Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
AMD Technology

AMD Readies "Lottery-Core" CPUs 80

Barence writes "AMD has announced a radical shake-up of its CPU strategy, in an exclusive interview with PC Pro. The company has revealed that the next generation (codenamed Tyche) will be offered as a single 'lottery-core' SKU, with the number of functional cores in each part left for the customer to discover. 'We know gaming is very important to our customers,' explained regional marketing manager Ffwl Ebrill, 'and we're innovating to bring that win-or-lose experience out of the virtual world and into the marketplace.' Anyone discovering more than ten functional cores could consider themselves 'a lottery winner,' while unfortunates discovering their new CPU had no working cores at all would be encouraged to 'roll again.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Readies "Lottery-Core" CPUs

Comments Filter:
  • by TrisexualPuppy ( 976893 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:13PM (#31701818)
    How about you get the number of cores proportional to the post number? FIRST!

    Wait a sec...holding off on this one...
  • Okay, I know it's a joke, but isn't it kinda true? Grab one of AMD's chips with disabled cores, and it truly is random how many cores (if any) you might be able to unlock using ACC. :P

  • The thing about lotteries is that they defy physics. Take a machine designed to give out specific units of force, and balls designed to weigh the same weight they are prescribed, and you've got a very predictable physical system.

    So, how do they avoid drawing the same numbers every time? They let a computer mess up the given statuses... do they use Set 1, Set 2, or Set 3 of balls? Do they put the balls in numerical order? When does the machine start moving?

    The thing is... you can't let humans decide these va

    • The thing about lotteries is that they defy physics. Take a machine designed to give out specific units of force, and balls designed to weigh the same weight they are prescribed, and you've got a very predictable physical system.

      Predictable for how long?

    • Chaos theory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:23PM (#31701898) Homepage Journal

      Take a machine designed to give out specific units of force, and balls designed to weigh the same weight they are prescribed, and you've got a very predictable physical system.

      Even if it is predictable, it isn't necessarily tractable. The air inside one of those table tennis ball blenders, for instance, is a chaotic system []. The "specific units of force" aren't always constant given fluctuations in power supply.

      your state lottery is just as random as the PRNG at headquarters.

      More likely, the PRNG that dictates exactly how long the machine runs isn't entirely pseudo but instead tied to an entropy-gathering process such as hashing room noise received through the microphone.

    • by CyprusBlue113 ( 1294000 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:29PM (#31701928)

      Except they don't, because the vast majority of the systems are based on the concept of turbulent flow of a fluid (in this case air generally), which is for all practical purposes due to the number of variable points of deflection impossible to model for any time period signifigant enough to allow for predictions of these machines as they are designed to long pass this point before the balls would lock in position.

      Heck trying to model turbulent flow on a fixed path is hard enough, trying to model turbulent flow through a mass of shifting floating deflectors is downright masochistic.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        and given that you have to lock in your picks before you even know the initial state, i wouldn't worry too much about it.
  • by llvllatrix ( 839969 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:16PM (#31701838)
    Didn't go over so well. Just ask newegg.
    • We can only hope that the supplier they traced it to, once they realized that they were totally fucked no matter what they did at that point, responded: "You can't make a profit without breaking some neweggs..."
  • by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:16PM (#31701840) Journal
    Stop with the April fools posts already!
  • Actually it would probably work as long as the cpu had enough cores to be worth the cost. I would go for it!
  • And I lost, it had fewer working MBs than it was advertised. ;/ So this is very real actually.
  • Those jokes aren't even funny nor interesting.

    They are just bad.

    Except the youtube 1/4 that thing was good !

  • Intel got there first, years ago.
  • April first :|
  • It is all fun and 1 of April games until someone gets a 0-core processor.

    • I'm thinking of installing a small generator on my abacus powered by the motion of the beads and calling it a minus-1-core processor. I put processing in to it, and I get energy out.

  • that was already how they determined processor speed: []

  • It's such a completely humorless waste of time. Yes, that's right-Bah humbug.
  • Enough already. It's done to death and not funny.

    At least the OMGPONIES joke was fun, since it didn't rely on an endless avalanche of stupid fake news stories.

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @02:59PM (#31702120)

    To whomever decided to add the 'dontruinitwithtags' tag ...


    I get excited at a glimmer of hope of something to read while I sit here and wait for this batch to run ... only to find out another moronic April Fools post was made ... because 10 in one day just isn't enough.

    • by MORB ( 793798 )

      Who would be stupid enough to believe this anyway even in the absence of tags and of a billion other jokes?

  • Isn't there a tech site that sells a daily "Bag of Crap"? People buy it, every day. Sometimes it's full of nice stuff. Often it's crap. People buy it. Because the price is right.

    So, same here. I'd go for it. I'd pay $10 for a "Box of Crap" from AMD. It can have anywhere from 0 to 12 operational cores. As long as neither I nor AMD know ahead of time which it is, I'd buy it. I'm willing to gamble my $10 on the yield of AMD's production line.

    'course, given their yield, the price would probably have t

  • Save money on QA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DarthVain ( 724186 ) on Thursday April 01, 2010 @03:17PM (#31702236)

    A boon for Overclockers really..

    No longer are things priced by binning, now every one has an equal chance.

    I would seriously buy one if the price was right. I mean I already own a C2D 1.8 I bought on the assumption that I could overclock the thing to 3.2 or whatever, and then was sorely dissapointed when it couldn't take an OC at all. I mean the ONLY reason I bought it was to OC it.

    This would fill that niche. You don't have to sort or test them, heck, you don't even need to market them... what are you gonna say... erm we don't know how fast it will run, nor do we really know how many cores it contains... buy one and find out! Sure I will, just price 'em cheap and I would be all over that! (so long as your secretly not binning all the good ones and just selling rejects!)

    I dunno, sounds find to me if the price is right. Overclockers everywhere would have a field day posting their finds! Not sure how you would do the package with a possible variable number of cores. I guess your MB would have to be uber compatible with everything...

    Yes yes I know it is an April Fools joke. I still want one for fun though! :)

    • by twosat ( 1414337 )
      Sir Clive Sinclair and his Anamartic company were involved in something like this with "Wafer-Scale Integration" many years ago which used the "Catt Spiral" developed by Ivor Catt to make solid-state memory disks. Mr Catt is proposing something very similar to the "Lottery Core" cpus with his plans for the "Kernel Machine" []
  • First, I am a fan of AMD and I'm glad they are being creative with how they might approach the market in the future.

    But, this "lottery core" concept, if legal, is a very dangerous precedent pawned off to the consumer. Like atm transaction fees, or any financial transaction fees whatsoever, the only reason they persist is because no one has decided to sue for the practice; all those who might afford the lawsuit in some way benefit from the practice or the short changing effect has negligible effect on them

  • I still like the odds better than my state lottery.
  • Intel was already getting ready to roll out their own lottery-core [] However there was a bit of public backlash because units leaked out early.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.