Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why AMD Tri-Core is Already a Failure

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 29, 2008 5:06:02 PM

Ahhh - because the Quads can't even compete with Intel Core 2 Duos!!!! What more for the Tri's.

So AMD will have to price their Tri-Core below Intel Core 2 Duo. Where is the money at in that scenario?

Benefits of AMD QUAD Design:

1. Future platform for all their CPUs to come (Fusion)

2. Has potential

3. Almost competes with Q6600 Intel

4. Comes in a prettier box than Intels :pt1cable: 


Disadvantages:

1. Their future platform could be broken

2. It might have reached its maximum potential

3. Hard to make

4. Almost competes with Q6600 - BUT Q6600 is Intels old news

5. Not overclockable

More about : amd tri core failure

January 29, 2008 5:52:41 PM

Dude, you are beating a dead horse and should not have created this thread.
January 29, 2008 6:08:18 PM

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)
Related resources
January 29, 2008 6:18:03 PM

Asymmetrical cache sharing?
Not that relevant, but still.

Did i wake up in the wrong year today?
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2008 6:24:46 PM



My goodness.

I am hearing things in reverse from Thunderman for a change......

Where is Thunderman to say AMD4LIFE and Evil Intel.... etc

Jeesh I miss him, like the ex wife
January 29, 2008 6:55:13 PM

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.
January 29, 2008 7:12:23 PM

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 :p . 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.
January 29, 2008 7:24:49 PM

Mathos said:
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!
Anonymous
January 29, 2008 7:30:24 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
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
January 29, 2008 7:32:38 PM

Anonymous said:
Havent they learned anything about computing. Most apps, hardware etc.. run better in pairs not odd numbers of powers. Sheesh


Why? I could be ignorant, but either you're multithreaded or your aren't.....

January 29, 2008 7:44:51 PM

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.
January 29, 2008 7:49:21 PM

Mathos said:
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.
January 29, 2008 8:03:32 PM

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?
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2008 8:14:36 PM

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).
a c 126 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 29, 2008 8:16:59 PM

skittle said:
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.
January 29, 2008 8:18:41 PM

As much as you would like too bash AMD ,

I think AMD and INTEL employ a very useful strategy.


IN AMDs case when you are putting 4 cores on that die and one core goes bad,..... *pull out your ALU person who started this thread*


You have 3 good cores yay!!! so you deactivate the bad core sell it as a tri-core... Save money !!! wow that is a hard concept????


Same principle can apply to intel but a little bit different strategy since obviousily the way their chips are currently put together...

:pt1cable: 
January 29, 2008 8:19:06 PM

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.
January 29, 2008 8:19:23 PM

skittle said:
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.

If you don't get the point I can't help you.
January 29, 2008 8:20:20 PM

surrealdeal said:
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.
January 29, 2008 8:24:24 PM

cnumartyr said:
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.


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.

my bad.
January 29, 2008 8:43:14 PM

Uh because it's a bad quad core with 1 core disabled? :lol: 
January 29, 2008 8:51:45 PM

See what all these bashing posts do..........create copy cats. It is a never ending cycle that I predict will continue for at least another four months. Or at least until the kiddies get out of school and find some better way to spend their time. :non: 

Please stop regurgitating someone else's puke. Come up with some original stuff for once. :heink: 
January 29, 2008 8:56:24 PM

caamsa said:
See what all these bashing posts do..........create copy cats. It is a never ending cycle that I predict will continue for at least another four months. Or at least until the kiddies get out of school and find some better way to spend their time. :non: 

Please stop regurgitating someone else's puke. Come up with some original stuff for once. :heink: 


This has actually evolved into an interesting thread that, in my opinion.
January 29, 2008 8:57:59 PM

lets start making up rumors about 8 core stuff that would be sweet..
January 29, 2008 9:00:58 PM

jnava121 said:
lets start making up rumors about 8 core stuff that would be sweet..



There are more than rumors, there's roadmaps!
January 29, 2008 9:10:07 PM

cnumartyr said:
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.

If you don't get the point I can't help you.


Adding another core =! adding more cache/bumping up the clock speed a little. Especially in the eyes of the average consumer (phenoms major target audience)
January 29, 2008 9:11:30 PM

I like how you made a thread labeled "Tri-core will failz" but then you just make a list of general pros and cons that have nothing to do with triple core processors.
January 29, 2008 9:17:06 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
This has actually evolved into an interesting thread that, in my opinion.



Good Lord! So now you have lowered your standards to and all time low. :non: 

Pretty soon Tom's will have a disclaimer that says "Reading posts on this site may be hazardous to your mental health" :pt1cable: 

A couple of sandwiches short of a picnic is all I have to say about that.
January 29, 2008 9:20:23 PM

caamsa said:
Good Lord! So now you have lowered your standards to and all time low. :non: 

Pretty soon Tom's will have a disclaimer that says "Reading posts on this site may be hazardous to your mental health" :pt1cable: 

A couple of sandwiches short of a picnic is all I have to say about that.



LOL, I guess I kind of see what you're saying.

I agree the original post is flame bait, but there's been some interesting discussion about K10 duals and tri. I'd like someone to post a link identifying wheher K10 duals will be disabled quads or duals from the start.

I actually think a K10 quad (clock 2.5-2.8) would be a very good processor for multitasking single threaded apps.


I know I've said this a million times, but here it goes: AMD, please release some K10 duals!
January 29, 2008 9:22:46 PM

Or no one could talk about anything. Ever. At all.
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2008 9:30:00 PM

The main reason for the Tri-core is so AMD can turn everything into a profit, even a bad batch of quads.
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2008 9:31:08 PM

Any one has any benches for the so-called Tri-Cores? or am I missing some info? (haven't kept much track of the AMD CPUs, but have been following the new Intel CPUs and, dual GPUS [ie. 3870X2] and the new nVidia chipsets/dual GPU )
January 29, 2008 9:32:03 PM

Yeah and if 2 of the cores are dead ell it as a dual core! And if 3 of em are dead, sell it as a single core!

Is that a good idea? :??: 
January 29, 2008 9:32:40 PM

Can Not said:
I like how you made a thread labeled "Tri-core will failz" but then you just make a list of general pros and cons that have nothing to do with triple core processors.



Because the tri is the quad, and the quad is the tri . . .
January 29, 2008 9:32:53 PM

The Tri-Cores are just about increasing yields. There are people in the world that don't need to run Crysis or video production.
If the yields are high (low prices), then I don't see a need for duals.
January 29, 2008 9:34:52 PM

Wouldn't specifically engineering a tri core make the cache latency lower ? That's allways nice.
January 29, 2008 9:36:00 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Any one has any benches for the so-called Tri-Cores? or am I missing some info? (haven't kept much track of the AMD CPUs, but have been following the new Intel CPUs and, dual GPUS [ie. 3870X2] and the new nVidia chipsets/dual GPU )



You don't need benches - all you need to know is that Phenom X4 struggles against Core 2 Duo. So Tri will be murdered. Unless tri-core battles Intel Celeron - might win in that scenario.
January 29, 2008 9:43:59 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
LOL, I guess I kind of see what you're saying.

I agree the original post is flame bait, but there's been some interesting discussion about K10 duals and tri. I'd like someone to post a link identifying wheher K10 duals will be disabled quads or duals from the start.

I actually think a K10 quad (clock 2.5-2.8) would be a very good processor for multitasking single threaded apps.


I know I've said this a million times, but here it goes: AMD, please release some K10 duals!



I think AMD needs to go back to the drawing board. What they got just aint cutting the mustard. I love my CPU and think it rocks, but IMO their new quads suck and are really disappointing.

Seems to me from looking at all the benchmarks of all the AMD and Intell cpu's it looks like 3ghz is the magic number. So if they can get a quad up to 3 ghz then they might have a chance if the cost is below the Intell chips. But when you can't even OC them that high and with multi thread apps not the standard yet they are gonna loose.



January 29, 2008 9:56:48 PM

let's move on people, this threat has not relevance at all
January 29, 2008 10:48:14 PM

surrealdeal said:
Wouldn't specifically engineering a tri core make the cache latency lower ? That's allways nice.


Nope. If anything, a built-from-the-ground-up tricore will have HIGHER latency than the quad. Do the euclidean geometry.

"busted quad" type-tricore will have the same latency as the quad.
January 29, 2008 10:49:08 PM

sedaine said:
You don't need benches - all you need to know is that Phenom X4 struggles against Core 2 Duo. So Tri will be murdered. Unless tri-core battles Intel Celeron - might win in that scenario.


Not necessarily. It loses in single-threaded stuff... and when clockspeed limited. Presumably, the tricore can clock higher (a big assumption) so may give c2d a run for it's money.
January 29, 2008 11:20:07 PM

The "defective" core doesn't even really need to be non-functioning. Imagine if you have three cores that will run at 2.6ghz, but one core that refuses to be stable above 2.1ghz.

What has more value to the consumer?

A) A 2.1 ghz quad-core
B) A 2.6 ghz tri-core

I dare to say AMD can fetch more for the tri-core.
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2008 12:37:07 AM

sedaine said:
You don't need benches - all you need to know is that Phenom X4 struggles against Core 2 Duo. So Tri will be murdered. Unless tri-core battles Intel Celeron - might win in that scenario.

^Agreed 50%
Might not since the new Celerons (E1xxx) will be dual core. :lol: 
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3585-view-Celeron-e1x...
January 30, 2008 3:40:06 AM

Quote:
You don't need benches - all you need to know is that Phenom X4 struggles against Core 2 Duo.

We have a winner!! Idiot fanboy post of the day.
Change the chip names around, and you have a shakaroobob post.
January 30, 2008 3:44:50 AM

sedaine said:
You don't need benches - all you need to know is that Phenom X4 struggles against Core 2 Duo. So Tri will be murdered.


But that doesn't really matter.

A defective quad core that can't be sold is worth $0. A defective quad core that's sold as a $100 tri-core is worth $100 more.

Even if they have to sell them for $50, it's probably worth the money spent packaging them and sticking them in boxes... any profit on defective chips is better than no profit, so long as it doesn't cut into other profits elsewhere (e.g. distracting engineers from developing the next generation of CPUs).
January 30, 2008 7:21:59 AM

I don't think Phenom X3 will be a failure, but it will most likely be limited to the budget market. At 2.5GHz it should have similar multithreading performance to a 3GHz C2D, but with poorer single threaded performance it will have to be somewhat cheaper than C2D.
January 30, 2008 7:45:15 AM

MarkG said:
But that doesn't really matter.

A defective quad core that can't be sold is worth $0. A defective quad core that's sold as a $100 tri-core is worth $100 more.

Even if they have to sell them for $50, it's probably worth the money spent packaging them and sticking them in boxes... any profit on defective chips is better than no profit, so long as it doesn't cut into other profits elsewhere (e.g. distracting engineers from developing the next generation of CPUs).



NO!!! AMD is doing an Intel P4. The only thing above water is Hector's hair - yet they continue to walk towards the deep end. They cannot be profitable doing this.

I'll explain. AMD has a more complex Quad chip than the Core 2. That extra 'difficulty in manufaturing' is supposed to result in a more expensive chip, otherwise why take the risk? At some point AMD should realise they are running a business.

A Tri-Core is more complex than a Core 2 Duo - but performs worse.
January 30, 2008 9:03:41 AM

I wonder if the tri-core will be able to be converted back to a quad core version (The pencil trick?).
The possibility may exist for a shortage of tri-cores at some stage, and good quad cores being down graded to tri ones.
January 30, 2008 11:12:04 AM

I don't see that. AMD will sell a chip for whatever the most value they can get out of it. If AMD does competitive pricing (as they have been) they will be constrained by capacity.

pastit said:
I wonder if the tri-core will be able to be converted back to a quad core version (The pencil trick?).
The possibility may exist for a shortage of tri-cores at some stage, and good quad cores being down graded to tri ones.
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2008 12:05:38 PM

Tricore isn't a failure ... why?

Well it isn't on the market yet ... so all of your negative dribble is pointless.

You have nothing concrete to bench or compare ... nothing.

Another rubbish thread overrun by the trolls.
!