Why do you think there are disabled cores on processors?

basilmarket.com forums : Tech Talk | 5 posts archived

thread starter ICantKs Aug 11 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I think that it first started off as a "safety net"; That in case one of the cores fried due to overclocking, or anyother unknown force, they would have a backup core. Then, after shipping those million processors with the disabled cores, they realized that these extra cores could be enabled with the other cores perfectly fine, having the end user use more cores than what they originally bought. They couldn't just take all of the orders back. They couldn't make new ones with JUST two or three cores either, as consumers would look at the processor and see that one processor has four coures while the other one has two while they are the SAME model. So then, they thought of an idea. What if we shipped the same type of processors, but instead of having two extra cores that are only disabled, we ship processors that have two extra cores that are deffective? That way the end user can't use the extra cores, and they won't tell the difference just by looking at the processor. Also, this would also bring in more income to the CPU manufacturer as the consumer would need to buy a new CPU to replace the same CPU in case they need to do to overclocking, overheating, etc. This might be the reason why you have to be lucky with the processor you pick if you want to unlock extra cores. Sometimes your neighbor will be able to unlock other cores, while you won't. But then again, there are other things that affect the processor's ability to enable other cores, like the motherboard model. There have been various threads in forums I found using Google that stated your motherboard model is be a factor, as well as the processor itself. Sometimes the processor model includes deffective cores, other times the same model includes disabled cores. Yes? No?

skye09 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

What you typed was kinda confusing after the first read, so Im gonna tell you why there are disabled cores. Its called, "die harvesting". Basically, a part does not work up to a certain standard for whatever reason. Be it voltage to run, some sort of stress test, it does not run under the design spec. So what they do is, they disable the faulty part, and sell the rest as a different model. One example is the GTX 260. Yes, the GTX 260 is a die harvested GTX 280. The same goes for the Core 216. All the GTX 260 is, is a GTX 280 with disabled pipelines. There was also a change in voltage ( a reduction i believe ) as well as a change in clocks. But basically, every GTX 260 and every Core 216 was a GTX 280 at one point.

azn011 08/11/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I would agree with your idea. It makes sense and all and makes sure the products are meant to be used as they were sold to be. Though of course, it may cause some unrest with some consumers since they're losing out. And it might cost a bit of extra money to the company to make the cores defective physically, than simply disable it.

BobR 08/12/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Another reason for doing this is that it's simply cheaper for the chip manufacturer to make a huge run of one type of chip, rather than making two or more smaller runs of various versions of practically the same chip with different options. So they set the chip up to allow different feature sets to be enabled depending on the price level they plan to sell the chip at. If you pay for a multi-core processor, you get one with multiple cores enabled. If you only pay for a single-core processor, you get one with all but one core disabled. Manufacturers used to do this back when they first started shipping CPUs with integrated math co-processors. ALL the chips Intel shipped had co-processors in them, but you only got the co-processor enabled if you PAID for it. Otherwise, you had to install a separate co-processor in a separate socket on your motherboard. Consumers were "none the wiser" for a long time about it until some magaziine (probably PC Mag) spilled the beans. As far as "chip harvesting," I upgraded my Radio Shack Color Computer to 16K using bank-switched RAM chips which were actually 32K units with either the upper bank or lower banks defective, but strapped as "16K" so they could be sold instead of being dumped. They've been doing this for a LONG time.

yuyulian 08/12/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

well amd did it again... http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15028/1/ first the triple cores now this