5820K question

[Excal13]

My pill pushing street pharmacist in the hood told me that the 5820K is basically a 8 core with 2 cores disabled by intel. Is this possible? If so how does intel disable these cores? Is there any back ass Frankenstein way to enable these cores?

 

[johnt]

My pill pushing street pharmacist in the hood told me that the 5820K is basically a 8 core with 2 cores disabled by intel. Is this possible? If so how does intel disable these cores? Is there any back ass Frankenstein way to enable these cores?

 

This is generally how all production works. Whip out your soldering gun and de-lid that bad boy first.

[DarkBlade2117]

Omg

Is there any back ass Frankenstein way to enable these cores?

No idea why I am laughing, no I don't think they did that. It's a 6 core 12 thread CPU.

[NannerBeans]

This is generally how all production works. Whip out your soldering gun and de-lid that bad boy first.

Um. Why?

 

Omg

No idea why I am laughing, no I don't think they did that. It's a 6 core 12 thread CPU.

I'm not sure if this specific cpu is like that but disabling cores and selling as a cheaper cpu is actually pretty common.

[alexhelvetica]

Nope.

They were there, and now the extra cores are dead.

[DarkBlade2117]

Um. You can't delid it. It's soldered on. 

 

I'm not sure if this specific cpu is like that but disabling cores and selling as a cheaper cpu is actually pretty common.

Wasn't one of the Phenom's like that? And people figured out how to enable them? I think if they did we would of figured out by now.

Lol what if Skylake i3s are like that. Doubt it but it would be funny if one day someone opened up an i3 and said WTF THIS IS A QUAD CORE.

[wangyuji431]

My pill pushing street pharmacist in the hood told me that the 5820K is basically a 8 core with 2 cores disabled by intel. Is this possible? If so how does intel disable these cores? Is there any back ass Frankenstein way to enable these cores?

The bios is your solution.

You can manually enable disabled cores if you want your computer to catch on fire because of your pharmacist

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dhsr4K4mQk

[Excal13]

There must be a way to re enable those 2 cores if this is what Intel has done. We need to snatch up an intel engineer and throw him into the streets of Detroit. That should make him speak.

 

And a side note, my pharmacist is awesome. He makes the pain go away.

[Naeaes]

It's true. There's 8 cores in there, two of which are disabled. I'm not saying it's impossible but there's probably is no easy way to even try and re-enable them. Bare in mind, The reason they're disabled in the first place is that one or both of them don't function right. They make 5960Xs out of the ones with 8 fully functioning cores.

[MegaDave91]

They're derived from one big silicon wafer. Intel doesn't say, "Ok, today we are manufacturing the 5820K"...no no; doesn't work like a typical assembly line. 

 

The closer to the center of the wafer, the more "perfect" and less imperfections.

[Sam Z Man]

When manufacturers disable part of a chip it's usually because that part is Fucked to hell, sometimes it's too satisfy a demand for a lower end product but usually it's because that shits broken.

[Godlygamer23]

My pill pushing street pharmacist in the hood told me that the 5820K is basically a 8 core with 2 cores disabled by intel. Is this possible? If so how does intel disable these cores? Is there any back ass Frankenstein way to enable these cores?

I believe that is correct. You can fuse them off or simply disable them and no you cannot re-enable them if they've been fused off. In regards to enabling them if they're simply disabled...You might be able to but I don't think it'd be easy.

[Juanse]

It's true. There's 8 cores in there, two of which are disabled. I'm not saying it's impossible but there's probably is no easy way to even try and re-enable them. Bare in mind, The reason they're disabled in the first place is that one or both of them don't function right. They make 5960Xs out of the ones with 8 fully functioning cores.

Then, why does it cost less, instead of intel promoting it as a "harder to fail product" and charge more

[Godlygamer23]

The bios is your solution.

You can manually enable disabled cores if you want your computer to catch on fire because of your pharmacist

That method was a hack provided by motherboard manufacturer's on the AMD side. The Intel side never had that AFAIK and it's not a thing anymore.

[Godlygamer23]

Then, why does it cost less, instead of intel promoting it as a "harder to fail product" and charge more

I'm not sure I understand your logic.

[Duganator9]

It generally goes something like this. 8 core xeons come from the best area of the wafer. Reject xeons become 5960xs, reject 5960xs become 5930ks, low clock 5930ks become 5820ks. No there isn't a way to re enable the cores

[Duganator9]

I'm not sure I understand your logic.

I read it three times and I can't make sense of what he's saying

[Naeaes]

Then, why does it cost less, instead of intel promoting it as a "harder to fail product" and charge more

I don't think the fact that some of the cores were misfiring from the get go and that they spotted it early on makes the remaining ones any sturdier. 

[Excal13]

Hmmm It would be great if we had some inside info on how the manufacturing process/disabling cores works. If I were Intel and wanted to ensure people did not re enable the extra cores using software I would physically damage the cores, rendering them useless. Maybe that's what Intel has done.

[Godlygamer23]

Hmmm It would be great if we had some inside info on how the manufacturing process/disabling cores works. If I were Intel and wanted to ensure people did not re enable the extra cores using software I would physically damage the cores, rendering them useless. Maybe that's what Intel has done.

Intel may not even care enough in the first place.

[KWelz]

As other have said, they are not disabled just because.  They are disabled because there was an issue with them.   It is all about economics.   Cost of production isnt' really any different, however the higher the requirements for a chip the fewer that will pass muster.  So the chips that are "perfect" are your Xeons.  The slightly less perfect ones are 5960X's.   The ones that have issues with at least one of the cores is a 5930k or 5820k.   Then some just have to be thrown into the trash because they dont' pass muster at all.   

 

This is the same thing with all other chips.   An i7 4770K and an i3 4130 can come off the same exact silicone wafer.   

 

Since fewer Pass the higher requirements, and they are more in demand, Intel charges more for them.    

[Curufinwe_wins]

As other have said, they are not disabled just because. They are disabled because there was an issue with them. It is all about economics. Cost of production isnt' really any different, however the higher the requirements for a chip the fewer that will pass muster. So the chips that are "perfect" are your Xeons. The slightly less perfect ones are 5960X's. The ones that have issues with at least one of the cores is a 5930k or 5820k. Then some just have to be thrown into the trash because they dont' pass muster at all.

This is the same thing with all other chips. An i7 4770K and an i3 4130 can come off the same exact silicone wafer.

Since fewer Pass the higher requirements, and they are more in demand, Intel charges more for them.

This isn't necessarily always true.

(A look back to when Intel made 5+ versions of the i7 for 920-980? Is a good example.)

It works more like this: you have a volume of chips. You randomly grab some of them and test them. The ones that pass get used as the highest binned chips, the ones that fail (based in part on how they fail) move on to the next test set, which is most of the time massively augmented by extra chips from that starting pile (because the lower bins are almost always better sellers than the top bins). This process continues till the bottom bin is reached for that product.

The distinction is that not all chips will even see the highest testing standard because there isn't a need to test all the chips that rigorously. The demand for the highest chips isn't that high and the yields are not that low.

The point being is that while you can (and indeed this is very likely true to more or lesser extents) say that of the same family (say x99) the cheapest/most cut down chip (say the 5820k) is on average a lower bin, you can still get super high bins (this was especially true in first gen I7 sorting hahaha) that just never saw the top tier test.

That said I have almost never heard of Intel not (after testing ofc) physically disabling parts of the chip were not "needed". Amd on the other hand is rather known for not spending the time/money to laser disable their cut downs. (Which doesn't guarantee that it will work with the full enable, but just because it was disabled does NOT mean it couldn't function if it hadn't been on the first place.)

The real question is always what process was used in the vetting, and what was the fully unlocked version?

Clearly for the I3/I5/I7 desktop line it's the corresponding I7 with the same fully unlocked graphics, and for mobile it likely also starts at the top of each line, but for x99 xeons and 5xxx chips there is obviously a few different starting points.

[Juanse]

I'm not sure I understand your logic.

If there's two extra cores for "in case of fail", then, why don't they promote it as a "harder to fail" and charge more

[KWelz]

If there's two extra cores for "in case of fail", then, why don't they promote it as a "harder to fail" and charge more

 

That isn't how it works.  

[Duganator9]

If there's two extra cores for "in case of fail", then, why don't they promote it as a "harder to fail" and charge more

The two extra cores aren't in case of fail, they are trying to make an 8 core chip. The two disabled cores didn't function properly so they were disabled