDzone and post this somewhere, anywhere, on their board, just to stir them up. That would be hilarious. Seriously, AMD has historically produced processors that run hot? What? There was the T-bird but other than that . . . are you sure you aren't confusing them with Cyrix? . . . and you're STILL spreading the FUD from the Tom's Hardware video in which an Athlon XP burned out when the HSF was disabled? Do you have any idea how long it has been since AMD produced processors that can die like that, much less take a board with them in the process? . . . and your employer is complaining about failure rates among x86-64 capable processors from AMD after 4 years of usage? I have a fairly early processor from that generation (Sempron 2800+, s754 . . . yes I know x86-64 was superficially disabled on that chip, but it was the same uarch as the 130nm Hammers on the then-new 90nm process and minus some L2 cache) that I put into a system in 2005 and IT STILL RUNs. I ran it overclocked to 2.32 ghz for years, using the stock HSF. Unreliable my ass. Athlon 64s, X2s, and the like do not have a rep for high failure rates. Who was the vendor or OEM who supplied you with your systems? Furthermore, most - if not all - of those AMD processors about which your employer is complaining should be able to underclock themselves. It's called Cool n' Quiet. The competing processors Intel sold from those days were based on Netburst, and when it came to Prescotts and Smithfields, PLENTY of them either failed or just throttled like hell at stock because OEMs had problems keeping them cool. FYI, the unlock rate on Phenom II X2s and X3s to quad-core processors has been calculated to be around %72.9, possibly by less-than-scientific methods, but that's the number that's bandied about in circles where people care about such things.

Old news and overclocking is dead

[JoeSixpack00]

First of all, I've been reading about unlocking AMD cores since 2008. So except for marketing hype from the motherboard manufacturers this isn't anything new.

Secondly, I can tell by a lot of the overclocking examples and chip prices that most of you don't build systems anymore. AMD 3.0Ghz QUAD CORE is only $150, and they've been selling relatively cheap for a while now. What's even funnier is the fact that 95% of users could get by with the $90 dual core Phenom X2.

It's 2010 - face it people overclocking is dead people. CPU's and ram have gotten way too cheap to risk ramming all the extra voltage through your system. I know it's a hobby for some people but some hobbies are just past their prime. Don't worry, I'm sure there are better ways to extend your e-penis.

Re:What I'm telling you

[electrosoccertux]

no, there's no risk to this.