AMD Triple Core... Want or Don't Want?

[chibi_man]

Ok, the little research I have found on triple cores suggest AMD is a sly smooth and sexy innovators of using defective quad core processors to make triple core processors.

When I first heard about triple core processors I thought they would actually start from scratch and design a processor with JUST 3 cores.. but thats not entirely accurate.

AMD's Phenom seems to suck but just may give them more business on there reject stack.
Honestly, Phenom processors that have one defective core become Triple core processors. Just switch the bad one off and PRESTO... Genius? meh more like lazy and smart.

I see a lot of potential in this. Since theres no real way of telling which cores can reach the highest speeds without hours of trial and error. But who knows, I can't wait for AMD to come out with something like "Triple Core Phenom 9800 Black Edition". Something like that would look real sexy on my M3A32-MVP Deluxe. She'd be true spider in my eyes.

I'd love to talk about this and see if anyone knows anymore or what interest others have.

[Cheator]

Its been knwon for a while that they'd use defective quads, thats how they can make good profit over them. Because of tihs they will probably OC well since on current quads, its usually 1 core that holds them back from getting 3ghz.

I look forward to them so I can get a cheap but effective SMP solution.

[chibi_man]

Oh for sure it's been known for awhile... September 2007 there was MANY articles.
Since each core can be individually overclocked and the weakest core gets shutdown, we could be looking at a mighty powerful processor.

[MpG]

I dunno. Individual core clocks sounds nice, but on a triple? If one core was so bad they couldn't sell it at all, how are the other three going to clock? Sounds good for the general desktop market, but a big fail for overclocking.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by Cheator

Because of tihs they will probably OC well since on current quads, its usually 1 core that holds them back from getting 3ghz.

It's almost always 1 core that holds back an overclock, given any number of total cores. ;)

In general, I'd expect these to clock very similarly to their quad-core counterparts, simply with 1 core less.

[kingnubian]

I'm not really interested until they can pull out a performance competitive part vs Intel. What has also hurt AMD is the too fast, IMHO ,change in socket specs. 754->939->AM2->AM2+ may technically be necessary but it can be a confusing mess for consumers. Contrast this with Intel's 775 platform which with the right board can run most cpu's from celeron D's to the latest & greatest 45nm parts with usually just a bios upgrade.

In short, AMD triple core does not impress me.

[Cheator]

Originally Posted by Mars

It's almost always 1 core that holds back an overclock, given any number of total cores. ;)

In general, I'd expect these to clock very similarly to their quad-core counterparts, simply with 1 core less.

They're probably clock better because of:
1) they arne't held back by that low clocking core. Many OC results on phenoms show most cores can go to 3ghz except for one.
2) less heat

Originally Posted by kingnubian

What has also hurt AMD is the too fast, IMHO ,change in socket specs. 754->939->AM2->AM2+ may technically be necessary but it can be a confusing mess for consumers. Contrast this with Intel's 775 platform which with the right board can run most cpu's from celeron D's to the latest & greatest 45nm parts with usually just a bios upgrade.

Well there are flaws with Intel on that side as well. They switched from 423 to 478 very quickly. Then they had 775 with 478 and I know for a fact that caused confusion. And of course the dreaded 771 which is the same socket, but not.. which can be confusing. But i think the its 2 schools of thought.

One is that you use 1 socket for everything, having to sacrifice some boards along the way that aren't compatible with newer CPUs, like many boards that won't run Conroe.

And the second, is that of giving the consumer a good idea of what he can install. He can install
in his board. But there is also the benefit of backwards compatability. AMx will be backwards and somewhat forwards compatible.

[Ugly n Grey]

We'll see when they hit... but 65nm trips aren't going to have anymore headroom than 65nm quads. There' just too much voltage bleeding going on in that package. Period.

Polygon is working on some mod BIOS's for the 770 chipset stuff and is closer than the mobo vendors (seemingly) at getting clocks per core working on the current Phenoms... It might be a fun processor, but it all depends on the price. If they decide to sell these at more than 150 bucks, any decent dual core Intel in that price point will kick it's ass at anything. So price is king. Expect to see a lot of them in HP consumer systems.

[chibi_man]

From what I have heard it's supposed to be pretty cheap. Mind you chances are it will be in the $100 to $300 range because of the style of processor used.
65nm is AMD's limit right now, hopefully next year they will FINALLY have a 45nm.

Seeing how the 4 cores in the phenom seem to all have there own clock limit, we might find that every quad or triple core processor will have there own limit. Won't that be interesting.
Person A and Person B both have the same board and processor. But only one of them can clock a core higher then 3.0Ghz.
This just from what I have read so far... I have no idea if that scenario will even be close to true.

Something that does bug me while having the triple core processor in the works... If they just use Quad core processors to make them, I wonder if they will use the excess L2 and L3 cache on the three cores? chances are AMD will be a bunch of punks and leave it to waste.

[omgwtf]

If the cpu will be cheap that's ok but If I need to change the mobo that is not really ok...
The phenom for example..the 9500 is accessible but the mobo ..another 200 bucks..