AMD has yet to name the date when it will ship the desktop ‘Phenom' processor based on its the Barcelona quad-core platform, but it today announced a new member of the family: a three-core CPU that will slide in between the quad-core Phenom X4 superslab and the dual-core Phenom X2.
Predictably christened the Phenom X3, it's actually a quad-core CPU on which one of the cores isn't working and is thus disabled. This novel approach isn't new to the tech industry: it's long been rumoured (but never confirmed by Intel) that the single-engine Core Solo processors were dual-core silicon on which one core had blown a fuse.
You can go as far back as the days of 5.25 inch floppy drives, when 720Kb disks which failed testing but could be formatted at a lower capacity were re-badged and sold as 360Kb disks. The triple-core Phenom x3 is a Phenom x4 quad-core with one (non-working) core disabled
View: Full article
News source: APC Magazine
Predictably christened the Phenom X3, it's actually a quad-core CPU on which one of the cores isn't working and is thus disabled. This novel approach isn't new to the tech industry: it's long been rumoured (but never confirmed by Intel) that the single-engine Core Solo processors were dual-core silicon on which one core had blown a fuse.
You can go as far back as the days of 5.25 inch floppy drives, when 720Kb disks which failed testing but could be formatted at a lower capacity were re-badged and sold as 360Kb disks. The triple-core Phenom x3 is a Phenom x4 quad-core with one (non-working) core disabled
View: Full article News source: APC Magazine
I also cant see these fit in the narrow price margains of cpu's today.
I also cant see these fit in the narrow price margains of cpu's today.
You do realize utilizing bad product from the X4 production line reduces the production cost and thus lowers the retail cost of the X4 processor making it more competitive with the Intel quad cores?
and to the first reply, if AMD can't afford to do this, what makes you think they can afford to just bin the fail quadcore CPUs?
and to the first reply, if AMD can't afford to do this, what makes you think they can afford to just bin the fail quadcore CPUs?
Way to be sarcastic while at the same time showing your ignorance.
With CPU's only the first runs are usually "broken" cores being disabled.
Once yields are better what usually happens is they just disable a core by cutting the link to it, even if it's a perfectly good core.
and to the first reply, if AMD can't afford to do this, what makes you think they can afford to just bin the fail quadcore CPUs?
Way to be sarcastic while at the same time showing your ignorance.
With CPU's only the first runs are usually "broken" cores being disabled.
Once yields are better what usually happens is they just disable a core by cutting the link to it, even if it's a perfectly good core.
The old nVidia 6200, as an example, used to be a 6600, but with 2 of the 6 cores disabled. Before they did away with them completely you could reactivate the extra cores and gain performance...
and to the first reply, if AMD can't afford to do this, what makes you think they can afford to just bin the fail quadcore CPUs?
Way to be sarcastic while at the same time showing your ignorance.
With CPU's only the first runs are usually "broken" cores being disabled.
Once yields are better what usually happens is they just disable a core by cutting the link to it, even if it's a perfectly good core.
The old nVidia 6200, as an example, used to be a 6600, but with 2 of the 6 cores disabled. Before they did away with them completely you could reactivate the extra cores and gain performance...
Gain and find your system is as unstable as buggery.
Dear god, doesn't anyone learn or does everyone around here live with a tin foil hat on thinking that 'the man' is out to screw 'joe average' (who ever he might be at any given moment in time).
and to the first reply, if AMD can't afford to do this, what makes you think they can afford to just bin the fail quadcore CPUs?
Way to be sarcastic while at the same time showing your ignorance.
With CPU's only the first runs are usually "broken" cores being disabled.
Once yields are better what usually happens is they just disable a core by cutting the link to it, even if it's a perfectly good core.
The old nVidia 6200, as an example, used to be a 6600, but with 2 of the 6 cores disabled. Before they did away with them completely you could reactivate the extra cores and gain performance...
Gain and find your system is as unstable as buggery.
Dear god, doesn't anyone learn or does everyone around here live with a tin foil hat on thinking that 'the man' is out to screw 'joe average' (who ever he might be at any given moment in time).
Wow another one of the sarcastic ignorant people
None of you apparently ever learned how to read right?
The point we're making is not that they are screwing anyone at all.
The point we're making is that as the fabs get better yields they produce cards from perfectly good samples that they later cripple to sell at a cheaper price point.
How is that screwing customers? It's cheaper for the company to do this than actually produce 2 seperate lines, which means the customers save money in the end.
That sounds like a win-win to me.
kinda comes down to like why make separate graphics cards for developers. they'll have a purpose or price for what they're worth whatever it is even if it's just a more powerful dual core processor line or a lower-end FX series for dual core.
kinda comes down to like why make separate graphics cards for developers. they'll have a purpose or price for what they're worth whatever it is even if it's just a more powerful dual core processor line or a lower-end FX series for dual core.
I understand the selling point.... I just want the quad cores. :-(
They better hurry up and get it out the door, because the speculatiopn is that Intel's next batch of CPU's will probably include an hexacore or an octacore. Speculation aside, we know Intel will expand the desktop Quad-core line, relegate the Dual-core's to the 'value' market, and phase out the single-core lines next time out. If AMD brings a tri-core product to a Quad-core dominated market, they might as well have brought a knife to a gun fight.
They better hurry up and get it out the door, because the speculatiopn is that Intel's next batch of CPU's will probably include an hexacore or an octacore. Speculation aside, we know Intel will expand the desktop Quad-core line, relegate the Dual-core's to the 'value' market, and phase out the single-core lines next time out. If AMD brings a tri-core product to a Quad-core dominated market, they might as well have brought a knife to a gun fight.
Don't worry about cores, its all about optimisation of the architecture, more bandwidth - something you can never have too much of, and supporting the latest memory technologies that are out there.
lol what's the naming convention Triple-Core or Tri-Core ?
More like.. Hard-core, cause Intel can't really do it right now.
If there's a market for tri-core cpus, then it'd be stupid to waste perfectly good chips.
I havent used AMD since AMD-K6-2s from back in the day and since then i`ve slagged them off for having like "AMD-3000" which does not run near 3Ghz and that there chips run to damm hot, but if they dont put the trusted program bull**** in, i think im gonna be changing to them
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.