Looks like a good move by AMD and will provide a Multi-core solution for those on a budget. 3 Cores will still multi-task better than two in  optimized software, so Core2Duo redundant? considering AMD Quads are already cheap these should be a bargain. Manufacturers are are already keen to sell the new tri core chips. AMD proving again that they can bring innovation to the CPU market while maintaining quality. This is the start of the big AMD comeback.... Intel must be doing plenty of nail biting.
 
Article:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/13 [...] rocessors/
 
Quote from Engadget.com

 
Evil Intel! AMD4Life!

Welcome back Thundy!    
Long time, no drivel!
Even as an AMD fan, you really do make me laugh....
Yes, the Tri is going to be nice, but I don't think Core 2 Duo's will be redundant just yet!  
Interesting all the same!

If the tri-cores clock higher that will be awesome.  If they still clock low like the Phenoms I'll be worried.

i seriosuly doubt they will do anything like clocking higher

of course they'll clock higher in the end, what's the point of introducing an architecture that'll never improve over it's capabilities at release?
i'm an amd fan, but i honestly think amd's doin more nail biting than intel at this point.  Nhalem would sure have me worried if i was trying to gain back buyer confidence after the problems with phenom chips...

I'm actually much more interested in the ATI 780G chipset than any CPU at the moment... But yeah, a triple core -depending on pricing- can be -in certain circumstances- a good choice as alternative to dual processor.

Nobody talks about it but I'm just wondering... the thermal issues with the phenom overclocking, couldn't it because of the density? I mean you've got 4 core native as apposed to 2 dual cores. Seems like every core is trying to compete for the same surface area on the HSF. Maybe the Tri's will fair better with the thermal boundaries. One can only hope because until there's competition we might see price increases. Just take a look at what blue ray players are doing. Up to around $400 as apposed to $300 last year, ouch.

What, when the Phenom triple core clocks at 2.1 and 2.3GHz? Fudzilla has a preview of one, even with unlocked multipliers they couldn't get it past 2.64GHz. At these poky speeds it'll be slower than AMD's dual core CPUs.

well i don't think triples won't make a market impact on C2D. Intel will be more happy the way things are going fot them and they will be happpy as long as AMD keep this architecture and trying to improve it.t gives the Intel time they want to make another beast.

 
I really don't understand what drives fanboyism of any type. IMHO, TC has been like Thunderman for the Intel camp. Me, I like facts on both sides. Sometimes facts hurt Intel (i.e. Prescott and the OEM rebate program), other times facts hurt AMD (65nm B2 Phenom on SOI).  
 

 
A single Phenom core is 17% to 25% more powerful than an Athlon X2 core. If they were as powerful as a higher end Conroe or Wolfie core, then there'd be some real competition, but Phenom won't have even a chance to be in that league until 45nm (then there will be dual cores of the Nehalem generation).  
 
They might make some of the dual core Celerons and Pentiums redundant, maybe some of the lower clocked Allendales too. They should make the Athlon X2's and dual core Semprons redundant as well. IMHO, AMD should only do triple and quad CPU's right now, they can't compete with dual cores.
 
I do think that the triple cores have a marketing advantage in OEM PC's, not just the Spinal Tap "11 is higher than 10" bit, but also that they provide benefits in between dual core AMD and quad core AMD. When looking at budget HP or Dell's with several different AMD processors at Best Buy, a triple core might be the sweet spot for many consumers.
 

 
Yes, and no. I got flamed for saying they'd clock higher when speculating that a 3 gigahertz triple core would be a good budget replacement for an Athlon X2. They will be clocked higher once B3 triple cores arrive -- higher than the B2 9500 and 9600 Phenoms out at the time I read the information. The triples going to OEM's will be 2.2 and 2.3, but B3 2.5 triple cores are on the roadmap for 2nd quarter.
 
That said, they will not clock higher than the highest clocked B3 quads on the roadmap, which is 2.6. That's where the confusion arose. I'd really hoped they could get to 3.0, but I guess it's a limitation of 65nm SOI that won't be addressed till pipelines are increased for 45nm SOI Denebs.

 
LOL any neutral observer can see TC ain't nearly as bad as Thunderman, you just have a grudge against him for some reason.    
 

 
How will tri-cores make Celerons and Pentium-Es redundant? They are in totally different price ranges, unless you're telling me tri-cores will be priced between $50 and $100...  
 
The same argument applies to X2s and Semprons, they aren't in the same pricerange. In fact, an X2 6400+ could conceivably outperform a tri-core Phenom clocked at 2.1 - 2.4GHz, even in multithreaded performance.

yipsl said:
 
"I really don't understand what drives fanboyism of any type. IMHO, TC has been like Thunderman for the Intel camp."  
 
An Intel fanboi who writes all of his stuff on an old 939 AMD rig.
 
Bitter ... just bitter ... LOL !!

Uh... Yeah...right...sure. In other words Q6600, enough said.

Edit:

Don't get me wrong, I love 3 cores I just love 4 more. With a free 3G OC of course. Again, enough said.

I digging the concept of the tri-core, and i love the 780g chipset, so I will probably buy a tricore(or 9150) as a back up system.  I am amd 4-life(except not at the moment).  I hope they are coming soon, cause we taxpayers get a rebate check in may.

 
Ah, but therein lies the problem.
 
As I understand it, triple cores are quad cores where one core doesn't work. Disabling that core and selling as a triple core is a very good idea, as the other choice is to throw the chips away... this way you make a reasonable profit on a chip that would otherwise have been a loss.
 
But...
 
That only works so long as the demand for triple cores isn't higher than the supply of defective chips. If OEMs suddenly wanted millions of them, AMD would be left with a choice between refusing to supply them or taking perfectly working quad cores, disabling a perfectly good core, and selling them as triple cores at a lower price than they could have sold as quad cores. That ain't such a good idea.

 
Don't talk if you're not sure what are you talking about. They OC-ed Triple Core without unlocked multiplier. Fudzilla raised FSB on 230 (instead 200 if you don't know that), and multiplier was 11,5. Look again and then come back.

Sorry thundy but this isn't "innovation". This is what AMD and INtel have been doing for years. Something on a CPU doesn't quite wrok right, cut the cache or frequency and sell as another chip.
 
Tri cores seem fine. Although I doubt there will be enough of a market for them and if so for a short time. The only thing that makes me wounder is how this disabled core may affect the rest of the CPU.
 
Might have no affect on it or might have some. Either way, from what I have seen it only outperforms a C2D in threads that are optimized for more than 2 cores which are few and far between.

Rolling, Rolling, Rolling,
 
Raw-hide
 
 
 
And the Tripple Cripple makes an outing
 
 
Hooray.........

AMD is in some trouble if they're B3 Phenoms are a flop, even if theirs tris are a success, it could even hurt them if their tris are a big success