Intel Details Eight-Core Xeon, "Cache and Core Recovery"

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Axemantitan, Feb 15, 2009.

  1. Axemantitan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    #1
    http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/02/intel-details-eight-core-xeon-cache-and-core-recovery.ars
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    So they're going to make a bunch of Beckton and sell some of the defects as two and four core Gainestown?

    Great. :(
     
  4. Fomaphone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    #4
    anybody know if that will reduce performance compared to other 2/4/6-core processors that aren't simply broken larger chips with disabled cores... ones that were intentionally made to be 2 or 4 or 6 -core chips?
     
  5. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #6
    It's inevitable parts will be produced that are partially defective. Moore's Law dictates that as the complexity increases, so will the defect rate. If they're thrown away, the cost is passed on to the remaining units (fully functional), increasing the per unit cost on those that can be shipped.

    This is a way of recycling that could help in the end. It even has the potential of creating a niche market of lower cost servers/workstations that are built on these "remanufactured" components.
     
  6. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    Nah. This is a pretty standard way of doing things. They also include a bit of extra cache so they can disable any defective bits and still meet the target amount.
     
  7. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #8
    To expand on this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these chips. Another more well known example would be the Cell, which is manufactured with 9 cores even though only 8 are enabled. Redundancy is good, especially if there is no difference on the end users, er, end.
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #9
    True. :D I should have elaborated. ;)

    Not redundancy in this case, but the operational cores will work affectively. As good as those in parts that didn't go through "surgery". :) The only thing that might get confusing, is the additional part numbers (if they do this). ;)

    Proper server/workstation parts at a decent discount?
    Bring 'em on Intel. :D
     
  9. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #10
    Not redundancy for us, but redundancy for Intel. Two of the cores are allowed to not work and they still have a product.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    Ahh...

    It might seem odd (intentionally using more wafer area), but given the complexity of current parts, and the exponential increase, this method may become common I guess. One way to improve the odds of a part being able to work as intended. :)
     

Share This Page