Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dell Triple Core Phenom Next Week

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2008 11:33:18 PM

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36092/135/


Looks like Dell isn't dumping AMD after all. Perhaps they took down the old AMD's in preparation for the new.

Well, anyway - next week intro's the Triple Core.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 16, 2008 11:42:49 PM

It looks like a business machine but I doubt it will be able to sell as many as there can be no way it can be set cheaper than Intels cheapest dual cores.
February 17, 2008 12:04:55 AM

jimmysmitty said:
It looks like a business machine but I doubt it will be able to sell as many as there can be no way it can be set cheaper than Intels cheapest dual cores.



I suspect the Triple Core's will be priced to compete with Intel's D processors. So they will be cheaper than Core 2 based machines.
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 12:21:50 AM

sedaine said:
I suspect the Triple Core's will be priced to compete with Intel's D processors. So they will be cheaper than Core 2 based machines.


That will be unprofitable for them considering it still cost as much as q quad core to make their Tri-cores. If they try to price the tri-core that cheap it will just be a waste of time and get no profit for AMD. So I say they will have to price them near the low end Pentium Dual Cores in order to really get a marginal if not cancel out the cost of production.
February 17, 2008 8:59:35 AM

jimmysmitty said:
That will be unprofitable for them considering it still cost as much as q quad core to make their Tri-cores. If they try to price the tri-core that cheap it will just be a waste of time and get no profit for AMD. So I say they will have to price them near the low end Pentium Dual Cores in order to really get a marginal if not cancel out the cost of production.



AMD makes more money selling tri-cores below cost than they would for throwing out dud quads so it isnt inconcevable for them to price them below Pentium DC's
February 17, 2008 9:02:55 AM

hovercat said:
AMD makes more money selling tri-cores below cost than they would for throwing out dud quads so it isnt inconcevable for them to price them below Pentium DC's


AMD can't sell tri-cores for below cost. That is predatory pricing and is illegal.

My guess for tri core pricing is between $100 and $150. It has similar multithreaded performance to the higher clocked C2Ds, but with lower single threaded performance it can't charge the same price.

Btw, it didn't take long for the ex INQ AMD cheerboys Charlie and Theo to turn TG Daily into an AMD propaganda machine, did it. ;) 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 9:07:14 AM

epsilon84 said:
AMD can't sell tri-cores for below cost. That is predatory pricing and is illegal.

My guess for tri core pricing is between $100 and $150. It has similar multithreaded performance to the higher clocked C2Ds, but with lower single threaded performance it can't charge the same price.


Then wouldn't that be the same for their quad cores. There is no way they can sell them for as cheap as they are considering its a new architecture and the yeilds probably suck.

And yet if Intel did this AMD would be all over them with anti-trust.

And yes AMD will make more money selling the tri-cores instead but truth be told they are going to lose money since they cost the same as a quad to make but have to be priced lower. Would you pay more money for a tri-core than a quad core if the tri core was performing the same as a dual core from the competiton? I don't think so.

And putting them at lower than $73 dollars is not possible. They put them at $60 dollars and they would lose too much money that selling them would be useless.
February 17, 2008 9:07:43 AM

triple core 2.3 is enough to frag 3.16ghz intel e8500 which is just a glued pentium 3 relic with no internal memory controller and ancient front side bus archictures

AMD4LIFE!
February 17, 2008 9:11:24 AM

Sharikook said:
triple core 2.3 is enough to frag 3.16ghz intel e8500 which is just a glued pentium 3 relic with no internal memory controller and ancient front side bus archictures

AMD4LIFE!


LOL! TC, is that you? :kaola: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 9:11:45 AM

Sharikook said:
triple core 2.3 is enough to frag 3.16ghz intel e8500 which is just a glued pentium 3 relic with no internal memory controller and ancient front side bus archictures

AMD4LIFE!


Dear god we have a thunderman-ling.

Although that was funny all I can say is WRONG!!!!!!!!!! :non: 

sounds like TC huh...
February 17, 2008 9:18:23 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Then wouldn't that be the same for their quad cores. There is no way they can sell them for as cheap as they are considering its a new architecture and the yeilds probably suck.


I'm sure AMD is still making a profit on quads, but I can't imagine the margins being healthy (as I pointed out in the other thread). Tri-cores is more for salvaging broken quads that would otherwise go to the landfill. It's making the best of a bad situation.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 9:26:02 AM

epsilon84 said:
I'm sure AMD is still making a profit on quads, but I can't imagine the margins being healthy (as I pointed out in the other thread). Tri-cores is more for salvaging broken quads that would otherwise go to the landfill. It's making the best of a bad situation.


Good thing cuz AMD still has lead in their CPUs thus bad for the enviroment.
February 17, 2008 10:28:09 AM

heineken - like the name ,love the beer!!
hope it sells like the beer.
February 17, 2008 11:02:54 AM

epsilon84 said:
AMD can't sell tri-cores for below cost. That is predatory pricing and is illegal.

My guess for tri core pricing is between $100 and $150. It has similar multithreaded performance to the higher clocked C2Ds, but with lower single threaded performance it can't charge the same price.

Btw, it didn't take long for the ex INQ AMD cheerboys Charlie and Theo to turn TG Daily into an AMD propaganda machine, did it. ;) 


How is it a propaganda machine to respond to rumors that Dell is dumping AMD with factual information about a business desktop from Dell due to arrive on Feb. 19th? As for below cost, I'm sure the cost is derived by including whatever write off is entailed by a failed quad core.

Intel's the one with illegal predatory OEM rebates questioned on three continents by attorney generals and regulatory agencies. So, don't be quick to bring up illegal pricing with AMD. I have mixed feelings about the triple core Phenom's. I won't buy Dell, ever, but I'd consider a triple core for a 690G board upgrade, as long as it's not B2 stepping.

Remember reports of bad second cores in some Black Edition Phenom's that won't overclock? What if there's an issue with yields such that a bad core turns up in enough CPU's that limits the clock?

If B3 steppings of 65nm can't correct the core issue, which is why AMD promises 45nm by third quarter, then they release triple cores at higher clock speeds without a bad core. The triple core Phenom's, clocked higher than the 2.6 B3's could be very good CPU's for gaming and encoding. Not as good as Penryn, but finally as good as Kentsfield.

In all seriousness, the Wolfdale review showed that even the B2 Phenom's aren't that bad at applications other than games. As Supreme Commander shows, when more games utilize 3 or 4 cores, then Phenom's will be a budget quad core winner, which should filter down to the triple cores.

Phenom won't really be a contender until 45nm with a serious bump in speed and improvements to thermals, but don't count the architecture out while relying upon mere opinion and rumors instead of facts that show even the crippled B2 Agena 9600's in the middle of the pack in various applications. If price equals performance, then we have a winner for the vast majority who aren't enthusiast (and please, I don't need to here 'this is an enthusiast site blah blah blah' -- even TC used that when he ran out of facts).
February 17, 2008 11:13:49 AM

jimmysmitty said:

And yet if Intel did this AMD would be all over them with anti-trust.


Once again, this shows that most Intel fans don't understand anything beyond the technical aspects of overclocking their favorite CPU (AMD in one generation, Intel in the next).

The AMD suit vs. Intel is a matter for the trier of fact. Either side can allege anything in their briefs and it doesn't mean the ruling will go their way. Intel's real problems in terms of antitrust are regulatory. They are being raided and questioned on three continents because of their OEM rebate program and threats to limit supplies of Intel CPU's to companies that use more than a certain percentage of AMD CPU's.

Intel has the technological advantage today. They did not during the final years of Netburst. Yet, their market position remained fairly steady and AMD could not get the market share that their products warranted because Intel's OEM rebate program amounted to bribery with veiled threats .

It's not all about enthusiasts building their own PC's to overclock for 3DMark. It's about how many OEM's carry AMD CPU's. If enough AMD CPU's are in OEM's at Big Box retailers, then AMD will have their market share, with perhaps a few CPU's going to budget enthusiasts like myself who can't afford to build 3 PC's at one time with the most expensive Intel processors (which are the ones that beat Phenom in non game applications that we use at my house).

I doubt the OEM rebate scheme is going on today. Intel does not need it. It does take years for regulators to gather evidence and bring action against antitrust violators. That's why we're seeing the actions today, and not in 2002.

If it were just an AMD suit against Intel, I would not take AMD's side quite so forcefully. Even then, I expect regulators will bring balance to the market by forcing a settlement where Intel reimburses AMD, allowing AMD more cash for research. Even then, AMD is back in the K6 days as far as desktop performance goes, though I expect they'll do well in the notebook market.

sunny27 said:
heineken - like the name ,love the beer!!
hope it sells like the beer.


Though the days when I quaffed too many in college bars is long gone, I'll remark that Heinies are the Budweiser of Europe. They're not that good. The best around are Scottish and English ales. I once made Elizabethan ale bread for the holidays using Old Peculiar.

Heavily marketed bad beers sell well, so perhaps the Prescotts and Smithfields were the Budweisers and Heineken's of the CPU world? Now, B2 Phenom has issues, but I'd put it a cut above, more a decent Canadian like Molsen or a regional like Anchor Steam.

Anyone played Bard's Tale (the recent, not the original -- I'm old enough to have played both). The beer song was great.."a long time ago, way back in history". Don't drink much in middle age. I'm more into gourmet coffee than even classic ales.
February 17, 2008 1:06:32 PM

Quote:
If they are cheap, they will sell. Most of us are still using dual core machines.


I like AMD but they really should hire an actress who can do tramp really well to deliver the following line:

"I'm cheap but I can ramp up your game!"

They are back in the K62 days, at least until 45nm.
February 17, 2008 1:44:58 PM

yipsl said:
How is it a propaganda machine to respond to rumors that Dell is dumping AMD with factual information about a business desktop from Dell due to arrive on Feb. 19th? As for below cost, I'm sure the cost is derived by including whatever write off is entailed by a failed quad core.


It's all in the wording my friend. All their articles are opinionated and biased, if only they could just stick to the FACTS, but they had to take their bad habits from The INQ with them. Btw, I wasn't taking specifically about this article, but the last paragraph just smacks of desperate fanboyism for tri core to succeed.

Quote:
Also, we have been saying for a while that the Phenom triple-core may turn out as AMD’s ace against Intel’s dual-cores: In a world that has changed from focusing on Megahertz to the number of cores, the perception that three cores are better than two may work in AMD’s favor – at least if the triple-cores are priced against the dual-cores and AMD isn’t taking a hit with the production cost.


LOL, cmon, ace against Intel's dual cores? Has Theo even seen the benchmarks? Even in multithreaded performance, a 2.3GHz tri core can't beat a standard E6750 or E6850, let alone a Wolfdale C2D. In single threaded performance it gets hammered. Without a leg to stand on performance wise, Theo is basically hoping that people buying tri core Phenoms are those that don't research and judge a CPU by the amount of cores alone. Using that theory, everyone should be flocking to quads then, yet it only accounts for less than 5% of Intels total inventory... so much for that then.
February 17, 2008 2:02:31 PM

Quote:
Well they have had issues. If their smart they are going to sell all of their defective quads as tri's to move them while going back to the drawing board with their entire engineering team and restructuring a new product on 45nm. They are wasting too much time trying to get Phenom right and just need to drop it and concentrate on a new product for late summer release.


I don't think thats really an option to be honest.


Its not the work of a few months to make a whole new arch. Changing the roadmaps would further undermine confidence in the company's direction.


Better to continue with swift with bulldozer in the background IMO, than try and fight fires (unsuccessfully, as 32nm would be imminent as soon as the new core would be out the door).
February 17, 2008 2:22:07 PM

epsilon84 said:

LOL, cmon, ace against Intel's dual cores? Has Theo even seen the benchmarks? Even in multithreaded performance, a 2.3GHz tri core can't beat a standard E6750 or E6850, let alone a Wolfdale C2D. In single threaded performance it gets hammered.


You're reading too much, and too little, into their quote. Note the following:

Quote:

In a world that has changed from focusing on Megahertz to the number of cores, the perception that three cores are better than two may work in AMD's favor


It's all about perception at Big Box stores. Seriously, a not at all optimal (some would say lousy) Phenom B2 beats many Wolfdales and Conroes, but loses to the Q6600 and many other Wolfdales and Conroes. So, a higher clocked B2 triple core will have a market in those Big Box store Dell's, Gateways and Emachines.

Note that the Tom's Wolfdale review backs up that an Agena 9600 beats some Wolfdales, and we've heard that the triple cores will not arrive at 2.3 but above the fastest 65nm Phenom quads; expected to be 2.6. Probably ranging from 2.8 to 3.2.

Let's watch and see if that rumor pans out. It will confirm my suspicions.

So, their comment that some Intel dual cores are beat will have some truth behind it, because the quad core version beats some Intel dual cores. I doubt that the loss of a single core (especially a bad core) will change that. It won't beat enough for an enthusiast, but it will allow a Best Buy salesguy to say with a straight face: "This one here has 3 cores, it's better than that dual core, and about $200 less besides, so if you can't afford the quad core, this is a good deal."

Perception is the key word in the last paragraph. I guess you never took a marketing class? Techies tend to miss out on the world of spin.
February 17, 2008 3:16:31 PM

jimmysmitty said:
That will be unprofitable for them considering it still cost as much as q quad core to make their Tri-cores. If they try to price the tri-core that cheap it will just be a waste of time and get no profit for AMD. So I say they will have to price them near the low end Pentium Dual Cores in order to really get a marginal if not cancel out the cost of production.



Refer to my Triple Core Phenoms are a failure thread, as people pointed out - they can't just throw them in the trash!!!!
February 17, 2008 3:25:01 PM

Also remember Phenom 9500 currently sells for $200 and the upcoming Phenom 9100 will be about $120-130.


Taking these factors into consideration, where then would you slot the Tri-Cores?????

I pionted out that these Tri-Core CPU's will likely battle Celeron/Pentium D chips. That's not what I want, but that's what's going to happen.
February 17, 2008 3:32:29 PM

i am skeptical about how these triple cones would perform--with the TLB issues in the phenom and its lack of performance plaguing its sales ,amd needs to pull out a rabbit from somewhere.the triple cones are phenoms with one core diasbled-correct me if i am wrong.so if there are issues with the phenoms i am sure the triple cones would inherit the same issues unless amd refreshes the architecture.
February 17, 2008 3:38:17 PM

Sharikook said:
triple core 2.3 is enough to frag 3.16ghz intel e8500 which is just a glued pentium 3 relic with no internal memory controller and ancient front side bus archictures

AMD4LIFE!

I'll put my 4.2ghz E8400 up against your tri-core anyday.
February 17, 2008 3:39:06 PM

yipsl said:
You're reading too much, and too little, into their quote. Note the following:

Quote:

In a world that has changed from focusing on Megahertz to the number of cores, the perception that three cores are better than two may work in AMD's favor


It's all about perception at Big Box stores. Seriously, a not at all optimal (some would say lousy) Phenom B2 beats many Wolfdales and Conroes, but loses to the Q6600 and many other Wolfdales and Conroes. So, a higher clocked B2 triple core will have a market in those Big Box store Dell's, Gateways and Emachines.

Note that the Tom's Wolfdale review backs up that an Agena 9600 beats some Wolfdales, and we've heard that the triple cores will not arrive at 2.3 but above the fastest 65nm Phenom quads; expected to be 2.6. Probably ranging from 2.8 to 3.2.

Let's watch and see if that rumor pans out. It will confirm my suspicions.

So, their comment that some Intel dual cores are beat will have some truth behind it, because the quad core version beats some Intel dual cores. I doubt that the loss of a single core (especially a bad core) will change that. It won't beat enough for an enthusiast, but it will allow a Best Buy salesguy to say with a straight face: "This one here has 3 cores, it's better than that dual core, and about $200 less besides, so if you can't afford the quad core, this is a good deal."

Perception is the key word in the last paragraph. I guess you never took a marketing class? Techies tend to miss out on the world of spin.


OK, for about the fifth time (I've asked in so many other threads already), PLEASE link to a source that says tri-cores will be launched at higher than quad core clockspeeds. From all the roadmaps I've seen, the max speed planned for tri-core is 2.5GHz, due to arrive in Q2. If you have sources that say otherwise, please provide them.

No offence, but I've seen you go on and on about higher clocked tri-cores in about 10 different threads without a single source to back up your claims other than 'reports have said...' Well, what reports exactly?

As for the 'perception' that 3 > 2, I'm sure a lot of people will think along those lines. With all due respect to the prebuilt system buyers out there, most of them are pretty clueless when it comes to the technical aspects of PCs, and if a 'tri core' sounds better than a 'dual core' then they'll probably go for it, without knowing that to browse the net and use VOIP or MS Office that a dual core is already overkill. ;) 
February 17, 2008 3:55:25 PM

sedaine said:
Also remember Phenom 9500 currently sells for $200 and the upcoming Phenom 9100 will be about $120-130.

Taking these factors into consideration, where then would you slot the Tri-Cores?????

I pionted out that these Tri-Core CPU's will likely battle Celeron/Pentium D chips. That's not what I want, but that's what's going to happen.


No, AMD would be stupid to price it so low. It will be priced against Core 2 Duos, surely. A Phenom 9100 @ 1.8GHz would be no faster than a tri core @ 2.3GHz anyway, so you can probably expect similar prices.
February 17, 2008 7:18:11 PM

epsilon84 said:
No, AMD would be stupid to price it so low. It will be priced against Core 2 Duos, surely. A Phenom 9100 @ 1.8GHz would be no faster than a tri core @ 2.3GHz anyway, so you can probably expect similar prices.




The prices for Tri-Core will take into account Intel Price drops in April. Remember Q6700 will be $270 and Q6600 will be $200-220. So Phenom 9500 prices will have to drop from the $200 current selling price to about $160-170.

I suspect tougher times are in stock for AMD unless they get the clocks up in 2-3 months time.

The only thing that will save AMD is perhaps all the AM2 and AM2+ users out there waiting for cheap upgrade to Quad.
February 17, 2008 7:32:29 PM

Well whatever the case may be as long as they move to 45nm I will be happy because of the cooler and electricity saving aspects of the chip. The competition will be good for us consumers and we will finally move away from chips consuming more than 65w of power which will save you money in the long run also.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 7:32:40 PM

yipsl said:
Once again, this shows that most Intel fans don't understand anything beyond the technical aspects of overclocking their favorite CPU (AMD in one generation, Intel in the next).

The AMD suit vs. Intel is a matter for the trier of fact. Either side can allege anything in their briefs and it doesn't mean the ruling will go their way. Intel's real problems in terms of antitrust are regulatory. They are being raided and questioned on three continents because of their OEM rebate program and threats to limit supplies of Intel CPU's to companies that use more than a certain percentage of AMD CPU's.

Intel has the technological advantage today. They did not during the final years of Netburst. Yet, their market position remained fairly steady and AMD could not get the market share that their products warranted because Intel's OEM rebate program amounted to bribery with veiled threats .

It's not all about enthusiasts building their own PC's to overclock for 3DMark. It's about how many OEM's carry AMD CPU's. If enough AMD CPU's are in OEM's at Big Box retailers, then AMD will have their market share, with perhaps a few CPU's going to budget enthusiasts like myself who can't afford to build 3 PC's at one time with the most expensive Intel processors (which are the ones that beat Phenom in non game applications that we use at my house).

I doubt the OEM rebate scheme is going on today. Intel does not need it. It does take years for regulators to gather evidence and bring action against antitrust violators. That's why we're seeing the actions today, and not in 2002.

If it were just an AMD suit against Intel, I would not take AMD's side quite so forcefully. Even then, I expect regulators will bring balance to the market by forcing a settlement where Intel reimburses AMD, allowing AMD more cash for research. Even then, AMD is back in the K6 days as far as desktop performance goes, though I expect they'll do well in the notebook market.



Though the days when I quaffed too many in college bars is long gone, I'll remark that Heinies are the Budweiser of Europe. They're not that good. The best around are Scottish and English ales. I once made Elizabethan ale bread for the holidays using Old Peculiar.

Heavily marketed bad beers sell well, so perhaps the Prescotts and Smithfields were the Budweisers and Heineken's of the CPU world? Now, B2 Phenom has issues, but I'd put it a cut above, more a decent Canadian like Molsen or a regional like Anchor Steam.

Anyone played Bard's Tale (the recent, not the original -- I'm old enough to have played both). The beer song was great.."a long time ago, way back in history". Don't drink much in middle age. I'm more into gourmet coffee than even classic ales.


My ain point there is that if AMD did use preadatory pricing its illegal not matter who of what. They cannot legally sell the tri-cores for below cost and in the end those tri-cores will cost the same to make as a quad core.

And as for Intel doing it we can't really prove but you call AMD going from a almost unheard of outside the enthusiast/IT world to owning 35%+ market share nothing? For the time they were on top with K8 and their manufacturing capabilities(considering the can only produce a small % compared to Intel) is dam good in my book.

AMD sold off as many CPUs as they could, while also undercutting smaller OEMs from getting any cuz AMD wanted their chips to be in the "Big Name" PCs and to sell for more. But still the main reason they were unable to exponetialy grow their market share is the fact that Intel can and will make more CPUs than AMD can and they do it with ease.

Right now its not very easy to get a Phenom while you can get a Q6600 almost anywhere. Just try to remember the fact that if Intel is shwon not to have don those things the biggest reason is due to how many CPUs they can make compared to AMD.
February 17, 2008 8:00:39 PM

epsilon84 said:
OK, for about the fifth time (I've asked in so many other threads already), PLEASE link to a source that says tri-cores will be launched at higher than quad core clockspeeds. From all the roadmaps I've seen, the max speed planned for tri-core is 2.5GHz, due to arrive in Q2. If you have sources that say otherwise, please provide them.

No offence, but I've seen you go on and on about higher clocked tri-cores in about 10 different threads without a single source to back up your claims other than 'reports have said...' Well, what reports exactly?


I'm relying on old speculation, it turns out. The idea is that a 2.6 Phenom core fails to meet that clock and then it's binned as a triple core instead. I'd also assumed the B3's 8xxx CPU's would be clocked higher than the B2's, as the B3 quad core 9xxx Phenom's add the higher clocks recalled before B2's launch.

Here's the article at Legit Reviews:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/240/1/

I'm sure you're relying on the more recent article from Pureoverclockers:

http://www.pureoverclock.com/story.php?id=1674

That article states that the B2 Phenom 8700 will only be 2.4, while the B3's will be clocked slower at 2.1 and 2.3.

So, I'm wrong that they'll be clocked higher than the fastest B3 Phenom, but there will be a B2 model that's clocked faster than the 2.2 and 2.3 in the market today. So, my statement needed clarification. Sorry I missed your requests for where I got the idea from.

I'd hoped that the reported bad second core failing in some Black Edition Phenom's meant that the higher clocked triple cores might even reach 3.0. It was speculation about future, unannounced clockspeeds.






February 17, 2008 8:04:42 PM

jimmysmitty said:


Right now its not very easy to get a Phenom while you can get a Q6600 almost anywhere. Just try to remember the fact that if Intel is shwon not to have don those things the biggest reason is due to how many CPUs they can make compared to AMD.


The OEM rebate issue is separate from pricing. Anticompetitive pricing is much harder to prove than restrictive covenants that lock out competitors. I doubt that either AMD or Intel can be shown to use anticompetitive pricing, though it's harder to defend both ATI and Nvidia because high end GPU's arrive at pretty much the same price point in every generation.

The OEM rebate is contractual, so there is evidence that's warranted raids in the EU and elsewhere. Intel might still win this one, but it will be harder for them. That's my point.
February 17, 2008 8:08:58 PM

Sharikook said:
triple core 2.3 is enough to frag 3.16ghz intel e8500 which is just a glued pentium 3 relic with no internal memory controller and ancient front side bus archictures

AMD4LIFE!


HEIL HECTOR?! HAHAHAHHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHA

Thats awesome. I agree with 2/3's of this poster's comment. Intel CPU's have no internal memory controller and are on a truly ANCIENT FSB arch. OMFG how much does that must hold back Intel's performance. You Intel boys will understand what you are missing when Nehalem rolls around. You have no idea how good it feels to know that you have tons more memory bandwidth than you'll ever need no matter how high you overclock. OMFG DDR3 1600 will be WTFPWNT OVERKILL for the Nehalem and will have so much head room you won't even be about to see the ceiling for the clouds. Quick Path will simply own and I can't wait for you Intel boys to know what it was like to run on an AMD box back in the day (2005).

Anywho, the Triple Cores make sense from a business standpoint. All AMD has to do to get triples or duals is to bin the chips with one or two broken cores appropriately. They'll have essentially no waste. As hard as Phenoms are to make, I'm sure the market will be flooded with available dual and triple core CPUs soon. Also as long as BIOS updates keep coming out, these things make excellent upgrades on AM2 platforms from the X2's. They're simply faster clock for clock. Lets pray AMD can get the clockspeed higher though...
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 17, 2008 8:10:48 PM

yipsl said:
The OEM rebate issue is separate from pricing. Anticompetitive pricing is much harder to prove than restrictive agreements that lock out competitors. I doubt that either AMD or Intel can be shown to use restrictive pricing, though it's harder for ATI and Nvidia vis a vis high end GPU's arriving at pretty much the same price point in every generation.

The OEM rebate is contractual, so there is evidence that's warranted raids in the EU and elsewhere. Intel might still win this one, but it will be harder for them. That's my point.


Then if its contractual don't you believe that the OEMs are just as guilty? They had a choice and they decided to sign the contract so why should they get away scott free whil Intel takes all the wrath?

It was the OEMs decision to sign the contract so they should be investigated as well and if Intel is found guilty and made to pay the OEMs should be fined as well as they would have helped cause this.

Remember it takes 2 people to do something and make a choice like this. Not just one.
February 17, 2008 8:36:24 PM

I'm excited about the prospect, but for different reasons than one might think. I'm not remotely interested in buying them. On the contrary, I'm going to keep far away. I'm hoping this will make an impact on reducing AMD's waste. Any help is a positive, because I want AMD to continue to be in a position (or return to a position) in which they can compete with Intel. As much as I love my Intel high-end Core 2 Extreme CPUs, the reason they're so good is because of fear of AMD catching up. Intel originally released their Core 2 stepping as a challenge to AMD's Athlon architecture, which had taken back the crown for performance. Competition is always best for the end user.

In addition, this means that multi-core CPUs are beginning to become more and more available at lower price points. This means that the standard PC that one goes and buys for under the golden $800 price point will now start to have more power than was possible at that price point. After all, even though HDD capacity and processing power are increasing and the prices for both are decreasing, the power needed for web browsing and basic multimedia applications isn't growing at an inversely proportional rate. So, the average joe will be able to run more things at a time for the same price and the system will be a little bit more future proof (as opposed to an eMachine every year and a half).

I see this all as a good thing, but of course I'm not going to be buying a Dell. I'd love to see the Mac-clone all-in-one Dells have quad core CPUs.
February 17, 2008 11:40:41 PM

I kinda dig this triple core idea, hell i even like the low wattage 9100 idea, bothe could be cool in they are priced right, be nice to have a 9700 system and then a backup system with a 9100 or 8750 cpu.
February 18, 2008 9:33:53 AM

Funny how the Intel OEM rebates argument comes up everywhere....
On a thread about Phenom... :D 
Anyhoo, I think AMD could really pull a rabbit out of the hat with this one, in teh days of Prescott it was GHz that was the deciding factor on which CPU people bought (the fact the AMD chips were more efficient clock for clock, was no good as they were slower... ;) ) but nowadays I think the cores are more important than the speed.
The amount of people I hear talking about they're 10Ghz quad cores is laughable, but whatever the little thought consumer buys into (my dad for instance! :) ) will own the market. If AMD came out with a 500Mhz clocked CPU with 32 cores, people would fall over in the street to buy it...
I think the tri-core will prove a good thing in the end and with the fact of being able to bin practically an Agena core to either a dual-,tri- or quad-core CPU losses should be very small!
Oh and for those that think the tri's will cost the same as a quad- to make, you're mistaken, AMD will be writing off the cost as essentially a non-funcitoning quad is worthless, so even if they sold them at £1/$2 they would be making money.
If they bin all chips as failed quads, to be dual or tri K10s, the cost is not relative. Although I would be surprised if they managed to wangle that one with competition laws...!
February 18, 2008 2:49:52 PM

Quote:
B2s are only effected by running 4 VMs at the same time


I've heard they crash with Folding@Home and that SETI program, so it might be more of an issue than just virtualization. At any rate, I support AMD and want a Phenom, but I'll probably go triple core instead of quad on our 690 boards, but wait for 45nm for a 3.2 gigahertz Phenom (take it with a grain of salt, it's Inquirer info).
February 18, 2008 2:55:12 PM

LukeBird said:
If AMD came out with a 500Mhz clocked CPU with 32 cores, people would fall over in the street to buy it...


Not if it were 500 megaherz (no I didn't take you seriously with that)! However, even a dual core at 1.8 gigahertz can pretty much run everything nowadays. Clockspeed matters in gaming and headroom for overclocking matters enthusiasts.

That's why Phenom's doing better in Big Box store OEM PC's than as upgrades. That market will get AMD out of the red. Along with ATI, which is doing great.

LukeBird said:

I think the tri-core will prove a good thing in the end and with the fact of being able to bin practically an Agena core to either a dual-,tri- or quad-core CPU losses should be very small!


I don't think they'l be around for a long time. The process should be mature by 45nm. I'd still rather get one that's B3. I'm glad AMD's differentiating the B3's from the B2's in naming convention. That will help my upgrade decision in June.




February 18, 2008 2:55:42 PM

Interesting that they crash with SETI.
I've been running it for a few days on my system in my sig and at 100% loading constant, CPU temp hasn't gone above 58C as far as I know! :D 
I want to support the underdog as well, but I can't decide if I want to wait for faster clocked 45nm CPU's or go with a B3....
I want to go to a CrossfireX supporting board though, because I want to 3870X2's :sol: 
February 18, 2008 2:59:58 PM

yipsl said:
Not if it were 500 megaherz (no I didn't take you seriously with that)! However, even a dual core at 1.8 gigahertz can pretty much run everything nowadays. Clockspeed matters in gaming and headroom for overclocking matters enthusiasts.

I may just correct you there, OCing matters for some enthusiasts....
I couldn't care less if my 6000+ exploded at 3.05GHz, I don't OC and have no desire to. For me, buying the most expensive CPU I can afford is how I like to do it! (When I bought mine, the 6400+ didn't exist)
But yes, I was a little sarcastic there ;) 
February 18, 2008 11:51:53 PM

Where the tri-cores may actually score a win, is with the overclocking audience. In my personal experiences with Phenom, it is typically one of the four cores that will not allow you to overclock beyond a certain point - the majority of Phenom owners hit the wall between 2.5 and 2.6 and most of us hit the wall with a single core.

In thorough testing using AMD Overdrive, I have encountered a few chips that will take 3 of the 4 cores well beyond 2.6 while the last one (core #3, or logical core2) will struggle. In some chips, thic core struggles to run at stock... while with others it hits the wall around 2.5 or 2.6. A very select few, can get above 2.6

It is very possible, that these tri-core cpus will have some attractive OCing headroom. If they can achieve 2.8-3.0 on an overclock, I think they will sell very well. If they can't overclock any, then not just one core is bunk, but the entire arch.
February 19, 2008 8:15:28 AM

ragemonkey said:
Where the tri-cores may actually score a win, is with the overclocking audience. In my personal experiences with Phenom, it is typically one of the four cores that will not allow you to overclock beyond a certain point - the majority of Phenom owners hit the wall between 2.5 and 2.6 and most of us hit the wall with a single core.

In thorough testing using AMD Overdrive, I have encountered a few chips that will take 3 of the 4 cores well beyond 2.6 while the last one (core #3, or logical core2) will struggle. In some chips, thic core struggles to run at stock... while with others it hits the wall around 2.5 or 2.6. A very select few, can get above 2.6

It is very possible, that these tri-core cpus will have some attractive OCing headroom. If they can achieve 2.8-3.0 on an overclock, I think they will sell very well. If they can't overclock any, then not just one core is bunk, but the entire arch.

Thanks for that, quite useful information from an owner, as opposed to the crap from the Intel fanboys on here...
Blown completely out of proportion, much like the E8400 temps... :non: 
February 19, 2008 8:26:41 AM

So much text!

Honestly I skimmed through all of it just to reply.
I like the idea of a handicap quadcore but, honestly if
it cannot beat Wolfdale I see no point in considering it
for a future investment. It should at the very least be
better then all of the current C2D's.
February 19, 2008 5:54:02 PM

narutard said:
So much text!

Honestly I skimmed through all of it just to reply.
I like the idea of a handicap quadcore but, honestly if
it cannot beat Wolfdale I see no point in considering it
for a future investment. It should at the very least be
better then all of the current C2D's.


It will be better, it will have 3 cores instead of 2. If I sound like Nigel from Spinal Tap, that's partly a joke on my part. It will be pushed that way in Big Box stores. It will be true if software supports 3 cores and each core is competitive against C2D's in it's price range. A triple core Phenom does not have to beat everything out there.

Look at this from the Wolfdale article and scroll down to Supreme Commander

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wolfdale_shrinks...

Phenom 9600 beats two Wolfdales, one Conroe and two Windsors. It falls at the bottom of the pack with games that only use 2 cores.

Then there's this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wolfdale_shrinks...

When an app uses only two cores, or not even that, it falls behind. When they use more cores, like Pinnacle Studio 11, then the Phenom 9600 is midway through the pack, ahead of 2 Wolfdales, two Conroes and two Windsors.

In Divx it beats three Wolfdales, two Conroes and two Windsors. Of course, in both Kentsfield and the higher clocked Wolfdales win out, but if 14 to 30 seconds is not an issue, then a Phenom 9600 holds up well at it's price.

In Mainconcept H.264 encoder, the Phenom 9600 beats everything except for the Kentsfield and Yorkfield Extreme editions:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wolfdale_shrinks...

I believe this will scale with the triple cores. If a game or app supports 3 or more cores, then it will be in the middle of the pack. If a game or app does not, then it will be at the bottom. By the end of this year, I expect more games to support 3 and 4 cores.

Whether it will overclock better remains to be seen. I don't overclock, so I'm interested in stock performance. The fastest triple core will be 2.5 and the fastest Phenom quad will be 2.6, and we won't see 3.2 Phenom's until 45nm.



!