Performance: Phenom X3 8750 Versus Core 2 Duo E6550
According to the prices specified by AMD, the Phenom X3 8750 costs approximately the same as the Core 2 Duo E6550 from their competitor Intel.
The X3 8750 is approximately 3.2% slower than the Core 2 Duo E6550 over the benchmark course. The third processor core means that the Phenom X3 is able to get close to the speed of the Core 2 Duo when running multicore applications. It is clearly inferior when running dual core applications.
The smallest Intel quad core processor, the Core 2 Quad Q6600, costs approximately 45 euros (26.4%) more than the fastest Phenom X3 and is approximately 14.6% faster.
I still have faith the tide can always be turned, something you thought impossible with Pentium D vs AMD 64 X2. So it can happen again, if not I think we should make the EU take money from intel and give to AMD :P
Intel's interim solution was the Pentium D, which was basically taking two P4 and placing them on a chip. It didn't match AMD's performance, but it kept them in the hunt. AMD's response to conroe should have been the same; take two shrunken k8+x2 and place on a die. In this fashion they could have created some distance so that they could have come to a proactive solution to Intel's salvo.
Got this from AnandTech:
AMD doesn't have the resources to spin a dual-core Phenom die, so what better way of repurposing the quad-core die (especially if one core is defective) than to make a Phenom chip with less than four cores. Sure it's not the most efficient way to manufacture, but AMD doesn't have the luxury of producing a number of different Phenom die at this point. The triple-core Phenom strategy makes perfect sense if you're AMD, the question is: does it make sense if you're an end user?
I think you mean to say the small Phenom X3 model, the 8450.
I'd like to see the sony 'core' put into action other than yellow dogs lunix or Mercury's blader...sweeeet. They have six unit ps3's making 1 tflop @ 19k! :}