AMD's Triple-Core Phenom X3 Processor Launched

MojoKid writes "AMD officially launched their triple-core processor offering today with the introduction of the Phenom X3 8750. When AMD first announced plans to introduce tri-core processors late last year, reaction to the news was mixed. Some felt that AMD was simply planning to pass off partially functional Phenom X4 quad-core processors as triple-core products, making lemonade from lemons if you will. Others thought it was a good way for AMD to increase bottom line profits, getting more usable die from a wafer and mitigating yield loss. This is an age-old strategy in the semiconductor space and after all, the graphics guys have been selling GPUs with non-functional units for years. This full performance review and evaluation of the new AMD Phenom X3 8750 Tri-Core processor shows the CPU scales well in a number of standard application benchmarks, in addition to dropping in at a relatively competitive price point."

Why doesn't Intel

[xSacha]

Surely Intel's chips have failed cores sometimes too. What do they do with theirs? Just chuck them out? They should be reselling their failed quad-cores. Interesting: What happens if they don't have enough failed quad-cores to meet demand of tri-cores? Would they purposely disable a core that I could re-enable myself just to keep up with demand?

Re:Please someone explain

[Ironsides]

Because it makes the algorithms for splitting up work simpler? I remember reading a review where they took a dual processor motherboard, put a dual core in one socket and a single core in the other. Some applications crashed in multithreading mode due to the non power of two number of cores.

this review seems to summarize it well.

[YesIAmAScript]

Stolen from the techreport article you posted:

'I can't help but think this all must have looked different on AMD's roadmap when it was first being put together. I doubt they expected that the fastest Phenom would only run at 2.4GHz and, in doing so, would only just match the Core 2 Quad Q6600--an older product on the way out, replaced by the Core 2 Quad Q9300. That's the reality, though, and it's constrained AMD's pricing so much that the top Phenom quad core is $235. The compression through the rest of the lineup makes the triple-core value proposition suspect. Give up a core to get 200MHz more at $195? Not likely when the Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, at 2.5GHz with an unlocked multiplier, is 40 bucks more. The logic of the pricing scheme may be internally consistent, but the stakes are too low. I'd go with the X4 9850 ten times out of ten. If, that is, I were somehow bound and determined to choose an AMD processor over one of Intel's current offerings.'

That sums it up pretty well.

First of all, that AMD can only play in the low end of the market, and second that who is going to give up a core to save $40?

This seems like an exercise in futility.

Re:3 cores sounds "wrong", but...

[electrictroy]

Ha ha. ;-) Well I drive a car with only 3 pistons (honda insight). That configuration is rare in the States, but pretty common in the European Union (like the VW Lupo or Polo). The advantage of a 3-piston engine is almost-equal power to 4-bangers, but less rotatin mass to achieve better gasoline/diesel efficiency. In other words, it helps the consumer save money.

So for me "driving" a 3-core computer would feel pretty normal.

Selling crippled processors is old school

[NotBornYesterday]

Somewhere in my office, I have a vintage system based on an old 486SX, with the disabled/broken math coprocessor. Who here remembers those things? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I also have a couple laptops with the fully functional coprocessors. They are early tablet PCs with b/w pen-sensitive screens, and actually can do handwriting recognition with a 486DX running at a screaming 25 mhz. I might go downstairs and fire one up just for the nostalgia of it. Last I checked, they still worked.

less heat?

[ILuvRamen]

It would sound to me like it would run a heck of a lot colder than with 4. I mean it's designed to run at a decent temp with 4 cores running so with 3, it'll be really cold! If you underclock a processor to 75% it barely puts off any heat. Of course the 3 cores will still be maxing so it's different but it should be way cooler anyway. But of course that's a bigger problem than they think. I dunno how they're actually arranged but if 3 corners are hot and one not, plus the fact that it was a bad processor in the first place, these things are gonna fail so fast people are gonna be pissed! You don't heat a damaged straight from the factory chip unevenly!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:you can buy one today

[tabrisnet]

This is oversimplifying the situation. the Cell is actually an asymmetrical multi processer solution, in that not all of the cores are identical. the Cell architecture consists of one central POWER (PPC?) core, and then 7 (physically 8, one disabled) SPEs. The SPEs are basically a minimal processor able to handle primarily SIMD math, and very limited logic. No branch prediction either.

DDR2 vs DDR3

[justdrew]

not a great comparison I felt. they used DDR2 memory on the AMD and DDR3 on the intel. DDR3 ram is so much more costly, that I'd think anyone considering AMD would be comparing against a DDR2 based intel motherboard.

486sx

[turgid]

i believe instead they disable a not-quite-functional core from their quad-processor reject bin.

Ah, good old intel trick.

Back in the day, the 486 had a built in FPU (maths co-processor) which was expensive. The 486 could execute integer instructions about twice as fast at the same clock speed as the 386 (which didn't have a maths co-processor built in).

So, to compete with Apple, Atari (Falcon) and Acorn (Archimedes), intel launched the 486SX, which was a 486 with the broken maths co-processor disabled.

Now, there was a 386SX. The 386 was 32-bit internally and externally. The 386SX (1988?) was hobbled to have a 16-bit internal data bus and 24-bit address bus externally much like the Motorola 68000 from about 1981 (in Macs, Ataris, Amigas etc.) No maths on board.

So this is just business. "Nothing to see here. Move along," as it were.

Oh, and I can still get a proper quad-core AMD cheaper than intel's Frankenstein offering of two dual cores sewn together, so who cares?

Re:3 cores sounds "wrong", but...

[turing_m]

Somehow humanity managed to make it to the industrial revolution without wholesale use of fossil fuel. Beyond the 1800s, many countries still managed to avoid the energy use associated with the industrial revolution. It's not particularly hard, it just takes discipline. Unfortunately discipline for most people is applied by circumstances, not internally.

In hindsight, expenditure of that energy on infrastructure that would last and be useful for a thousand years seems much more sensible than spending it on transferring people around, mostly because of laze.

A better analogy for our current situation is someone who lives on a small plot of land sufficient to feed one person. He then discovers a huge underground store of food. Rather than work any of the surrounding land, he builds a gym over his plot of land and starts pumping iron and shooting roids until he consumes all of the best tasting food, while only having 3% bodyfat. He looks pretty buff, but he needs to eat more than a small family to stay that way.

Halfway through he wonders whether having the lifestyle depicted on an action DVD was really worth it, in the end, and what he's going to do now the beef jerky has run out.