Performance: Compared to 2.40 GHz
If we compare the performance of the Phenom X3 at the same clock rate with a Phenom X4 and a traditional Athlon 64 X2, the benefits of a tri-core processor are shown clearly by the course of benchmark tests.
The Phenom with four cores is 6% faster than the Phenom with three CPU cores at the same clock rate. However, under full load, it requires 36% more energy and costs approximately 10 euros more. When compared to the traditional Athlon 64 X2, the Phenom X3 is roughly 23% faster due to its greater efficiency and the additional CPU core.
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! :}