What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
76 Comments
- PolarBearFire, on 10/20/2009, -3/+58Are they real triple-core CPUs or just quad-core rejects?
- Daryl209, on 10/20/2009, -1/+38They've made triple-core processors before. I remember when they made the Phenom X3 CPUs.
- Solkre, on 10/20/2009, -1/+38Exactly. Why throw away defective quads if only core is to blame?
- thinkb4utype, on 10/20/2009, -0/+27They make one version. It has four cores. Each processor is tested. One half have one dead core and the other half have none dead. The majority work at low speed, 30% fail at a faster speed, and 10% fail at fail at even a faster speed. They sell 6 different processors: quad-core chips at 1.85, 2.0, and 2.25 GHz and triple-core chips at 1.85, 2.0, and 2.25 GHz.
- fallingdamage, on 10/20/2009, -1/+22Everything starts out as a Phenom II, then depending on the stability & stress tests, various components are disabled and changed and from there you get your various flavors of a particular product line.
They usually start with one product and then adjust its wattage consumption / cache amount / core count depending on material limitations, microscopic imperfections, etc.
I learned about this originally a while back when ATi had explained to us that the 9000 series video card processors ALL started out as a 9800 XT, then through testing and checkpoints in the fab facility, different 'purity' levels were cut down and labeled as lesser, cheaper products.
Its just a Phenom II with 1 core disabled and the L3 cache turned off, just as the difference between an Athlon II x4 and Phenom II is that the Athlon has no L3 cache active. - MidnightReign, on 10/20/2009, -1/+19Who says AMD needs to produce the world's fastest desktop CPU? There's always a place in the market for a lower-cost, lower-performance solution.
Competitive marathon runners don't buy $30 tennis shoes. But the vast majority of us would probably be perfectly happy with something a little less extreme. Competitive shooters buy $1500 Kimber pistols and $2000 M1A rifles. Joe Q Plinker probably would be happy with a $400 pistol or a $500 rifle.
Like these examples, people who see their computer performance as a competitive arena (for whatever reason, not trying to judge anyone here) will probably buy the latest and most powerful Intel and back it with a $400 motherboard. But for most users, who are going to surf the net, maybe play a few games casually, write some e-mail, and so on... the most demanding task they'll perform is using media center to record and playback HD content. AMD makes processors which will easily handle this level of demand. Those CPUs can be had for $80 (maybe less).
I know this is Digg, but which do you think is the larger market? Competitive computer builders, pro or highly competitive gamers, or family users? I think AMD is right where it wants to be, honestly. - skppy1225, on 10/20/2009, -2/+19Bitches don't know 'bout my triple core processor.
- medfreak, on 10/20/2009, -1/+12As long as they are put in the correct price range, things will be fine for AMD.Not every car manufacturer needs to make a multimillion dollar Formula one version, and neither should CPU manufacturers.
- itachi01, on 10/20/2009, -1/+12I thought AMD had triple cores already on the market....wern't they the ones that released some back in 2008?
- fallingdamage, on 10/20/2009, -2/+12AMD isnt a Ninja, they can only kill one thing at a time. Right now that would be nVidia.
The future will tell us how Fusion will pan out against Intel. - shadowman99, on 10/20/2009, -2/+12Quad core Phenom 2s are dirt cheap. Why buy less?
- fuzzynyanko, on 10/20/2009, -0/+10Actually, they can
- N0DIGGITY, on 10/20/2009, -0/+9I am running the Phenom II 720 (tri-core) and it rocks, also only $120 compared to $200 for the quad core at the same speed
- HamNCheese, on 10/20/2009, -1/+10RTFA. Athlon II != Phenom II
- slayernine, on 10/20/2009, -1/+10I have two Triple core processors and both work great and cost very little in comparison.
- JulioChavez, on 10/20/2009, -0/+8"who's to say that there isn't an error in one of the others?"
the same test that found the defect - that's who. - DaviDTC, on 10/20/2009, -3/+11Sounds like Apple with their multiple lines of ipods and macbooks.
- SchmuckofNI, on 10/20/2009, -2/+10Those were quad cores with 1 core disabled. Apparently, these were made to be triple cores.
- venom8599, on 10/20/2009, -0/+8Except for the fact that the Athlon lacks the L3 cache of the Phenom, yes.
- jv2k, on 10/20/2009, -0/+7Don't worry about any of this. It wont run on mac anyway.
- DarkShroud, on 10/20/2009, -0/+6Not true, some are just core locked for when the demand out stripes the supply of defects. That's why some mobos have bios options to unlock the cores for the duel & triple core CPUs.
- brickwall99, on 10/20/2009, -1/+7Someone tell me if I'm wrong with my interpretation, which is a silly argument, but still.
We've had triple core processors before, correct? I realize they are quad cores with a failed core.
But from a usable hardware standpoint, from what the software can utilize and how it recognizes the processor(s), a triple core Phenom and a triple core Athlon are the same, right? - JTMON, on 10/20/2009, -5/+11It goes back and forth, where have you been the last 20 years? It's going to get a lot harder for AMD to compete on ANY level since Intel is doing away with chipsets and bringing onto the CPU die. I still find more value in AMD than Intel though. The i7's are the real killers, the core 2 blah blah that were SLIGHTLY faster for a bunch more money were NOT more value in my opinion. When the i7 drops in price a bit, I may jump but that means moving back to the intel platform, new mobo, memory etc...
- Yage2006, on 10/20/2009, -1/+7So these are broken quad cores ? :)
- N0DIGGITY, on 10/20/2009, -1/+7um...both are AMD...
- Ommatidia, on 10/20/2009, -1/+6Yeah, these are probably die harvested quads.
- nipterink, on 10/21/2009, -1/+4if you want to stay on a small budget, most people would rather put the extra $100 into more storage space and/or a better gpu
- Macintoshreader, on 10/21/2009, -2/+5Yo AMD, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but Intel had one of the best bang-for-buck processors of all time. OF ALL TIME.
/Core i5 750. - HamNCheese, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3Intel invented this about 15 years ago. Sell the ***** yields as a "lower" model.
- chaosblade77, on 10/21/2009, -0/+3It's obvious he's referring to AMD in general, which has made triple core processors before. You're getting really nit-picky over this.
- ortucis, on 10/21/2009, -0/+3Yeah, they are REALLY killing nVidia..
- nipterink, on 10/21/2009, -0/+3sometimes you can get lucky and end up with a cpu where the 4th core was disabled (not defective) and have a chance at unlocking it with your motherboard.
- BrBybee, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3Yep...your right. AMD is not turning any profits at all.
/s - WhidbeyIsland, on 10/21/2009, -0/+3Wonder if they'll come out with something to re-enable the cache?
- TheGuruStud, on 10/20/2009, -0/+3Hackintosh FTW
- TheGuruStud, on 10/20/2009, -1/+4They bitch about performance, but where it really counts in the server market, AMD kicks ass. I don't see all of the haters talking ***** about that. I wonder why....
- HamNCheese, on 10/20/2009, -0/+2Only 3/4 as well as an x4 :)
- HamNCheese, on 10/20/2009, -1/+3AMD - a processor company that tries (unsuccessfully) to compete with Intel.
- itachi01, on 10/20/2009, -1/+3thanks for the clarification dugg
- vilago, on 10/20/2009, -1/+3maybe next time do a little research.
- chaosblade77, on 10/21/2009, -0/+2Only at the high end/enthusiast level. AMD blows away Intel in price vs performance with their dual cores, and I'm pretty sure Intel still doesn't have a low end quad core to compete with AMDs sub-$150 ones.
- N0DIGGITY, on 10/22/2009, -0/+2daryl said "They've made triple-core processors before" which would mean that AMD has made triple core processors before. AMD is the brand, Phenom and Athlon are the models. I'm not sure why you even made these comments...
- r3zonance, on 10/20/2009, -0/+2"It goes back and forth,"
Yeah, in the past of a period of 6-12 months in the past. AMD have been behind for a few years now. - hamidious, on 10/21/2009, -2/+4I love AMD processors. I have a Phenom X2 955 BE and I love the performance/price. I honestly prefer AMD to Intel and despite what everybody says I'm switching to AMD.
- newinsite, on 10/21/2009, -1/+3x86_64 is an AMD based design, done while Intel wasted time and money on Itanium, which was slated for larger servers. You wouldn't have 64bit processors in your home PC today without AMD's efforts.
Opteron was a significant step up in x86_64 server chips, and one of the reasons Itanium never caught traction. While Intel/HP were struggling down that path, Opteron provided solid server performance with a simpler migration path. If anything, AMD's success with Opteron forced Intel to refocus on their core market.
AMD forced Intel to focus on architecture and to de-emphasize clock speed as the only performance enhancer. AMD chips out performed Intel clock-per-clock for a long time. Intel finally went back to the architecture and now we have Core2 and I7. Both superior to the netburst architecture in terms of work per clock and work per watt.
AMD beat Intel to market with processors that directly connected to DRAM memory, bypassing the bridge.
AMD beat Intel to true multicore on a single die. Not hyper threading, and not packaging tricks, but true multicore.
So the list goes on.
Intel has a lot of smart talent, but they don't innovate unless they are forced to. They would far prefer to milk a single product to maximize return, which is entirely sensible for a company to due. Competition is what drives innovation, and a lot of Intel's advancement in the last fifteen years has been in response to AMD's innovation.
I still think that AMD systems often beat Intel on bang for the buck, but as processors costs drop as a percentage of system costs on mid range systems, AMD's margin is shrinking faster than Intel's. - avatarpalin, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1crazy days.....
- ortucis, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1A better GPU that will under-perform because of low quality CPU and low ram.
Conclusion: Most people don't assemble their own PC. If they do, it sucks.
Either way getting a better CPU after researching and targeting a specific GPU is a better idea than just getting a cheap under-performing CPU. Remember that most people upgrade GPU's more often than CPU (if your mobo manufacturer doesn't update BIOS for supporting future CPU's esp.). - fallingdamage, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1so when Fusion comes out, who can claim ownership?
- millixaw, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1They had triple-core Phenoms already. These are triple-core Athlons, their mid-range (previously high-range) consumer level CPUs.
Opteron <-> Xeon
Phenom II <-> Core 2 Duo/Quad
Athlon <-> Pentium
Sempron <-> Celeron - millixaw, on 10/21/2009, -0/+1ATI is really a separate entity from AMD. They just own ATI.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is