AMD tri-core CPU codenames and features revealed
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 25 October 2007 - 12:35 · 17 comments & 6910 views
View: The full story @ DigiTimes
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(4 replies)
#1 Posted by The Walker on 25 Oct 2007 - 12:48
- BLAH, BLAH BLAH, tri-core, BLAH, BLAH.
We all know that the Tri-core processors are just faulty quad cores, used instead of just dumping them in the bin. -
#1.2 Posted by The Walker on 25 Oct 2007 - 13:48
- Absolutely... but the shouldn't be trying to con us into thinking that it's a design decision.
-
#1.3 Posted by PureLegend on 25 Oct 2007 - 22:39
- Con? Does it affect you in any way?
-
#1.4 Posted by toadeater on 26 Oct 2007 - 00:34
- Quote - (The Walker said @ #1)BLAH, BLAH BLAH, tri-core, BLAH, BLAH.
We all know that the Tri-core processors are just faulty quad cores, used instead of just dumping them in the bin.
So what if they sell for the price of a dual-core C2D and have an extra core? Is that bad?
Now, if AMD is greedy and actually charge significantly more for them, then forget it.
I hope not, because Intel has been so unchallenged this year that C2D prices have actually gone UP. So much for Intel being "nice." Not that this is a surprise to me, but some Intel fans mistakenly believe that Intel tried so hard with the C2D out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than to try to crush AMD. You people don't remember the Intel of old, back when it had little competition. You really wouldn't want to see things go back to that, unless you like being robbed.
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by Zirus on 25 Oct 2007 - 13:03
- isn't this a step backwards? Should they be releasing Octo-core processors in 2009?
-
#2.1 Posted by BBinder on 25 Oct 2007 - 13:36
- Quote - (Zirus said @ #2)isn't this a step backwards? Should they be releasing Octo-core processors in 2009?
i dont see it as a step backwards cos they are putting to use faulty qaudcores and also plugging a gap between dual and quadcore
also adds more choice in the market for ppl that maybe cant afford quadcore
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by jstillion on 25 Oct 2007 - 13:32
- Most software still only coded as single thread (core) or dual core if your really luckly, let alone 3x, 4x, or 8x.
-
(3 replies)
#4 Posted by +ripgut on 25 Oct 2007 - 15:03
- Can't wait till Quantum Computers are the thing and Moore's law hit's a wall.
-
#4.1 Posted by The Walker on 25 Oct 2007 - 15:39
- Moore's law HAS hit the wall.. that's why the industry is resorting to multicore processors.
-
#4.3 Posted by
neufuse on 26 Oct 2007 - 01:31
- Quote - (The Walker said @ #4.1)Moore's law HAS hit the wall.. that's why the industry is resorting to multicore processors.
Mores law says nothing about it has to be a single core... it just talks about the number of transistors increasing and power increasing which is still happening
-
#5 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 25 Oct 2007 - 16:04
- Introducing: The Wankel Rotary CPU
-
#6 Posted by neufuse on 26 Oct 2007 - 01:29
- So they blew off some micro fuses and disabled a core on their quad core chips or something? kinda like Intel use to do with their chips and incomplete feature sets...
