6) How do you drive a car without arms ? (Use Intel, rather than Arm)
7) All car accidents are caused by mechanical faults. The most common cause is the nut which is in the middle of the steering wheel, and holds it on the rack spindle. I.e. The nut behind the wheel causes accidents.
No worries!
If 4.8GHz is very easy to achieve on that IVY-E I might buy one, my platform is aging or I might wait for Haswell-E. Did intel disclose how many cores will Haswell-E have for desktop? 8 cores for 500$ would be worth the wait on the other hand if only Extreme Edition gets 8 cores I won't buy it. 1000$ for one piece of hardware is too much. I would only consider it at that price if they released full EP core, which is supposed to have 10cores(12?) I heard conflicting rumors.
ps.
SOFTengCOMPelec
Could you please use normal black font in your posts? It's harder to read posts that use colorful fonts. People usually use colored font to highlight the most pertinent part of their post.
8. Intel is telling the general public.. A le car is enough on the normal desktop regime...
Sorry, normal font engaged.
I think it is more likely that the 8-core version will be $999, rather than $499. I have seen stuff which seems to be saying that even the 6 core Haswell-E is going to be pricey (e.g. $799).
But it is probably all speculation at this point in time.
6 cores for 800$ would be an insane price, 8-cores at 1k$ would be actually a better value then that 6 core CPU. Historically EE CPUs were always horrible value compared to the CPU just below it. I think the worst we can expect is 6 cores priced the same as 3930K and 8 cores at 3970X price. It would be a shame that the only desktop 8 core CPU would be EE. Recently EE CPUs were only a smidgen faster then the tier just below at half the price. From profit margins perspective it would make sense, now Extreme CPUs are just terrible value and don't really offer anything over 3930K, but 33% extra cores and more cache would be a nice incentive to move to Extreme CPU.
In theory, it is probably considerably harder to make 8 "all working" cores on a single chip, rather than just 4 cores, because yield is considerably worse for 8. (Approx double the number of transistors, ALL have to be working, which is statistically considerably less likely).
Actually the yields on their 8 core die were so good that Intel had to make a special 4-core die for the 2011 platform, different both from the 2011 8-core die and the 1155 4-core and 2-core dies. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5276/intel-core-i7-3820-review-285-quadcore-sandy-bridge-e
problems ranging from low-yields of 8-core Sandy Bridge-E processors
Also, Haswell-E will be new, which tends to worsen yields, at least initially, whenever a new process and/or design is started (no source, my own opinion).
Information SOURCE here
problems ranging from low-yields of 8-core Sandy Bridge-E processors
Also, Haswell-E will be new, which tends to worsen yields, at least initially, whenever a new process and/or design is started (no source, my own opinion).
Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the C2 stepping which fixed VT-d wasn't going to be available until Q1 of 2012... (The fact that another stepping was necessary for the server parts to enabled VT-d showed up around a month after that article.)
The point that I was trying to convey, was that yields on single chip, 8 core processors, are potentially worse (i.e. more expensive) than e.g. single core processors.
Nothing wrong with that point at all. I just never would have guessed that such was your point given the context of the quote that you were responding to. But just because yields are twice as bad for an 8 core design versus a 4 core one doesn't mean that they're at all an issue. It all depends upon the defect rate of the process, and by the time that Intel is going into production on their large Xeon based products... well, it's safe to guess that their defect rate is quite low.
Yes, "QUOTES" do sometimes end up bearing too little, about what the issue was.
I wish I knew more about the specific yields of Intel, AMD and the Arm related companies, but I never seem to ever come across information like that. There does seem to be lots of secrecy surrounding it, as far as I can tell.
I wish I knew more about the specific yields of Intel, AMD and the Arm related companies, but I never seem to ever come across information like that. There does seem to be lots of secrecy surrounding it, as far as I can tell.
There is indeed, and for good reason. You will on occasion see defect density graphs, typically designed to show how great the newest process is coming along. But those are usually just in relation to the previous process nodes and rarely put numerical values on the Y axis.
8 cores Intel CPUs won't be 2x as big as 4 cores CPUs because the former lack IGP which can take up as much as half a die so I don't know if a native 8 core would end up any bigger then 4 core CPU+GT3+Crystalwell. However as far as I know there won't be any native 8 cores CPUs on 22nm process. Full IVY-EP will be 10 cores (some sources claim 12 cores) CPU.
http://wccftech.com/intels-leaked-r...epen-processors-12-cores-30mb-cache-130w-tdp/
The lack of info is on purpose. But you can get a good feel for the lower limits of their functional yields on the basis of reported D0 and known die-sizes.
Features are not disabled due to defects.
Only cache is done on desktop and mobile chips. And cache plus cores on workstation and server chips.
The reason so many choices exist is because Intel (and all other manufacturers) wants to maximize yields. A die that is perfect can be binned and sold for a premium, whereas
Maybe your are right, would you happen to have a source, as I would be interested to read it.
I've tried searching, but the only partial confirmation that (they do what I said to improve yields, is from another forum, and he does not make it 100% clear, either).
Another forum
Also, surely hyperthreading would also be done as well, especially as it is missing from most SKU's.
Features they disable are so tiny its extremely unlikely its due to defects. It would be, if anything, due to binning.
HT takes up less than 5% of a core, and most of those parts for non HT as well.
Sorry but I don't buy it.. Please have a look at this. It's the evolution of recent chip dies. I think I've never linked something on this forum and hope it works:
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com...3-Haswell-Processor-Reportedly-Pictured-3.png
Those images used for this post don't look like a Haswell lid. It has no lips like all others so the LGA bracket can hold on. And the chip itself, looks more like an old model which maybe someone could identify.
One pic has a blade inserted while the TIM on top of the lid is intact -yeah, try that on a Sunday morning-, fully covering every detail regarding markings, model type, etc. On other images, the info is deliberately blanked.
Haswells are like Ivys and Sandys, rectangular shaped chips. Enthusiasts are cool peeps but not cool enough for Intel to make a totally different chip, retaining system and lid.
I call it a pile of ungulate dropping. -ʇıɥsןןnq :ןɐınboןןoɔ-
One pic has a blade inserted while the TIM on top of the lid is intact -yeah, try that on a Sunday morning-, fully covering every detail regarding markings, model type, etc. On other images, the info is deliberately blanked.