AMD Pulls Out Triple Threat

[WC Annihilus]

"AMD announced today that they will be going into a so far unexplored market in the processor world: the triple core processor."

Read on

 

[ionicle]

seems daft...there's dual, and quad, even numbers...why odd lol

 

[JN]

I don't really know what to say about this other than...why?

[clutching straws]I guess it may offer better energy efficiency if you have a machine that only performs 3 primary tasks so a quad core would be using unneccesary energy, but c'mon....[/clutching straws]

 

[nrage]

I think the answer is "because they can" and "because intel cant" (using their current architecture in which a quad core is simply 2 dual cores on the same chip) ... but I could be wrong.

And like you say, it may provide a better cost/benefit option than dual or quad for some applications. Thereby giving them a small section of the market where they are sole supplier with no competition. Of course, this doesn't mean they can charge the earth for triple core, because that would simply drive people to quad or dual core instead.

 

[Yeungster]

I think the answer is "because they can" and "because intel cant" (using their current architecture in which a quad core is simply 2 dual cores on the same chip) ... but I could be wrong.

And like you say, it may provide a better cost/benefit option than dual or quad for some applications. Thereby giving them a small section of the market where they are sole supplier with no competition. Of course, this doesn't mean they can charge the earth for triple core, because that would simply drive people to quad or dual core instead.

I agree. Most people are obsessed with the number of cores these days. If somebody was on a budget, and had a choice over a dual or tri core CPU, I would imagine a siginifcant number going the tri-core route (so long as there isn't a significant performance difference between them).

 

[cuprasport]

I agree. Most people are obsessed with the number of cores these days. If somebody was on a budget, and had a choice over a dual or tri core CPU, I would imagine a siginifcant number going the tri-core route (so long as there isn't a significant performance difference between them).

i suppose price will be a big thing, also if there isnt much diffrnce id go dual as heat will be alot less wouldnt it?

 

[Nagaru]

My guess is that these are 4 core chips with one core disabled to help yields. They could basically use any chip that has one bad core instead of it being useless.

 

[Rastalovich]

My guess is that these are 4 core chips with one core disabled to help yields. They could basically use any chip that has one bad core instead of it being useless.

Was my first impression tbh.

Die a quad and disable a core ? Or use the space 1 took up to do something else to benefit the L3 ? Or a flaw they`ve found (but not told any1) in the quad that this will cover ?

Seems on the surface to be a step back for seemingly no reason, the quote in the article talks alot and says nothing.

 

[nathan]

a step backwards from there quad imo. The only reason i can see is to make use of the quads that went

up.

 

[Allsorts]

I can totally understand this decision if there's a big price gap between the dual and quad cores.

 

[PP Mguire]

They could basically use any chip that has one bad core instead of it being useless.

I believe this is what AMD said. INstead of just throwing away the chip they can sell it cheaper as a tri-core.