• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

3 Core Phenom is real

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

juane414

Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Location
Wisconsin
Wow, I was very skeptical of the rumors of a three core phenom CPU... but now it is apparently official! News
I'm very suprised, but also very excited. This is a whole new area of the market that Intel hasn't gotten into yet. AMD will not only have the only "native" quad core CPU's but now the only triple core CPU's as well. Now the only problem is I don't know what to get!
 
You don't know what to get? 3 or 4?..hmm

Well I guess price will be a factor but I think with the low costs of quads now, buying a triple core wouldn't be worth it IMO.
 
Well it doesnt really matter about the price, the fact that AMD has something that intel cannot match in the lower end chips, is a good thing for AMD. Till intel makes a native quad core the correct way like AMD, then they cannot answer a triple core cpu which will beat a dual core in multithreaded apps. This lets AMD capitalize on their quads that dont quite make it up to spec so they dont loose as much from a production stand point.
 
I'm not sure it's quite that simple, but I do hope AMD has a winner with the triple cores. We need the lower prices and innovation that two great CPU companies brings and AMD is clearly on the ropes right now.
 
Well it doesnt really matter about the price, the fact that AMD has something that intel cannot match in the lower end chips, is a good thing for AMD. Till intel makes a native quad core the correct way like AMD, then they cannot answer a triple core cpu which will beat a dual core in multithreaded apps. This lets AMD capitalize on their quads that dont quite make it up to spec so they dont loose as much from a production stand point.

spot on
 
"By regulating the speed at which each core operates, AMD could conceivably sell a triple-core chip that has higher performance metrics than one of its own quad-core chips, said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood."

Well at first I thoughyt DUH triple core? Ridiculous... reading that... I still think triple core is ridiculous, but the ability to clock each core independently is aweseom and would be a real boon to the user.

Now what I think a triple core should be used for?

A regular old dual core CPU with an additional one core dedicated as a physics processor.
 
Wasnt there a study a year or two ago saying that tri core would be very inefficient compared to dual or quad?
 
I'd prefer that the 3 core chips aren't 4 core rejects but that the extra core was disabled by design or a designed triple core. That would give me more confidence in the longevity and performance of said triple core.

I also think the price should reflect a price per core average at the very least. If the triple core was half of a quad, that would make it even more attractive for us and system builders.

It's all about the bang for the buck baby!

Not the brand names ;)
 
SeasonalEclipse said:
Wasnt there a study a year or two ago saying that tri core would be very inefficient compared to dual or quad?
No... a core is a core, there are a number of applications that can make use of any odd number of cores. I can set affinity in MAYA to use only 3 cores without any problems, then I have a free core to keep working while rendering. The XBOX360 has a native Tri-Core CPU.
Audioaficionado said:
I'd prefer that the 3 core chips aren't 4 core rejects but that the extra core was disabled by design or a designed triple core. That would give me more confidence in the longevity and performance of said triple core.
The 2Mb Core 2's have 1/2 of the L2 disabled and it does not suffer from such a thing. There's no such thing as a bad processor, just a processor with a dead component... they've been chopping components in video cards for years.

The triple and quad Core Phenom would simply cost more if they did that. :p
 
Well it doesnt really matter about the price, the fact that AMD has something that intel cannot match in the lower end chips, is a good thing for AMD.
But the price does matter. It is one of the most important thing that matters. It matters a lot. If the AMD's high end chips will equal Intel low end chips, then there is a disaster.

If a quad core is $180, then nobody is going to pay $170 for a triple core.

Thinking logically, ~$40 per core, so $140 for triple core would be reasonable. But then again, with the current price of sub $100 for GOOD dual cores it is not a viable option. The current Joe has no need for a third core. The enthusiast on the other hand will find uses for the fourth core.

It depends on how well they market it.
 
Xbox360 seems to work well on three cores. Why not PC's? Perhaps the missing core will mean additional Cache? At the very least better heat dissipation.
 
But the price does matter. It is one of the most important thing that matters. It matters a lot. If the AMD's high end chips will equal Intel low end chips, then there is a disaster.

If a quad core is $180, then nobody is going to pay $170 for a triple core.

Thinking logically, ~$40 per core, so $140 for triple core would be reasonable. But then again, with the current price of sub $100 for GOOD dual cores it is not a viable option. The current Joe has no need for a third core. The enthusiast on the other hand will find uses for the fourth core.

It depends on how well they market it.

then again that $140 tri core could be a top end cpu whilst that quad core could be low/mid end. plus for company's like dell when they but their chips in bulk there would be a huge price difference
 
A true tri-core with would have the benefit of lowering cost per unit with less silicon used. These will be quads with one core disabled for not being able to pass the tests. Some should have all the L3 cache available unless the cache has bad banks. This may also be the case with dual cores that are quads with 2 non-functioning cores. AMD will fully warranty the chips so it's not a bad deal for the cost savings. If you consider that lifespan for most of our rigs is under 3 years before we upgrade then I'm sure you will not have a problem *1. Where I see these really doing will is playing the current games that only support 2 cores where the 3rd core is idle for background OS stuff to stay off the two active cores. Media centers will also get use for record, playback and other tasks.

Read fast in low voice *1) Warranty void if de-lidded, over-volted, improper heatsink, physical damage, grilled on the barbe, beaten with a hammer, hooked up to a welding machine, car battary or house current.
 
plus this is good news for the quads as well, by geting money off of chips that would normaly be trashed or whatever they do with chips their not going to sell. they will be able to offer these chips at a very very low price , as well as driving down the price of quads, intel already said they were not offering any low priced quads.
 
Dam shame Sk939 was killed off early I still say they could of done good stuff with that socket maybe even a triple core for that. I am really happy with my set-up but gotta move with the times and upgrade for future use.

I hope AMD also captilise on this triple core feature but really good for business thats for sure and maybe pull AMD from the bottom a little. I am thinking of building another AMD rig and these triple cores if prices are good seem tempting DDR3 memory for 2GB has dropped madly one site selling OCZ for £40.
 
I think 3 core is a waste since most people w/ dual cores won't get it and the quad core of us kinda smirk at the puny 3 cores. The Q6600 is cheap too so why go 3 cores unless perhaps it's a really fast clock w/ a great potential of an overclock?

I'm looking toward the 16 core, not backwards toward a 3 core...
 
Back