Oh great, we get all the broken quad-cores in a shiny, new box with "triple-core" printed on the front. ;)

Why would anybody who's not interested in quad-cores get a triple-core (as opposed to a dual-core for instance)? That kind of reasoning doesn't make sense.

I can understand sleeping with one woman. I can understand sleeping with two in the same time, oh yeah. But choosing between 3 or 4 women, the dilemma surely can't be that difficult – it's more of a detail from there on. At least for common desktop users like you and me... ;-)

you claimed this:
If AMD had invested in process tech instead of buying ATI, good possibility this little Kereberos they're releasing wouldn't even be necessary.
and you're wrong. end of story. even if you claim to suffer from some kind of short-term memory loss, i even quoted it for you.

and use the reply button.

Find where in that statement I claimed that investing in their process tech would give them 100% yields?

Oh, that's right, I didn't.

I'm still waiting to be shown how I'm wrong.

---

Unless you can somehow prove or even make a reasonable argument that they wouldn't even consider doing such a thing if they were running a profit.

I seem to recall my argument states that their financial situation - in part driven by the fact they're having so much process problems - has driven them to try and make lemonade from lemons.

If they had money and had invested that in expanding their capacity (they only have one 65m fab) and improving yields then I don't see where they'd need to turn their lemons into lemonade.

As for if they were profitable would they not do it? I think that argument is somewhat outside of what I've stated, but if we need an example, I think Intel's stand on this is pretty clear.

They're profitable, they've invested heavily in their process tech, and they just don't see the need.

I don't buy the argument that AMD would do this to get extra money or fill some niche. If their total number of lemons were low and their overall capcity high, then there is no need for lemonade.

Because that means you in turn have to sabotage perfectly good quad core chips to make tri-cores. Pointless.

So in the end it is again all about money and the fact they broke the piggy bank on ATI is a substantial point on their current condition.

Since using the reply button is so difficult...

I seem to recall my argument states that their financial situation - in part driven by the fact they're having so much process problems - has driven them to try and make lemonade from lemons.

If they had money and had invested that in expanding their capacity (they only have one 65m fab) and improving yields then I don't see where they'd need to turn their lemons into lemonade.

As for if they were profitable would they not do it? I think that argument is somewhat outside of what I've stated, but if we need an example, I think Intel's stand on this is pretty clear.

They're profitable, they've invested heavily in their process tech, and they just don't see the need.

I don't buy the argument that AMD would do this to get extra money or fill some niche. If their total number of lemons were low and their overall capcity high, then there is no need for lemonade.

Because that means you in turn have to sabotage perfectly good quad core chips to make tri-cores. Pointless.

So in the end it is again all about money and the fact they broke the piggy bank on ATI is a substantial point on their current condition.

I still think you are making numerous assumptions:
* that AMD could have converted / built another 65mn fab by now even if the funds were available
* that the number of defective chips would be fewer
* that the delay in introduction and difficulty in production is a factor of capacity / process tech rather than R&D decisions
* that Intel's arcitecture even lends itself to a tri-core chip

not to mention the fact that they've already done numerous respins of the chip and the rumors are that the forthcoming stepping yields a lot of improvements.

But a promise is a promise and I said I'd concede your point. There is an argument to be made that if AMD hadn't bought ATI then it is possible that that tri-core chips would never have seen the light of day. If more resources could have been thrown at the problem then it is likely that there would have been some noticeable result, be it an earlier launch, faster chips at launch, or no tri-core chips.

So now people are actually talking along as if 3 cores are better than 4? I tell you there must be some sort of brainvirus going around making everybody stupid, only way I can explain it all.
To prevent angry responses: LOOK, A SHINY THING, behind you.

flip-mode: No offense, but I'm going to dismiss this post as argumentative tinfoil hattery.

Discussion of their publicly disclosed finanical situation is tinfoil hattery and speculation? And how that might drive them to make business decisions is unrelated?

Damn, arguments like that make me question my faith in humanity.

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01218/

willyolio: wrong. no matter how much you invest in process technology, you will never have 100% yields. there will always be some defective cores, and releasing a tri-core chip will mean they're not throwing potential money into the trash.

How am I wrong about something I never said or claimed?

flip-mode: Isn't that (the ATI acquisition and it's opportunity costs) another subject entirely. The question many are asking is "why release a stupid tri-core"? The answer is to improve yields.

To the contrary they're related. As part of the reason they're releasing "stupid tri-core" is because their process technology is so far behind. That includes the necessary expertise to improve their yields.

They are only barely getting 65nm out the door. 90nm is still a major producer of chips for them. Meanwhile Intel is about to make a ramp to 45nm and is already primarily 65nm.

AMD is a whole generation behind, their coffers are dry, and they're bleeding money badly.

The ATI purcahse has become a real albatross.

As far as pricing and market differentiation, that's gonna be a wait and see type of thing. It could end up performing decently which would be good for consumers. It could be that the only way Intel can respond is to compete with quads, which would be good for consumers.

After the Barcelona benches I'm not that willing to hold out any hope for Phenom. If dual core Peryns or Core chips manage to even look remotely competitive against this triple core, pricing will be a nightmare.

I'm not seeing how it could be bad for consumers. If it ends up not being hot, then people will skip buying it.

Easy for the enthusiast to say, less easy for the average buyer. I think this little beast stands to shortchange the average buyer both in price and in value.

And if this chip in any way stunts software from leaping from dual to quad over the coming years, it's bad for everyone.

flip-mode: It's not a solution in search of a problem. It's a solution to a problem. The problem is quad core chips with one defective core. The solution is to sell a three core chip.

Not sure that a solution to AMDs problem is a win for the consumer. I'm not even sure it'll be a win for AMD. As I can't imagine there will be much room in price between dual and quad for AMD.

Price is important right now given their woes with process and yields.

If AMD had invested in process tech instead of buying ATI, good possibility this little Kereberos they're releasing wouldn't even be necessary.

Why not?

AMD's contention is that it will improve gaming performance; the track record of gaming performance to date on multi-core systems clearly doesn't bear that out beyond the earliest dual-core CPUs, as TechReport's own P/P article demonstrated.

No one is disputing that it will be good for other multithreaded, multi-core-capability applications, but telling us that a tri-core CPU is good for gaming is about as useful as their FASN8 platform campaign.

"AMD also claims triple-core processors can significantly outperform similar quad-core chips in "certain gaming and digital content creation scenarios."

If they produce a quad chip with three cores capable of say 2.8 GHz with the fourth only reaching 2.6 GHz, instead of selling a quad-core chip running at 2.6 GHz for all four cores they could sell a triple-core chip running at 2.8 GHz. Games that run on one or two cores would indeed perform "significantly better" on the faster clocked triple-core chips.

I feel like the last two years AMD is off track. These tech innovations, purchases, paper or pseudo-introductions are stopgap measures that don't dominate like AMD64 did a mere 5 years ago.

Shame.

Interestingly, AMD also claims triple-core processors can significantly outperform similar quad-core chips in "certain gaming and digital content creation scenarios."

And how would that be ??

Translation: Triple core chips will allow us to sell our quad core chips that have one defective core. Yay!

Since the OS overhead is usually lower then the application overhead, if an OS was tweaked to just use one core for the OS overhead, I could see the app(s) using the other two fully.

Intel and AMD developed dual- and quad-core processors because gamers were demanding them.

that perfectly explains why they're releasing their opteron line before their FX processors.


I didn't write their ad copy, they did...

What multi-core CPU is really going to break the gaming performance barrier when even a three-year old 2GHz Athlon X2 CPU is still sufficiently powerful, particularly when paired with a current GPU?

This is another solution in search of a problem.

Hey, if the price points are properly placed well below all of Intel's quad cores, it could be a pretty good alternative.

I'll get one to be odd

<ducks>

Maybe because one can always contrive a benchmark to yield whatever result one wants.