Dude, you are beating a dead horse and should not have created this thread.
--------------- The Truth About GPU Power Consumption Home: E4600@3.6Ghz|AC7|P35|4GB|640GB|8800GT|Vista64|24" P-MVA
Work: Phenom9500@2.5Ghz|AC64|690G|3GB|500GB|8600GT|XP|2x22" TN
AMD should skip K10 Tri-cores and go right for duals.
Higher clocking duals will actually do much better in single threaded benchmarks than AMD's quad-core.
(Because a single threaded app (most games) only runs on one core, thus if you have two higher clocked cores it will run faster than four slower clocked cores)
I have noticed that the AMD Quads have been coming down in price and I have seen the 9500 going for a very reasonable £130. I have not seen an Intel Quad priced this low yet! The Q6600 will be faster for that extra money, but the Phenom offers solid performance from the benchmarks I have seen. It's just BS all this 'AMD Phenom sucks'.
Is there a market for Tri-core? possibly. If the price is right it will sell.
Neh, I think the Tri core will most likely end up being the sweet spot. Especially if B3 Rev fixes the problems that the current parts see. And you gotta remember, the Phenom Tri and Dual core chips are actually going to be a Phenom X4 with 1 or 2 cores disabled. So the advantage is that instead of just tossing a chip that has a weak core or 2, they hard disable the core or cores and relable and ID them as dual or tri core parts. So the gain for them would be to be able to cut losses on die's.
Current B2 Phenom is overclockable, but there is no consistency on which weeks or batches overclock well making it hard to get a good one like mine . I've seen plenty of people able to push the 9500's up to around 2.9ghz with OCing the HT ref speed. I can say with 99% confidence that part of the OCing problem is Motherboard BIOS maturity, and TLB fix.
Phenom Tri and Dual core chips are actually going to be a Phenom X4 with 1 or 2 cores disabled.
I didn't know the dual would be a disabled quad!
It makes sense though for AMD to do it that way. Since they are locked into making 4 monlithic cores, it's great they can disable one or two cores to make faster clocking products with less cores.
I still think Intel's way (@65nm) works better, using a MCM to take two similarly clocking duals to make a quad.
I believe AMD's Octo-core will be MCM, and if I heard right, Intel's octo will be monolithic! How's that for role reversal!
AMD should skip K10 Tri-cores and go right for duals.
Higher clocking duals will actually do much better in single threaded benchmarks than AMD's quad-core.
(Because a single threaded app (most games) only runs on one core, thus if you have two higher clocked cores it will run faster than four slower clocked cores)
Havent they learned anything about computing. Most apps, hardware etc.. run better in pairs not odd numbers of powers. Sheesh
Your dead on. Tri-core would just give you the ability to 3 way multitask instead of 2 way with a dual or 4 way with the quad. Most software only uses one core anyway, so if priced right, tri-cores will be great for upper-mid range systems.
Tri and Dual core chips are actually going to be a Phenom X4 with 1 or 2 cores disabled.
Thats partialy incorrect, the Tri-Core is a quad core with a disabled bad core, thus making it tri-core, dual core is actualy just 2 core's on one die, it doesnt have anything disabled.
The only problem I see for Tri-core is that there really isnt a market for them. Where are they going to be priced? Whos going to buy a tri-core when a quadcore is just $20 more?
I guess the "tri" might have a place, unless it's price is around a quad. But still only usable with programs that accept multi cpus. But for power, it has to perform far better then the amd quad right now (and of course, the quad actually improved as well).
The only problem I see for Tri-core is that there really isnt a market for them. Where are they going to be priced? Whos going to buy a tri-core when a quadcore is just $20 more?
Thats true. Then later this year if it takes AMD too long quad cores will be cheap enough that maybe tri cores will just take the place of the dual cores maybe and the duals will go the way of the Sempron/Celeron and then no more single cores. And the top end will be ruled by octo-cores from Intel to begin, lets say from enthusiats to performance and AMD if AMD gets a octo-core out this year(I highly doubt).
If Phenom X4 is in any way true I don't think AMDs Tri cores will be much better than Intels dual cores. Maybe in multi-threaded apps but thats only if they can clock the higher than what Intels duals are at or at least the same. They might but with the amount of power the quad Phenoms use it might be hard as it wont drop the TDP that much. Oh I forgot its ADP now..... silly me.
All processors are silicon. Costing nothing to mfg. Why make a tri when you can sell quads lower? Although if Intel or AMD did start to license their CPUs based on active cores like IBM does (sorta) they'd save a ton of money on car insurance, and CPU fab plants. Maybe they should.
The only problem I see for Tri-core is that there really isnt a market for them. Where are they going to be priced? Whos going to buy a tri-core when a quadcore is just $20 more?
Why buy an E2160 when the E2180 is just a bit more? Then it's just a bit more to an E2200, and just a bit more to a 4300 and then 4400.. you get the idea and where I am going.
All processors are silicon. Costing nothing to mfg. Why make a tri when you can sell quads lower? Although if Intel or AMD did start to license their CPUs based on active cores like IBM does (sorta) they'd save a ton of money on car insurance, and CPU fab plants. Maybe they should.
They aren't "making" Tri's or Duals.
They are making quads. If a core is bad or if it is too hot with all 4 cores they disable one or two and rebin them.
They are making quads. If a core is bad or if it is too hot with all 4 cores they disable one or two and rebin them.
I thought you were discussing what people were planning 6 months ago, I mean it goes without saying. I still think core licensing would be cool though.
. I've seen plenty of people able to push the 9500's up to around 2.9ghz with OCing the HT ref speed. I can say with 99% confidence that part of the OCing problem is Motherboard BIOS maturity, and TLB fix.
