AMD tri core

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
So, i read a while back thart amd was gonna do the intel thing by fusing 2 quads together and voila!, montreal with eight cores, it would be cool if they could do the same with the tri cores, nobody needs 8 cores, or six for that matter, but still sounds cool especially if it's on the cheap. Hell, i even have a city name for it, the detroit, or maybe the lansing, possibly the ann arbor, amd could show michigan some love.
 


I prefer some Oakland or Macomb names:

The Warren
The Troy
The Royal Oak
The Clawson
The Southfield
The Sterling Heights
 
Does AMD's Tri Core not make sense to anyone else? I don't get it. There doesn't seem to be a niche market for a tri core, when a quad core from intel is only 240. The only reason I can think AMD would be making a tri core is to sell some crappy silicon? So many programs are optimized for 2,4,8,16 cores, not 3! They're selling these just to take it at a loss and get some money back for the crappy silicon. Maybe... Thoughts? It just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying I know what they're doing, I'm not saying that this is what they're doing, but the tri core area isn't going to have much of a niche market, maybe from 200-220?
 
http://www.channelinsider.com/article/AMD+Confirms+Addition+of+ThreeCore+Phenom+Chips/215411_1.aspx
Kinda scary that yields are so low they think they'll have enough stock to make a complete new line. Or is that just the price you pay from going "native".

Also from this, Phenom to launch in December. After that, the article just turns into drivel.

And if they were to name it Detroit, at least 2 of the cores would not work, it would cost more than a fully functional quadcore and the core(s) that do work, would only run at full speed 30% of the time. All the while claiming it's a fully function quadcore. :kaola:
 
Since amd can not compete with dual and quad they made a tri core - this is like a 5 cylinder engine from volve - who cares.

really its just a way to dump bad quad cores! that's the bottom line!
 
Thats actually the first thing i though dragon...

AMD is making a "true" quad core they are bound to have stuff ups as it has too be a pretty complex die arrangement. And if they dont quite get it right and they stuff one core up... they dont have to throw it away now they can just say its a tri-core and sell it off. Just a way to increase there yield which in turn improves the big p word

PROFIT
 
what hard about screen printing 4 cpu's instead of 1 with a few wires! if only it was so easy!

ya amd tried to go from point b to point d

intel went from a to b to c to b to c and d is coming!
 
i pretty damm sure that it only has three physical cores not 4 with one disabled i think thats making a pretty bold statement about their current Barcelona yields too.
 
Well, I guess I have to be the voice of reason, here...there is nothing inherently evil about not having a multiple of 2 cores. Plus, many programs today only really can challenge 3 cores...I can't remember exactly, but one of the bigger encode/decode progs can't quite utilize four cores yet...but it can utilize three.

Tri-cores will be a way to increase yield AND increase performance for less than the price of the quad-core big brother. I'd love to have one of these processors, over my dual core e4300.
 
Does AMD's Tri Core not make sense to anyone else? I don't get it. There doesn't seem to be a niche market for a tri core, when a quad core from intel is only 240. The only reason I can think AMD would be making a tri core is to sell some crappy silicon? So many programs are optimized for 2,4,8,16 cores, not 3! They're selling these just to take it at a loss and get some money back for the crappy silicon. Maybe... Thoughts? It just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying I know what they're doing, I'm not saying that this is what they're doing, but the tri core area isn't going to have much of a niche market, maybe from 200-220?
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you with a few exceptions.

The tri-core makes sense for AMD. AMD needs to sell as much as possible and this is a way to make up for manufacturing defects.

Now the odd parts is forcing a product that the market may not really want.


PS - This was already posted http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/245162-28-core
 
Meh... so AMD wants to make the most of poor yields (salvaging defect chips), and give themselves more flexibility in their product line-out... Sounds like something they would do. Remember, AMD really need to be able to sell as much as possible if they ever hope to climb out of the red (which I hope they do).

As for Intel... for them, if taping two dual-cores together gets them a quad-core that performs nicely... then they will go for it. The only reason (maybe not the only reason, but I think its a fair summary) why they would ever go native quad-core would be to start seeing if they can tape two quad-cores for an octo-core.

I just want to see whether the new dual-cores, tri-cores and quad-core parts from AMD are actually any good. I'll reserve any judgement on them until I start seeing benches and the pricing for them.
 
The only reason I can think AMD would be making a tri core is to sell some crappy silicon?
Click to expand...

IMO it's more like they're trying not to throw away some perfectly good silicon. Why toss 3 perfectly good cores because one core is bad? I know it's ancient history, but if memory serves me correctly, isn't this what Intel did with failed FPUs in the 386/486 days?

So many programs are optimized for 2,4,8,16 cores, not 3!
Click to expand...

This is true to a point. But when I (as a software developer) design multi-core software I don't target a specific number of cores, but rather I split my application into as many threads/processes as design requires. For products that are marketed as optimized for 4 cores, some may want 4 cores, while others may want more than 2. If the number of processes ends up being 3 you wouldn't market is as being optimized for 3 cores as the notion of a three core processor didn't exist until a few days ago.

Of course, some software may be able to scale itself at runtime to consume as many cores as are available.

Regardless of any single application optimized for the number of cores available, there's still the case where one may want to run multiple applications at once, in which case 3 is better than 2.
 
Originally the 486 SX was just a 486 DX with a defective math coprocessor if I remember correctly... Intel disabled it and sold 486 SXs to home users who really could care less about a math coprocessor. Once Intel's manufacturing improved, the 486 SX no longer contained a deactivated math coprocessor so it was cheaper to make.

It's hard to fault AMD for doing this... wasn't the Core Solo line of processors just Core Duo rejects? Intel just had the benefit of going back to a single core that consumers were used to where as AMD has to go back to a tri-core... something most of us aren't accustomed to (except Xbox 360 owners in the know)
 
Tri Core = "What AMD does with Processors which have 1 core that fails testing"

QA Guy: "OMG! It failed!"

Marketing Guy: "Here... Disable the dead core, put it in this box, and send it to the distributor. I'll write a press release"

Management, to Marketing Guy: "Here, have a raise"
 
I guess it does make more sense than throwing away a whole processor, if that is why they are doing it. If the price is low enough, it may be a cheap option till software catches up.....
 
Intel could do it, just wouldn't make any sense. They just turn the bad one into a solo. Also, depending on quad Intel and AMD pricing, along with dual core intel pricing, this thing could really be a hit. If it competes along the prices lines of Intel's duals then it will sell like hot cakes as it should outperform an Intel dual easily clock for clock. It isn't really a fair comparison, but price is the single largest comparison for the vast majority of people.
 
I don't why people don't understand a tri-core proc! After all, the Xbox 360 has 3 cores and there was no big stink about that!

Ask yourself this, what will Intel do when they start mass producing a monolithic quad core and one test bad? I doubt they'll toss it in the trash and I'm quite sure Intell will find a way to capitalize on it. Why is AMD getting slammed for trying to do the same? Aside from fanboy ire and forum fodder, logically speaking there is no reason to not release a tri-core.

As far as mulit-taksing goes, if 2 cores are better than 1, then 3 cores are better than 2.

When Joe Average stands in front of the rows of pc's at the local Best Buy and the sales guy says, "This pc has three cores and this one has two.", which do you think he is going to spend his money on.

C'mon already...
 

You gotta ask what will Intel do when they start producing a monlithic quad core and one core tests bad? I doubt they will throw it in the trash. And, I'm quite sure that Intel will find a way to capitalize on the bad yield, just like AMD is doing with the tri-core.

As far as how to market a tri-core. Market it the same way they do any other multi-core cpu. Just becuase it has three should not make all that much difference. Think about Joe Average standing in front of the rows of PC's at the local Best Buy with the sales kid saying, "Well, this PC has three cores, and one has only two." What's Joe Average going to spend his money on? Consumers are conditioned to think that bigger and more is better than smaller and less, TV's and SUV's are a perfect example, so AMD will sell tri-core procs just due to the simple fact that they are in machines and sitting on the retail shelf. As simple as that.

 
i pretty damm sure that it only has three physical cores not 4 with one disabled i think thats making a pretty bold statement about their current Barcelona yields too.
Click to expand...

But the question is, why would AMD went back to the drawing board to design a 3 core chip? It would take them at least a year to come up with the design, validate it, and put it into test production.

I'm pretty damn sure, as others said, that those 3 core Barcelonas are from defect quad cores. It would make sense for AMD to sell those quads with one defect core as tri-core, as opposed to wasting a core to make it a dual core.
 
I don't why people don't understand a tri-core proc! After all, the Xbox 360 has 3 cores and there was no big stink about that!

Ask yourself this, what will Intel do when they start mass producing a monolithic quad core and one test bad? I doubt they'll toss it in the trash and I'm quite sure Intell will find a way to capitalize on it. Why is AMD getting slammed for trying to do the same? Aside from fanboy ire and forum fodder, logically speaking there is no reason to not release a tri-core.

As far as mulit-taksing goes, if 2 cores are better than 1, then 3 cores are better than 2.

When Joe Average stands in front of the rows of pc's at the local Best Buy and the sales guy says, "This pc has three cores and this one has two.", which do you think he is going to spend his money on.

C'mon already...
Click to expand...

No one is slamming AMD for doing it. We're just uncertain what caused AMD to come up with a "tri-core", when they have a native quad core. It was never on the roadmap. Seems like "Phenom X3" just jumped out of nowhere, which sparked some speculation.

As I said, it could possibly be true that AMD have horrible yield on the Barcelonas. From the technical information leaked during the Technology Analyst Day by AMD, Barcelona currently have about 30% yield.

So it would make sense for them to disable a defect core, and sell them for revenue, then wasting a core to mark them down to dual core.
 
This "if it fails spec but still works sell it" is hardly anything new. Has been going on in electronics since electricity was found down a dark mine using a candle.
If something fails spec, respec/rebrand/relabel tolerance/change the box/change the price.
As people have already mentioned, people on a budget would rather prefer three cores to two for the same price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom