Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Ships Tri-Core Phenom, could be a great Business move?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2008 8:03:16 PM

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/amd-ships-triple-cor...

Quote from Engadget.com
Quote:

While there have certainly been questions surrounding AMD's ability to deliver its Phenom 9700 / 9900 chips on time, it looks as if the chip maker is right on target with the launch of its triple-core lineup. Just as we expected it to, AMD has indeed began shipping its Phenom 8400 (2.1GHz) and 8600 (2.3GHz) to Dell -- for use in its OptiPlex 740 -- and HP (respectively), which has it mounted in the AL195AW desktop. Reportedly, the CPUs are only shipping in volume to PC manufacturers at the moment, and unfortunately, it failed to spill the beans on when they'd be available on a wider scale. Nevertheless, those parked across the pond can get their fix of tri-core sweetness by picking up one of two Mesh Computer rigs that are being made available as we speak.


Evil Intel! AMD4Life!
March 14, 2008 8:40:08 PM

Welcome back Thundy! :hello: 
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!
March 14, 2008 8:41:26 PM

If the tri-cores clock higher that will be awesome. If they still clock low like the Phenoms I'll be worried.
March 14, 2008 9:31:30 PM

i seriosuly doubt they will do anything like clocking higher
March 14, 2008 10:08:15 PM

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...
March 15, 2008 3:30:26 AM

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.
March 15, 2008 4:23:38 AM

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.
March 15, 2008 5:57:34 AM

What, when the Phenom triple core clocks at 2.1 and 2.3GHz? :lol:  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.
March 15, 2008 6:35:08 AM

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.
March 15, 2008 6:50:38 AM

LukeBird said:
Welcome back Thundy! :hello: 
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!


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).

LukeBird said:

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!


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.

spuddyt said:
i seriosuly doubt they will do anything like clocking higher


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.
March 15, 2008 7:24:44 AM

yipsl said:
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).


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

Quote:

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.


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.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2008 7:44:29 AM

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 !!
March 15, 2008 8:11:22 AM

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.
March 15, 2008 12:56:53 PM

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.
March 15, 2008 3:43:30 PM

yipsl said:
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.


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.
March 15, 2008 4:26:08 PM

Mandrake_ said:
What, when the Phenom triple core clocks at 2.1 and 2.3GHz? :lol:  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.


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.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 15, 2008 7:43:19 PM

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.
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2008 7:45:30 PM


Rolling, Rolling, Rolling,

Raw-hide



And the Tripple Cripple makes an outing


Hooray.........
March 15, 2008 7:50:43 PM

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
March 15, 2008 10:12:35 PM

torcida_kutina said:
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.


They stated:

Quote:
While we have a Black Edition which can change the multiplier, overclocking on this Tri-Core is limited.


The facts are simple, this thing OCs like crap. All they could get was a measley 350MHz increase from stock. 350MHz is pathetic. 2.65? As I stated earlier, for many tasks AMD's own 90nm dual cores would be faster.

Of course, it's common knowledge 65nm Core 2 Duos and Quads Intel offers now have no problem with 3GHz and higher provided the motherboard and memory are up to the task.
March 15, 2008 11:01:08 PM

Mandrake_ said:
They stated:

Quote:
While we have a Black Edition which can change the multiplier, overclocking on this Tri-Core is limited.


The facts are simple, this thing OCs like crap. All they could get was a measley 350MHz increase from stock. 350MHz is pathetic. 2.65? As I stated earlier, for many tasks AMD's own 90nm dual cores would be faster.

Of course, it's common knowledge 65nm Core 2 Duos and Quads Intel offers now have no problem with 3GHz and higher provided the motherboard and memory are up to the task.


Quote:
Also the BIOS was still beta, so we could only do overclock with FSB @ 230MHz.


I think this answers your question. :p  next time show the whole line.
March 16, 2008 6:36:55 AM

blackpanther26 said:
Quote:
Also the BIOS was still beta, so we could only do overclock with FSB @ 230MHz.


I think this answers your question. :p  next time show the whole line.



Thanks Blackpanther26!
March 16, 2008 8:17:57 AM

AMD cripple cores, anyone?
March 16, 2008 8:37:24 AM

Of course! A new BIOS will fix everything. :lol:  Now back in the real world... it's painfully obvious that even with a disabled core these chips are still awful at overclocking.
March 16, 2008 11:59:21 AM

Everyone keeps refering to how much they OC... How will they stack against Intels, when both are at stock? Not everybody OC.

(i do realize that about 50-75% of the posters here do, I just mean in general)
March 16, 2008 12:07:01 PM

In single threaded apps, they wouldn't even compete with Intel dual-cores(unless they ramp up clock speed).

In multi-threaded apps, they would compete with the faster Intel duals, but wouldn't touch even the quads. It will just be aiming for the budget market.

I just worry that the product won't be successful. Many companies see a customer need, and then create a product for it. In this case, manufacturing issues created a product, and now they seek a customer need.
March 16, 2008 1:44:49 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I just worry that the product won't be successful. Many companies see a customer need, and then create a product for it. In this case, manufacturing issues created a product, and now they seek a customer need.


Perhaps the tri-core won't be successful. On the other hand, if its priced right, lots of people will go into Best Buy or similar, see a C2D machine and then see a tri-core next to it for less money and they'll think, "Gee, one more core for less money. That sound's great! I'll take it". For most people, it doesn't take a chip that performs like dynamite, overclocks well, or anything else. It takes a chip that looks good in the advertisement and has a competitive price.

As far as enthusiasts go, how many of us would seriously buy an HP or whatever from Best Buy in the first place?
March 16, 2008 3:20:31 PM

sailer said:
Perhaps the tri-core won't be successful. On the other hand, if its priced right, lots of people will go into Best Buy or similar, see a C2D machine and then see a tri-core next to it for less money and they'll think, "Gee, one more core for less money. That sound's great! I'll take it". For most people, it doesn't take a chip that performs like dynamite, overclocks well, or anything else. It takes a chip that looks good in the advertisement and has a competitive price.

As far as enthusiasts go, how many of us would seriously buy an HP or whatever from Best Buy in the first place?


Good point. The general public won't ask, "What kind of benchmark scores does that system get?".
March 16, 2008 5:41:52 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Good point. The general public won't ask, "What kind of benchmark scores does that system get?".


And the general public do not overclock.


Far too many people on here miss that point!



AMD is in the low margin market at the moment, and will remain there for the foreseeable.
March 16, 2008 6:07:50 PM

Amiga500 said:
And the general public do not overclock.


Far too many people on here miss that point!



AMD is in the low margin market at the moment, and will remain there for the foreseeable.



Agreed. From the non-enthusiast perspective the chip is great. Those low margins will hurt AMD's future, less money for R&D, etc...

However, the reason why a lot of us here miss that point is because we are not the average consumer.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 16, 2008 7:26:49 PM

I agree with TC. We here are OC'ers and love the best bang for buck. But don't forget that people will also look at the clock speed ad they were led to believe that more MHz= better performance. So some will look and say "Hey that ones 3GHz with 2 cores and this one is only 2.1/2.2GHz with 3 cores. I think this one will be faster."

But still you have to remember the amount of tri's depends on how many of AMDs quad cores are bad. So maybe for now since its a new process it might have a nice supply. But as that process matures and they start getting better yeilds they will slowly have less and less and less.

So as I see it the tri core market will maybe be created and then probably dissapear very fast.
March 16, 2008 8:32:19 PM

thunderman said:
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/amd-ships-triple-cor...

Quote from Engadget.com
Quote:

While there have certainly been questions surrounding AMD's ability to deliver its Phenom 9700 / 9900 chips on time, it looks as if the chip maker is right on target with the launch of its triple-core lineup. Just as we expected it to, AMD has indeed began shipping its Phenom 8400 (2.1GHz) and 8600 (2.3GHz) to Dell -- for use in its OptiPlex 740 -- and HP (respectively), which has it mounted in the AL195AW desktop. Reportedly, the CPUs are only shipping in volume to PC manufacturers at the moment, and unfortunately, it failed to spill the beans on when they'd be available on a wider scale. Nevertheless, those parked across the pond can get their fix of tri-core sweetness by picking up one of two Mesh Computer rigs that are being made available as we speak.


Evil Intel! AMD4Life!


suck it
March 17, 2008 3:30:12 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:


I just worry that the product won't be successful. Many companies see a customer need, and then create a product for it. In this case, manufacturing issues created a product, and now they seek a customer need.


It should mostly go to OEM's. Considering how many dudes got Dells with Prescotts and Smithfields, I can't see AMD not scoring with that market, now that there are no Intel OEM rebate hurdles to surmount.

I'd consider putting a B3 triple core on our 690G board, but when I replace this 690V board and CPU, I'll get a 780G and a Phenon 9750 (or 9850 Black Edition). What I'm really waiting for is Deneb with AM3 before I even think about CrossfireX.

If the core scaling previews are accurate, a triple core will do about as good as a Phenom in games, though not in every app that actually uses all cores.

sailer said:

As far as enthusiasts go, how many of us would seriously buy an HP or whatever from Best Buy in the first place?


A friend and I were at Fry's last Friday. He got a 20" NEC LCD, but I decided to hold on to my $229 and save up for a 24" NEC next month (that might delay my Phenom upgrade to May). Anyways, we looked at a guy playing Quake Wars @ 30fps on an HP gaming rig that cost $1700. It had a Q6600 and an 8800gt.

I told my friend that I could build that rig for around $1200 or so and he had his doubts. I included the cost of the 24" HP LCD in my estimate. Maybe it would go up to $1300, but that HP, though not too shabby, was still overpriced. Now that I have a Chinese buffet bet, I'll have to go to Fry's site, find the model and then come up with a list that shows him I know what I'm talking about in terms of prices.
March 17, 2008 3:59:39 AM

Quote:

I told my friend that I could build that rig for around $1200 or so and he had his doubts. I included the cost of the 24" HP LCD in my estimate. Maybe it would go up to $1300, but that HP, though not too shabby, was still overpriced. Now that I have a Chinese buffet bet, I'll have to go to Fry's site, find the model and then come up with a list that shows him I know what I'm talking about in terms of prices.

If that includes software, you may have your hands full. HP gets a bundle from M$ that costs less than I spend on Vista.
They also get all thier hardware at close to cost, by buying bulk. It's mostly even pretty good quality, though not up to my specs.
Good luck, and happy hunting.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 17, 2008 4:04:32 AM

endyen said:
Quote:

I told my friend that I could build that rig for around $1200 or so and he had his doubts. I included the cost of the 24" HP LCD in my estimate. Maybe it would go up to $1300, but that HP, though not too shabby, was still overpriced. Now that I have a Chinese buffet bet, I'll have to go to Fry's site, find the model and then come up with a list that shows him I know what I'm talking about in terms of prices.

If that includes software, you may have your hands full. HP gets a bundle from M$ that costs less than I spend on Vista.
They also get all thier hardware at close to cost, by buying bulk. It's mostly even pretty good quality, though not up to my specs.
Good luck, and happy hunting.


This much is true. But I found on Newegg a copy of Office 2007 for like $14 bucks. No disc just the license to use it. So you go to a site, put in the license and download it. And for $20 bucks more you can get a backup disc.

Its kinda like the OEM versions of Vista/XP. You can get Vista Ultimate 64bit or 32bit for $170 bucks which is not that bad.
March 17, 2008 11:34:49 AM

yipsl said:
It should mostly go to OEM's. Considering how many dudes got Dells with Prescotts and Smithfields, I can't see AMD not scoring with that market, now that there are no Intel OEM rebate hurdles to surmount.



LOL. Yup. I remember when Core 2 came out and Dell was pushing all the crappy P4 stuff.
!