AMD Triple Core Information

[HardOCP News]

Quoting Kyle from the front page:

Had an interesting conversation with AMD yesterday about the upcoming Phenom Triple Core processors and their heritage and I wanted to pass this along to you.

My first thought when I heard that AMD was going to be marketing Triple Core was, “Damn, do they have that many Agena parts that have a broken core on them?” Then I of course we thought about AMD shutting down one working core on a new Phenom part and they create a totally new “low end” market for themselves, and with AMD selling into system builders like Dell, AMD does need a deep set of SKUs in order to differentiate their desktop products while not totally destroying their Quad Core market segment. So the more I think about the more sense Phenom Triple Core makes. Honestly, my initial kneejerk reaction was much less favorable, but I think that could have been very wrong.

 

[Jakalwarrior]

If you can get past the "my cpu is gimped" factor they could work out to be some nice chips.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

If you can get past the "my cpu is gimped" factor they could work out to be some nice chips.

That would make for a funny case badge, "Gimped CPU Inside" I can understand the idea of a faster triple core vs. a slower quad core.

 

[jon67]

Quad core Intels not oc'ing well? You gotta be kidding me. Enthusiasts are all over the Q6600s after the price drop, and many G0s easily reach 3.6 on air and 1.4V Vcore. Running a B3 24/7 on 1.3V and 3.2GHz myself, in a quiet system with low fan speeds and case airflow.

I understand the need for defending AMD in their present situation, but man get a reality check

 

[cyclone3d]

If you can get past the "my cpu is gimped" factor they could work out to be some nice chips.

ROFL... that is funny,, what, you don't want a gimpy CPU?

I think "gimpy" is sort of an endearing term...

Wannabe Geek:
Hey guys, guess what CPU I got in my computer.

Reguler, non-geek friend:
Huh.. what's a CPU?

Wannabe Geek:
It the thing that makes your computer do stuff, the brains.

Reguler, non-geek friend:
Oh... what ya got?

Wannabe Geek:
It's an AMD Gimpy!

Reguler, non-geek friend:
Uh.. ok.. whatever.

 

[jmackay]

Quad core Intels not oc'ing well? You gotta be fucking kidding me. Enthusiasts are all over the Q6600s after the price drop, and many G0s easily reach 3.6 on air and 1.4V Vcore. Running a B3 24/7 on 1.3V and 3.2GHz myself, in a quiet system with low fan speeds and case airflow.

I understand the need for defending AMD in their present situation, but man get a reality check

That was my thought as well

 

[iTYPE]

I don't know, this can be spun in such a media fashion that it almost sounds good. But so far, I'm inclined to belive that this is making something rather then settling for nothing. If three was the great idea to begin with then why create a gimped 4 ?

 

[baleedit]

This could be an awesome alternative to fill the gap in pricing between dual and quad core proc's. I just hope it works. For some reason 3 cores just doesn't hit me right. Kinda like 3 gb's of ram compared to two, but that's just me.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

This actually goes to show how good it is to have a native quad core and not just 2 dual cores on the same die.....if you have one bad core you still have 3 good ones for amd but with intel if you have one bad one you are essentially back to a dual core cpu......

not quite sure what i would think about a 3 core system.....i suppose the price would have to be pretty attractive.......

 

[snaggletooth]

well, even numbers are nicer to look at and arguably easier to work with when it comes to simple calculations.

why do you think cheerleaders have a '2,4,6,8' cheer?


although i haven't actually had my hands on a q6600, the [H]ard|Forum OC database seems to debunk certain statements regarding enthusiasts and their love for that cpu.


can't wait for this triple-core to launch tho, it should be very interesting.

 

[nonameo]

why do you think cheerleaders have a '2,4,6,8' cheer?

Probably because 4 and 7 don't rhyme with "appreciate"

 

[chrisf6969]

I was trying to explain this to people a few days ago, that this has to do with binning more than a broken core. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1222848&page=4

To get enough cores at a fast speed, etc..

Here's the problem, we're still talking about mid 2Ghz chips, instead of low or sub 2Ghz (maybe a little higher later).
Where Intel has 3Ghz quad cores already with a new process coming online very soon.

 

[Atech]

That would make for a funny case badge, "Gimped CPU Inside" I can understand the idea of a faster triple core vs. a slower quad core.

But that is not the plan?
The plan is that when AMD's "true"*chough* quad-core has a defective core they've got 2 options.
Bin it, or refurbish it as a 3 core CPU.
This is not a new CPU design...it's a defective quad-core being sold a a tri-core...

 

[Sphere]

Quad core Intels not oc'ing well? You gotta be kidding me. Enthusiasts are all over the Q6600s after the price drop, and many G0s easily reach 3.6 on air and 1.4V Vcore.

I came to post about the same thing, they most certainly do clock well.

 

[Deleted member 68403]

I would also object to enthusiasts not wanting the Intel quadcore and that they don't overclock well. I am running a B3 at stock voltage on air cooling at 3.2 gigahertz. 33% overclock with no voltage increase and load temps less than 50C.

 

[ir0nw0lf]

But that is not the plan?
The plan is that when AMD's "true"*chough* quad-core has a defective core they've got 2 options.
Bin it, or refurbish it as a 3 core CPU.
This is not a new CPU design...it's a defective quad-core being sold a a tri-core...

My wording was wrong, I meant to say that I can understand the consumer appeal of a faster per-core speed triple core vs. a slower per-core speed quad core. How the CPU's get spit out isn't what I was referring to and wasn't the point I was going after.

 

[Modred189]

This looks like one of those situations that turns out to be good for both the company and the consumer. I mean, as a consumer, what do you care if your proc has X cores or Y-1=X cores, as long as you pay for X cores and are told that's how many you get? It gets you the same place, just in a different way. Also, if that means we as consumers get better performance for our $, well then everyone wins.

What i don't want to see is crappy overheating, damaged silicon in my parent's computer.

 

[Atech]

My wording was wrong, I meant to say that I can understand the consumer appeal of a faster per-core speed triple core vs. a slower per-core speed quad core. How the CPU's get spit out isn't what I was referring to and wasn't the point I was going after.

Ahh...now I get it

 

[anthrex]

I didn't really understand the hullabaloo over this but I'm glad that a more positive turn has come to the fore front because I do want AMD to sell a lot of chips and get back in the black. i think the only problem is that its taking so long to bring them out.

oh well as I'm not devoted to one side or another I'll be switching from AMD to Intel in the next few weeks because of my lack of patience and want to have a faster computer

 

[Manny Calavera]

Quoting Kyle from the front page:

Had an interesting conversation with AMD yesterday about the upcoming Phenom Triple Core processors and their heritage and I wanted to pass this along to you.

My initial thoughts on the Triple Core Phenom flew in the face of those yield claims. Then a point was brought up to me; “How well do Quad Core Intel CPUs overclock?” The answer to that is simply, “Not very well.” While there are exceptions to the rule, the Intel Core 2 Quad has not been sought out by the enthusiast since on average it brings with it very low overclocking ceiling. And then I was asked, “Why do you think that is so?”

I found the above quite telling... A question is asked,and they sidestep the question and ask about Intel product ? Honestly,what the hell does Intels yields/ and Engineering prowess have to do with AMD's obviously low yields/and AMD's Engineering debacles/mistakes ?

So thier 'logic' is 'Well',if we are screwing up left right and center,so must Intel on like product ??? One IMHO,has to assume much to swallow this almost clever spin.

Given Intels obvious engineering success at bringing product to market,and the fact that they have seemingly ramped up their 'ramp up' on 45nm,I find this explanation just somewhat hard to swallow.

And I'm not even going to talk about overclocking quads,as a quick gander here and elsewhere show the quad to be doing pertty well.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

I'd really like to see the difference between triple and quad core.

 

[Dazz]

If you compaire a Core 2 Duo to a Core 2 Quad you will find the Duo will leave the Quad in the dust. As games are baring multithreaded a higher clock speed is better. So although that CPU's top out about 2.2GHz for the quad and can have say 2.8GHz on the tri it is a bigger step for them then the Quad only processors. Tri is a good step forward as it a mix of extra multithreading and higher clock speeds. The main problem with Quad cores for intel is thair ability to overclock the FSB which is much lower then the Core 2 Duos.

 

[jmackay]

I just wonder what the pricing will be like, as they will have to compete with Intels Q6600 @ $280ish, low end C2D @ $120ish, and mid-range C2D @ $180ish. All of which are excellent overclockers.

 

[Hotdog453]

If you compaire a Core 2 Duo to a Core 2 Quad you will find the Duo will leave the Quad in the dust. As games are baring multithreaded a higher clock speed is better. So although that CPU's top out about 2.2GHz for the quad and can have say 2.8GHz on the tri it is a bigger step for them then the Quad only processors. Tri is a good step forward as it a mix of extra multithreading and higher clock speeds. The main problem with Quad cores for intel is thair ability to overclock the FSB which is much lower then the Core 2 Duos.

And the people who use multithreaded programs...?

HardOCP themselves have had articles on the "CPU scaling doesn't do much", ala: Semi old, but still fairly relevant.

Plus, TechReport had an article on CPU scaling as well: Oblivion/other games

So if, generally, the CPU doesn't affect gaming that much, why not go Quad? I know I saw NO difference in framerates in going from a E6700@3.7 ghz to a Q6600@3.5ghz, even with a loss of 200mhz. Then again, this is at 2560x1600 on 8800GTXes in SLI.

But want to know what I DID see a big jump in? Oh, yeah, multithreaded programs that can take more threads.

So at the high end resolution, you gain minimal from a faster CPU. But the gains in applications that support more threads can be massive: You can't overlook that.

 

[jmackay]

And the people who use multithreaded programs...?

HardOCP themselves have had articles on the "CPU scaling doesn't do much", ala: Semi old, but still fairly relevant.

Plus, TechReport had an article on CPU scaling as well: Oblivion/other games

So if, generally, the CPU doesn't affect gaming that much, why not go Quad? I know I saw NO difference in framerates in going from a E6700@3.7 ghz to a Q6600@3.5ghz, even with a loss of 200mhz. Then again, this is at 2560x1600 on 8800GTXes in SLI.

But want to know what I DID see a big jump in? Oh, yeah, multithreaded programs that can take more threads.

So at the high end resolution, you gain minimal from a faster CPU. But the gains in applications that support more threads can be massive: You can't overlook that.

Also depends a lot on what game you are playing, and if that game is cpu limited or gpu limited.

Quad Performance in SupCom: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

 

[Jodiuh]

I'd say about 1/2 the users in the Abit IP35 Pro owner's thread over @ XS run quads...fast.

Aside from that, it's nice to see AMD coming out w/ more options. I've been loving Intel's pricing, but we all need competition!

 

[MC FLMJIG]

Seems interesting. This is all AM2+ though. Will there really be a big jump in performance regarding the AM2+? I really like my Biostar and would mind trying the TriCore if the price is right!

 

[Snowdog]

Certainly you have to expect AMD to try and make lemonade out of lemons, which is exactly what is going on here. If there were perfect yields, there would be no tri-cores.

I don't see how this offers anything that AMD will seriously want to get into on good cores because they will have to sell tri-cores cheaper than quads and they don't exist in a vacuum, they have to contend with Intel on the competitive landscape.

Making tri-cores out working quads is costly behavior that could potentially hurt them big time. Because Intel can build quad cores cheaper than AMD can build tri-cores.

Despite any protestations to the contrary, I expect AMD will not disable any good cores to make tri-cores. It doesn't make any financial sense and AMD is not exactly flush with cash.

You also have to consider what the supportable priced difference is. With Intel pricing the Q6600 only $50 more than the E6600, is there even room in between there for a $25 difference tri-core?

The main benefit to this news was distraction from IDF to get people talking about AMD.

 

[FrgMstr]

I found the above quite telling... A question is asked,and they sidestep the question and ask about Intel product ? Honestly,what the hell does Intels yields/ and Engineering prowess have to do with AMD's obviously low yields/and AMD's Engineering debacles/mistakes ?

So thier 'logic' is 'Well',if we are screwing up left right and center,so must Intel on like product ??? One IMHO,has to assume much to swallow this almost clever spin.

Given Intels obvious engineering success at bringing product to market,and the fact that they have seemingly ramped up their 'ramp up' on 45nm,I find this explanation just somewhat hard to swallow.

And I'm not even going to talk about overclocking quads,as a quick gander here and elsewhere show the quad to be doing pertty well.

I appreciate your thought here, but the question is more rhetorical as AMD never comments specifically on yields. But I have listened to them for years now about them and think I have a fairly good read of when they are "bad" and when they are "good." Maybe you have much better information than I do, and if so, great. Beyond that, I don't follow your "logic," as I don't see how you can read so many assumptions into your train of thought.

If they suck, we will all buy an Intel CPU and be happy. I have an Intel CPU in my own box now and will NOT be trading it out for a triple core any time soon. The triple core is in no way targeted at the gamer or enthusiast, and that likely means anyone reading this post. If they are all that and a bag of chips, it will mean better pricing for ALL of us.

If you think my thoughts about the overall quad OCing situation is off-base, then hey, fully discount what I say and consider my commentary totally wrong. It's my 2 cents and you may need change.

 

[bbf]

Maybe AMD should just market it as the chip that's optimized for ported Xbox 360 games. It saves PC gamers money because they won't have to pay for any more cores than are available to native Xbox360 games. ;-)

Bundle the 3 core chip with a motherboard and a DX10 ATI graphics card that most resembles the ATI designed graphics engine in the Xbox360 and whammo, blammo...

The AMD-ATI Super Duper Ultra Optimized for Xbox 360 to PC Ported Games Package is born.

Or the "DAAMIT SDUO4X3602PCPG Package" for easy rememberinging. (Also if it's bundled with Shadowrun for Vista it will help Microsoft avoid burying thousands of unsold copies in a New Mexico dump next to thousands of Atari 2600 E.T. cartridges. This could be called the DAAMIT SDUO4X3602PCPG Package SE (Shadowrun Edition).)

Intel can't possibly match level of ultimate optimology cause they don't sell triple core processors... two is one too few, four is one too much... --> therefore not optimally optimized.

 

[Snowdog]

I would say current stepping Intel Quads overclock better than AMD duals, so IMO they look pretty healthy in the OC department.

Naturally there will be less overall maximums with double the dies pumping heat into the same cooler, more current being sucked out of the MB etc.

 

[Cybercat]

I think AMD should cancel their Kuma dual core processors. Just produce nothing but Barcelona or Agena cores and sell them as either quad or tri-core chips. Last gen Athlon products can bring up the rear end with budget (dual core) solutions.

Eventually Intel's Q6600 will come down to $200, and as far as the enthusiast consumer is concerned, it won't ever be a question of whether quad-core is within reach. But it's a question of whether AMD can afford to release their brand new quad-core chips at $200, being more expensive to manufacture than two of Intel's 45nm chips glued together. They can't lower margins any further if they plan to stay toe-to-toe with Intel's incessant price drops.

With games barely using anything beyond two threads, it makes a lot of sense on the desktop space to position a higher-clocked tri-core CPU against Intel's low-clocked quad-core. It will still be very competitive, as even Intel's dual core chips are taking some of the spotlight away from their C2Q line. With a third core, you've still got enough there to improve performance slightly in games like UT3 or Alan Wake, and yet have some utilization left over to do some background stuff.

I definitely do NOT see the Q6600 as an end all, sure-fire solution.

 

[Laserbait]

The new AMD Cripple..err Triple Core, I like the idea!

Make the Sempron a single core absolute bottom dollar CPU

Then the X2 dual core could be priced just below the the Core2 Duo

The Cripple Core, X3, (or whatever) priced just above the C2D

and the Quad core just below the C2Quad

That would make for a fantastic lineup IMHO.

 

[Sean]

My first thought was "gimmick". However there might be some real clout to triple core's performance vs. quad cores.

 

[Manny Calavera]

The new AMD Cripple..err Triple Core, I like the idea!

Make the Sempron a single core absolute bottom dollar CPU

Then the X2 dual core could be priced just below the the Core2 Duo

The Cripple Core, X3, (or whatever) priced just above the C2D

and the Quad core just below the C2Quad

That would make for a fantastic lineup IMHO.

Is this ^ flamebait,or you trying to be facetious,or is this both ?


And Kyle you likely have access to better info then I ever will,but all the same I disagree with your outlook.Maybe its the pessimist in me,but all I see is duck,dive and spin,and a lot of it (from AMD),not you.You have as usual been direct and honest.

Depending on Intels marketing reaction to this,what do you think of Ed's thoughts that this could backfire on AMD ? I think the marketing on this has to be played out very carefully on AMD's part if nothing else.

Otellini has already been qouted making some disparging remarks on the Tri Core.

 

[forcefed]

Seriously... who wrote this article, kyle or amd?

 

[pxc]

Seriously... who wrote this article, kyle or amd?

Yeah, seriously.

While AMD will not commit to hard numbers, one thing is for sure, they are very proud of their yield rates.

LOL. So proud that they created 2 gimped bins (1.7 and 1.8GHz) and can't get more than a tiny trickle out at any speed.

Then a point was brought up to me, “How well do Quad Core Intel CPUs overclock?” The answer to that is simply, “Not very well.” While there are exceptions to the rule, the Intel Core 2 Quad has not been sought out by the enthusiast since on average it brings with it a very low overclocking ceiling.

You canot b serios. AMD's new interview technique: leave the thinking to us.

C'mon now. I could expect this type of fluff from some lame site depending on AMD ad money, but this is supposed to be [H]ardOCP.

 

[tophatfield]

If you set aside the over clocking issue and think mATX with the third CPU running the on board graphics you would have a damn good mid level computer that didn't take up much desk space and it probably would be enclosed in a Dell case. Remember that ATI rules in the mid level GPU area.

 

[Legenic]

I just had to chime in on the "how well do inte's quad core's overclock" and "enthusiasts don't really seek out quad core processors" comment.

wow. pretty safe to say both are not true.

 

[EU123]

I just had to chime in on the "how well do inte's quad core's overclock" and "enthusiasts don't really seek out quad core processors" comment.

wow. pretty safe to say both are not true.

That's funny. It's From AMD Tech? I wonder if he can NAME just one AMD that can OCing as well as Intel C2D Dual Or Quad?? Or is there another Lier from the Green team again?