Well, a Black edition Triple Core may be fun to play with at a good price point. I know I personally wasn't interested at all until I heard about this Black Edition. There is talk that because one core is disabled on these triple cores. that overclocking can be much better... hmmm.
I have seen some reviews that show the X3 8750 OC to 3Ghz. It would probably be a good chip for anyone on a tight budget. Plus remember a lot of people do not OC and are not worried about gaming. The cheapest X3 is only 100 bucks. The BE edition is 115 bucks. I would not mind picking one up to play around with but my wife would probably shoot me.
Like it was noted previously, the Athlon64 X2 is still in the roadmap, making a big shade to the Phenom X3s. If AMD stops making Athlon64 X2's, then these Phenoms might see the light, otherwise, i'd say they'll be still in the shade. I don't know if 1 extra core is worth the difference. The good thing is that triple core BE. Sounds like fun indeed. Maybe that's the direct replacement for the Athlon64 5000 and 6000 BE's.
Why would a company that has had net losses 7 quarters in a row, a lot of debt and a need for cash to finance future production capacity continue to slash prices? This makes no sense unless they are having trouble moving product. If they are not having issues moving product, why cut prices so much when you are operating at a net loss for so long?
And cutting tri-cores just puts more pressure on AMD then Intel! It picks off potential 'low end' AMD quad sales and puts pricing pressure on dual cores which is still the high volume product. Remember from a cost perspective a tri-core is a quad core piece of Silicon and is the equivalent of a bit more than 2 Athlon X2's from a silicon and production cost perspective. I would rather make 2 Athlon's then 1 tri-core; we are now 18 months into the 65nm ramp so I would assume AMD has figured out 65nm yield by now?
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Is this the CPU with one working core disabled or three defective cores enabled?[/citation]
Good one Randomizer! LOL
What AMD should have done was disable not only the bad core but disable the third core and make a very low powered X2 out of it instead of pushing all these triple core rejects.
"A triple core is a defective quad, the silicon would have been spent anyway, they make money on what would otherwise be lost on trashed/recycled cpus."
And you of course would be wrong with this overly simplistic statement. Like AMD, no business sense as you need to look at total ROI, and not a "grunt, grunt...it would have been thrown away anyway" analysis.
First - the tri-core segment pushes down the upper end dual core prices which are sold IN FAR MORE VOLUME than tricores (at LEAST a 10:1 ratio, if not more) If you can make $5-10 more for 10X the volume...you do the math!
Second - your assumption baked in (that you don't realize) is that AMD would have lost the sale if there was no tri-core bin. This is obviously not the case as with no tri-core you would have a mix of people moving up to quad core or down to dual core, and of course some may move to Intel. So to dumb this down you may end up throwing away a chip that costs $60 (or whatever a quad core costs to make), but replace that sale with a higher margin part sale. This may blow your mind but it's possible the margin on a quad sale may actually be better when comparing it to throwing a tricore away (it will at least offset the "throwing a tricore away" cost impact)
Third - there are costs to FINISHING, SELLING, BINNING, STOCKING, MAINTAINING INVENTORY, LOGISTICS, etc of maintaining the extra bins for the tri-core. This is not huge, but not "free". So this view of it essentially being found money or effectively a free sale, is wrong.
FINALLY - the assumption nearly everyone makes is that a tri-core is just a quad core with a non-functional core. Is it possible, some of these are working quad core that couldn't meet the TDP bin? Is it possible that AMD is 'locking' good quad cores to meet tri-core demand? people are ASSUMING these are chips that 'would have been thrown out anway' but has anyone actually confirmed this is the case for ALL tri-cores? I have seen no official statement from AMD that these are only non-working quads - while some (or even most) of them may be, ever think they all might not be?
In short, people should look at a bigger picture of overall impact and not 'tricore or throw away' as if that sale occurs in a vacuum and has no other impact on AMD sales or other part prices.
Or perhaps folks' 3rd garde logic on this is correct....
[citation][nom]pricedropinmadness[/nom]FINALLY - the assumption nearly everyone makes is that a tri-core is just a quad core with a non-functional core. Is it possible, some of these are working quad core that couldn't meet the TDP bin? Is it possible that AMD is 'locking' good quad cores to meet tri-core demand? people are ASSUMING these are chips that 'would have been thrown out anway' but has anyone actually confirmed this is the case for ALL tri-cores? I have seen no official statement from AMD that these are only non-working quads - while some (or even most) of them may be, ever think they all might not be?[/citation]Of course they're not all "defective", AMD couldn't have an entire product lineup purely based on faulty chips. Well, we hope their yields aren't that bad anyway.
they ought to make Phenom X2 rather than X3 which will make a very good combo with a 780G chipset and they will give good price and performance ratio and will definetely will be good for HTPC users. they should also ramp up the speed of X4 if they want to give competition to Intel in clock to clock performance.
Just asking. Is it a great idea to make propearty dual core based on Phenom something with 1 mb L3 cache an greater clock speed. Because the software is more optimised for dual core and greater clock speed would have greater impact on performance. Opinions?