Is there any merit to having 3 cores?

[internetswag]

I was browsing CPU's (not shopping just bored) and I noticed that AMD has a tri-core processor. I'd never given it much thought prior, but I then realized that I have never head of a 3 core processor.

Why is that? Why are no 3 core processors made?

I'm fairly sure Intel could have made an i3 with 3 cores and Hyperthreading. Would probably be very efficient don't you think?



Bestow upon me your insight

 

[rolli59]

3 core AMD is basically to market 4core dies that came with a damaged core in fab. Some people have had luck unlocking the 4th core and got a quad for cheap. Intels manufacturing process is different so they have not gone that route.

 

[rds1220]

They didn't "make" a three core processor. The three core processor was suppose to be a quad core but it got screwed up. Instead of getting rid of them they marketed them as a three core processor.

 

[internetswag]

Wow really? That's so sly of them lmao.

But does the 3 core thing work? Is it better than 2 cores? Or is like nothing ever optimized for 3 cores?

 

[rolli59]

Yes it is better than 2 from the same family!

 

[rds1220]

Yes its better then a two core but you would be better off with a quad core at the very least.

 

[cadder]

But does the 3 core thing work? Is it better than 2 cores? Or is like nothing ever optimized for 3 cores?

Ever since we have had more than 1 core there have been arguments about how many cores are necessary and how many cores are beneficial.

I've repeated my own story a lot- I built a new work machine 3 years ago, at which time there were tradeoffs when you chose 2 cores vs. 4 cores. Typically the quad core was more expensive and would run at a slower clock speed than the dual core. My apps were single threaded so I bought a dual core machine that I overclocked to 3.8GHz. The quad core that wasn't too much more money would probably have run only at about 3.4GHz. Since then I built a machine for my home use with a quad core, and run it at 3.4GHz. I notice at work that depending on what I am running in the background, I can drag this machine down to its knees and make it extremely sluggish, but I can never do that with my home machine. I've also noticed in various Toms tests that for some things such as movie processing that the machines with 4 or more cores always have the advantage. I'm now convinced that the power user should have at least a quad core in their desktop machine. Maybe a secretary or someone that is doing very light tasks can had a dual core in their desktop. In a laptop there are still tradeoffs of battery life and heat with dual core vs. quad core so there is more reason to consider a dual core for that application.

So back to your question, 3 cores would have an advantage for some people over 2 cores, but save some money over a quad core processor. Since I personally lean towards Intel processors I would be buying a quad core instead of 3 cores.

 

[esrever]

when the tri cores were released, they were a huge hit as many people did not need to spend a lot of money on a quad core and since they are harvested chips, amd sold them at rock bottom prices and with very little money you could get 3 cores instead of 2.

There performance was good and threaded apps were less common back then so these processors were very good, games will take 2 cores and the third will be there if needed. Even today 3 cores is efficient for gaming since more games use 2 cores with the third sometimes getting some usage. 3 core AMD were then bought by gamers who were on a tight budget. Eventually AMD had to disable perfectly good quad cores to sell as tri cores since they stop having so many issues with their production and people found out you can just flash the CPU and unlock the 4th core, this made them great for people on a budget.

Overall they were great processors. Intel does things differently when they sort their chips so they never did this.

 

[loneninja]

AMD first released the tri core with Phenom X3, at the time quad core processors cost over $200. AMD hasn't been able to compete with Intel for a few years on per core performance, so they tend to give more cores. Phenom X3 was a decent alternative to Core2Duo and allowed them to make use of processors with a defective core saving them money.
They continued that with the Phenom II X2/X3 processors(both are Phenom II X4 with 1 or 2 cores disabled). Athlon II X3 is an Athlon II X4 with a core disabled. The new FX 4100/6100 are FX 8150s with cores disabled. It's all a ploy to save money.

 

[xaira]

i wouldnt really call it a ploy, if all your products are homogenous, except for the fact that some are made up of less pieces, would you have multiple production lines, or one production line and disable parts as needed...its all about efficiency to me, i owned an x3 425 and it really showed improvements over the dual cores i had previously

 

[internetswag]

Best answer selected by InternetSwag.