AMD Triple Core Information

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.
QFT. I have backed my Q6600 down to a sedate 3.4 ghz for everyday use -- a measly 1 ghz overclock. I think you'd be hard pressed to name a piece of available hardware that enthusiasts are more, erm, enthusiastic about than the Q6600 right now.
 
And I'm running my Q6600 @ 3.6 On air for everyday use and I could get to run higher if I wanted to.But 1200MHz for basic Over Clocking is not very good? Give me blake!

PRed after PRed and Promissed after Promissed, Where the Heck is your AMD So Wonderfull "Native Quad" that can even come close to Intel's not so High Tech and NOT Native Quad Core? So far, NONE, NADA, ZERO. Just a Lier.
 
My original post on this was....far more extreme in its views :D ,but I now see I am not the only one who thinks Kyles views on it are,strange. :) Oh well,everyone see's things differently and all,but this on [H] really did surprise me.

Again maybe I am too much of a pessimist,but something tells me no on this one. :eek:
 
I'm running a QX6700 on air at 3.3 for just every day use. Have had run as high as 3.7 but gets too warm for my taste when all 4 cores are at 100%. Going to water cool soon.
 
I don't care what anyone thinks. It's a f**cking TRI-FORCE CPU!!!!!!!!!!
 
lol...give us an insignia...something w/ a trident or maybe a triangle
 
My original post on this was....far more extreme in its views :D ,but I now see I am not the only one who thinks Kyles views on it are,strange. :) Oh well,everyone see's things differently and all,but this on [H] really did surprise me.

Again maybe I am too much of a pessimist,but something tells me no on this one. :eek:


And you guys are still missing the forest for the trees, or at least some of you. Tri Core is NOT about you, it is about taking a part that would otherwise have to be sold as a super low end quad core, clocking it up, calling it a Tri Core and selling it into a totally different market. I think this will be a huge thing for AMD with big system builders. It is not about the enthusiast, and I never suggested it was.
 
Phenom Trinity has a nice ring to it.

Gotta give you props on that one. I think you probably just trumped anything that AMD's marketing department has done in years. If AMD is haplessly lost anywhere, it is in the mkt dept.
 
I'm happy with a dual core I dont need a Quad to fill my e-penis so Good for AMD for not wasting money.
 
I think the 3 core cpu will be sweet. A nice duel is good now one more cpu cant hurt.
 
I totally agree, AMD making a way to increase performance on something that would be a low end product is pretty solid idea.


/random thought of the day.

Since the Barcalona has the ability to shut down cores when not being used, if they where able to automatically shut down two of the three cores and increase the clock for the remaining core when you are running single threaded apps, would be pretty cool.
Because if you look at the CPU usage on a Q6600, alot of time one or more cores usally never have more then 2%-15% percent workload on them. It will change in the future, but still most games/apps are single threaded
 
I think what AMD has done is very, very difficult. And I give them props for being able to get 3 or 4 cores natively talking to each other. Assuming everything stays the same with the platform then they have pretty much a win-win. If it works, they get additional revenue with a full line of products they might otherwise toss. If it doesn't then they can simply stop making them available. Either way, it works for them. And, they're going to need every advantage against Intel if Intel is able to do half of the stuff they're advertising in their IDF.
 
There are also we midrange folk that like to take a $100 and pump every bit we can outa it. If I can get a higher MHz chip with 3 instead of 4 cores I'll prolly take it ( as long as it not too much slower)

My wife put me on a budget, so I have to be smart about what I buy.
 
Triforce just come out already.... waiting ... watching ... wanting to switch to the evil blue side
 
Disabling features like cache in CPU's and shader quads in a GPU has been done before, so whats the big deal here? Hell Nvidia has sold 6800 cores that had the ROP's cut down from 16 to 8! They also sell kick ass video cards with odd amounts of ram like 320, 640 and 768.

Really im sure some people with Q6600's are geting beastly overclocks but the fact is they are going to clock lower on average compared to a E6600. Nobody said you can't get a great overclock on an intel quad, or that AMD's overclock better, just thats its less likely than with a dual. If the right cores on these quads are disabled then they will also overclock better than a full quad on average.

I would be interested in a X3 simply because a ton of the programs I run now couldn't care less about the second core I have. I do like the idea of some programs going 20 something percent faster with a 4th core, but I imagine higher clock speeds are going to be usefull in far more situations for me.
 
I have to agree that a lot of people are missing the point about this not being targeted at the enthusiast market. Remember what the average buyer is like.

"Look at this system, it has two of these things and costs $x. This system has three of these things and costs $x+$10. This system has 4 of these things and costs $x+50."

The average joe looking for a deal will see the tri-core as a bargain. 50% more cores with a small increase in price over the dual core setup. No, I have no idea of the pricing of the CPUs but I would expect something like this.

There is also the scenario where you have a higher clocked dual core and a similar clocked tri-core that's not much more expensive and the quad core system which is lower clocked and costs around the same or more. The average joe looking for a deal will probably eat up the tri-core in a heartbeat.

If the average joe does look at the tri-core like I have guessed (and the price is closer to dual cores than quad cores) then AMD should have a huge win here.

Remember, it's not just the fact that the tri-core is between dual and quads in the number of cores. It should also allow AMD to scale the tri-cores a good bit higher than they could quad cores. Priced correctly, this can be huge.

One thing I think Kyle is missing is the fact that this could easily be an enthusiast CPU in a way if it's priced close to dual cores. If they do overclock well, you will see people going for them. Most people have no current uses for a quad core CPU. However, as enthusiasts they are looking for the better overall performance. If the tri-core clocks high it could edge out the quad core market for enthusiasts. It will still be a long while before games make use of more than two cores. For the gamer, a high clocked tri-core is a good solution. Possibly higher clocks at stock as well as having more power than a dual core at a decent price is very attractive.

I'm personally not worried about overclocking as far as AMD's strategy is concerned. The vast majority of their CPUs will never be overclocked which is the same as Intel. But, if AMD can scale tri-core CPUs well, they have a great product that can compete at stock speeds.

AMD is not introducing a new market here. What AMD is doing is supplying a product which will overlap two different markets. It will be appealing to the budget minded dual core market as well as the performance minded quad core market.

No multithreaded apps get 100% increases in speed by doubling the number of cores. However, in some situations a higher clocked tri-core could outperform a lower clocked quad core.

While I plan on going quad core as soon as possible (and I think it will be a better CPU for me), there are many situations where a tri-core would be a better option. There are many advantages many of you are overlooking. I've only pointed out a few of them.

I will admit that my conclusions are shaky as they are based on the theories that the tri-cores will be somewhat high clocked and they won't cost much more than a dual core. If either of those theories don't become reality, then my conclusions are all out the door.

 
My wife put me on a budget, so I have to be smart about what I buy.

You and me brother.I think these tri cores could fill a nice niche in the enthusiast market. The x2 3600 was mainly a sku for oem's and look at how many of those have been sold and have overclocked well. I've said it before, I'm still not a multitasker, so having 4 cores at present is overkill for me. I know it will be necessary down the road, but for now, eh....
 
I found the above quite telling... A question is asked,and they sidestep the question and ask about Intel product ?
The question about Intel's products was not an attempt to sidestep the question, but rather a way to set up the rationale/justification/appeal of a triple-core processor. It's a brilliant tactic in persuasive speaking (which includes marketing): set 'em up, knock 'em down. Steve Jobs does the same thing for Apple product announcements, if you look carefully (watch the announcement for the Nano and you'll see what I mean).

Whether the statements made in the setup are well-founded (i.e. "Intel C2Q's don't clock high") is an entirely different matter, one that is very much in debate in this thread.
You and me brother.I think these tri cores could fill a nice niche in the enthusiast market. The x2 3600 was mainly a sku for oem's and look at how many of those have been sold and have overclocked well. I've said it before, I'm still not a multitasker, so having 4 cores at present is overkill for me. I know it will be necessary down the road, but for now, eh....
I'm in the same boat--I want lots of performance, but cost is a real factor. Take a look at the FS/FT subforum, and you'll see lots of threads from people who spent lots of money building a dream rig, then have to sell it because real life interferes: they get married, or they have a kid, or they lose their job, or tuition comes due, etc.

It's important to keep in mind here that, as others have said, very few games can even take advantage of two cores today, let alone four. Buying a Q6600 (or Barcelona) for your gaming rig is like putting an engine from a tractor into a Corvette.

It may seem totally off, but I can see a real market for these in datacenters, where the load may demand more performance or parallelism than a dual-core CPU can provide, but where the cost of full-blown quad core isn't justified.

One last thought: This is a great strategy for AMD to ease the market into their Fusion products. If people can get comfortable with having an odd number of cores, it won't be much of a jump from that to a 3-core-plus-GPU-on-one-die or whatever other tricks they have up their sleeve.

Ok, one more thought (sorry!): It'll be interesting to see what Intel do in response, if anything. Disabling one core out of four on one piece of silicon is one thing. When you have two separate dies, I imagine it would be a bit more difficult to do something similar.
 
Doesn't Intel have something coming up that'll disable a core or 2 and OC the remainder? That would be incredibly helpful for a chip to see the need for more threads and enable/disable cores or change speeds as necessary.
 
This whole tri-core deal seems rather pointless to me... If you want to fulfill the low end segment then you sell dual cores, or build a 1mb x 4 cache quad core and market the 512k cache ones as entry level... Or better yet, get the freakin' clock speeds up to where they should be and the slower ones would meet the need for an entry level quad core.

If they are selling tri-cores by disabling a defective core, so be it, but if they are shutting down a perfectly good core, then it seems like they are selling something at $250 that they could be selling at $300... I made up those numbers, but you get my point (hopefully)
 
No matter how you look at it, AMD is on to something here with the triple core. Three cores must be better than two? (Or so the average joe thinks). I could see AMD gaining a lot of ground in the low-mid range market with the Triple Core Phenom. That being said, I'm happily overclocked @ 2967mhz 24/7 with a Q6600 B3 w/ stock voltage, no reason to upgrade my CPU any time soon, video cards are next.
 
You and me brother.I think these tri cores could fill a nice niche in the enthusiast market. The x2 3600 was mainly a sku for oem's and look at how many of those have been sold and have overclocked well. I've said it before, I'm still not a multitasker, so having 4 cores at present is overkill for me. I know it will be necessary down the road, but for now, eh....

The only time I get true use out of my X2 is when I play Supreme Commander, or I'm playing a game and some random software is doing something underneath (rare this happens). I will probably OC this thing when I need to, then buy a cheep 6400 X2 when everyone else is clamoring for Phenoms.

I'm 1 step behind most of the time, but then my computer is better then 90% of computers out there.
 
If they are selling tri-cores by disabling a defective core, so be it, but if they are shutting down a perfectly good core, then it seems like they are selling something at $250 that they could be selling at $300... I made up those numbers, but you get my point (hopefully)
Intel used to do the same before the Pentium to increase sales volume of their 486. AMD is diversifying their product line and thus catering to a wider market. I don't see a failed strategy here. The OEMs will especially like the tri cores because they can then market systems at greater price points. More can be said of this in favor of AMD's decision, but I'll wait and see precisely how they go about it before casting my final judgment.
 
One thing I think Kyle is missing is the fact that this could easily be an enthusiast CPU in a way if it's priced close to dual cores.

Hehe, not at all. Show me one enthusiast CPU that actually marekted as an "enthusiast" CPU ever that was "successful." Enthusiasts take what these guys regard as chicken shit and make lasagna. ;) Finding cheap E6300s that will do 3.5GHz has been a lot of fun this last year, and before that it was 2.4s and before that it was...

(Still got two SL2W8s in the closet....of yes, some of you remember that like yesterday.)
 
This whole tri-core deal seems rather pointless to me... If you want to fulfill the low end segment then you sell dual cores, or build a 1mb x 4 cache quad core and market the 512k cache ones as entry level... Or better yet, get the freakin' clock speeds up to where they should be and the slower ones would meet the need for an entry level quad core.

If they are selling tri-cores by disabling a defective core, so be it, but if they are shutting down a perfectly good core, then it seems like they are selling something at $250 that they could be selling at $300... I made up those numbers, but you get my point (hopefully)


I think you have totally missed the point. But surely what you say is possible, but I think it is the exact oppisite of what is going on here.
 
And thanks for the solid and civil conversation guys. It is nice to have a discussion about technology that does not break down into a 5th grader flame war. Kudos to AMD fans, detractors, and outside observers alike.
 
What I'm drawing from all this is that AMD will be doing two things to introduce the X3:
a) disable a functionally defective core on a X4 so the remaing three can be sold. (what they'll be doing at first)
b) disable a core that won't scale to meet the speeds their X4 line is selling at. (what they'll be doing later when yields improve)

While this sounds like a good idea for now, what about six months to a year from now when yields and scaling have improved to the point that AMD's quadcores are consistently rolling off the line at 2.5-3.0GHz and the defect rate is low? Would it still make sense to disable a perfectly good core that scales well to maintain an artificially created market segment?
 
While this sounds like a good idea for now, what about six months to a year from now when yields and scaling have improved to the point that AMD's quadcores are consistently rolling off the line at 2.5-3.0GHz and the defect rate is low? Would it still make sense to disable a perfectly good core that scales well to maintain an artificially created market segment?

I think your conclusions are correct. What happens when yields improve, however? The 3-core procs go away and the price of the quads fall into the gap, making room for the next line of CPU's that will be coming out right about then to be priced at the top. Considering these triple core procs will be mostly sold to OEMs like Dell, Hp etc, this is a great plan, both as far as economics, marketing, and price/product cycle.
 
This whole tri-core deal seems rather pointless to me... If you want to fulfill the low end segment then you sell dual cores, or build a 1mb x 4 cache quad core and market the 512k cache ones as entry level... Or better yet, get the freakin' clock speeds up to where they should be and the slower ones would meet the need for an entry level quad core.

If they are selling tri-cores by disabling a defective core, so be it, but if they are shutting down a perfectly good core, then it seems like they are selling something at $250 that they could be selling at $300... I made up those numbers, but you get my point (hopefully)


Or they could not sell it at all, and make 0. Everyone has done this, ati's 9200s that modded to 9800s, Nvidia with the 6800 NU, that softmodded. The idea is to move product out of the warehouse. Period. 100 tri cores with small profit is still better than 100 quads collecting dust on the shelf.

EDIT: Sapphire x800gtos or whatever they were that modded to XTs
 
Are the dual core Phenoms really a dual core processor on a single die or they could also be quad core processors with two of the cores disabled? If the latter is true, then a native quad core design turns out to be "multipurpose" :D If one of the cores is not "up to the task" we get a triple core, if two, we get a dual core. If Intel want to make a triple core processor, they need to glue together a working dual core die with a "faulty" die.
 
I agree with SmokeRngs, I think enthusiasts could see the potential in the X3. It's not just limited to budget-conscious consumers. It's like Kyle said, one of the most appealing aspects of keeping up with computers is finding the real bargains; seeking the biggest bang for the buck, and reaping highend performance from an underdog part.

Three cores will be enough for most people, and with independent voltage plains, it should run cooler than quad core variants. AMD won't have the clocking advantage of 45nm that Intel has, but with a lot of folks still hanging onto X2s and the like, another AMD alternative might be appealing.

Are the dual core Phenoms really a dual core processor on a single die or they could also be quad core processors with two of the cores disabled? If the latter is true, then a native quad core design turns out to be "multipurpose" :D If one of the cores is not "up to the task" we get a triple core, if two, we get a dual core. If Intel want to make a triple core processor, they need to glue together a working dual core die with a "faulty" die.
It's possible, but not likely. AMD will have Kuma for that, and with a truly native dual core CPU producing much greater yields than a QC part with at least twice as many transistors, it wouldn't be very practical to disable half of an Agena core when you already have an abundance of dual cores. If some CPUs are really bad (Kyle indicated yields are good, so it shouldn't be an issue), for a short while they could sell Agena's as dual core parts in the beginning.

I think it's also possible the X3 will be a short-lived part, as ryan_975 alluded to.
 
+1 if someone releases a tool to reactivate the dark core. +2 if the tool can turn on/off the core(s) that are weak and software OC the remaining cores.
 
What I'm drawing from all this is that AMD will be doing two things to introduce the X3:
a) disable a functionally defective core on a X4 so the remaing three can be sold. (what they'll be doing at first)
b) disable a core that won't scale to meet the speeds their X4 line is selling at. (what they'll be doing later when yields improve)

While this sounds like a good idea for now, what about six months to a year from now when yields and scaling have improved to the point that AMD's quadcores are consistently rolling off the line at 2.5-3.0GHz and the defect rate is low? Would it still make sense to disable a perfectly good core that scales well to maintain an artificially created market segment?

When yields get to the point that AMD can make many Agena with very few failed cores, the answer becomes simple, do like Intel does when they don't want someone to buy a certain SKU anymore without discontinuing it simply reduce the price of the Quad Core so that a equivalently clocked Tri and Quad cost the same.
 
Doesn't Intel have something coming up that'll disable a core or 2 and OC the remainder? That would be incredibly helpful for a chip to see the need for more threads and enable/disable cores or change speeds as necessary.

Yes, it's Dynamic Acceleration Technology or something to that effect, well a single threaded application is in use, 1 core can shut down and the remaining core's clock frequency can be boosted while still maintaining the processor's original TDP.
 
I think your conclusions are correct. What happens when yields improve, however? The 3-core procs go away and the price of the quads fall into the gap, making room for the next line of CPU's that will be coming out right about then to be priced at the top. Considering these triple core procs will be mostly sold to OEMs like Dell, Hp etc, this is a great plan, both as far as economics, marketing, and price/product cycle.


I would suggest that when yeilds improve AND the market exists to sell the into you would see a product segment that might be end-of-life. Things don't stay stationary too long in this realm. As soon as truly multithreaded applications start to filter into the market, the room for the X3 will go away.
 
If it turns out correctly, it almost looks like a CeleronA situation. In that case, it was the CeleronA against the PII. In this situation it would be tri core against quad core. The CeleronA generally clocked much better than the PII because of the on die cache that ran full speed although it was only 128k. The PII with the half speed 512k off die cache just couldn't compete at the same clocks. At the same speeds, the CeleronA was as fast or faster than PII's unless the application needed a large cache. That was basically the only advantage the PII had over the CeleronA. I think the tri core will be in a simlar situation as the CeleronA with the quad core as the PII. It's a way to get similar multithreading performance as a quad core at a cheaper price.

Ah, we can only hope to see something that cherry again. :D But here's to hoping.
 
The only time I get true use out of my X2 is when I play Supreme Commander...
Really? I noticed a very real difference going from my P4 630 to the X2. Encoding, web browsing, everything felt much smoother. Then when I moved to a C2D, the whole damn pc felt limitless. Rarely will I encounter a situation in which my mouse can't go clicketly clickin' away wo/ laggin' behind. Maybe it's because I like to have 10 or so apps running at a time tho. :D

As for OC, there's even a tangible difference from 3200 to 3600...especially when transcoding movies w/ a multi threaded app like winavi. I'm talking minutes saved...
 
anyone else feel amd is handing us a shitty stick and telling us its chocolate?
have to agree they are doing it purely to appeal to noobs 90% of the market unfortunatly.
the major system builders will lap it up as a great marketing tool 'WOW get 3 cores for the price of 2'

the enthusiasts like us wont buy unless its dirt cheap and can clock like a mofo but it all looks like to me
intel 3 - amd 0

core2duo was 1-0
core2quad was 2-0
price drop g0 q6600 was 3-0

looks like it will be intel for a while longer for us all which is a pity i always did have an amd soft spot
 
Unlike some people in this thread, I can see these chips at high enough clock speeds being very attractive alternatives to more expensive lower clocked quads. My only concern would be potential problems with multi-threaded software working optimally on a 3-core cpu since I'm sure nobody designed the software with anything but multiples of 2 in mind.

That said, I don't see myself jumping at anything new until Shanghai or Nehalem. There isn't enough software (that I use regularly) out there that takes FULL advantage of 4 cores, and depending on clocks, my E6600 at 3ghz can match or beat current lower-clocked quads on a lot of tasks even if they are 4-core aware. I really don't see myself needing a faster CPU to run/play anything that's going to be out before 2H next year, so why waste money on "bargain" gimped AMD triple cores and cut-and-paste intel quads? I doubt AMD triples will scale high enough to put an upgrade-worthy whooping on a 3ghz C2D any time soon, and the cheapest Penryn desktop CPU is going to have halved L2 cache and run at 2.5ghz, no thanks!

So in summary... triple cores might be a nice move if you're still using an older setup or already have an AM2 board, but otherwise I don't see them being too big with enthusiasts.
 
Back
Top