AMD prepares three-core processors

[Reality|Bites]

Well if you have a batch of quad core cpu's with one core being faulty would you rather bin the batch or try to recoop some money by selling them as triple core cpu's?

If the price is right and you don't have to upgrade your AM2 motherboard I know what I would do.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

i think more superior 2 core cpu's should be call of the day first it isnt like AMD are in any way fit to experiment at the moment

... They don't even have the desktop parts out at the moment. We haven't seen any "proper" benchmarks on desktop boards with mature bios.
Give them a chance.

 

[tbh]

or you could wait until the amd phenom is released which is a 4 core cpu in q1 next year

with potential for 2 cpu's a board....

so are all phenoms going to be dual cpu capable, or only select models?

 

[NathanE]

I'm surprised this hasn't been done sooner. They must have bucket loads of quad core chips that have just a fault in one core of the chip... laser that off and you get a tri-core chip. Nothing wrong with that at all. It will be funny to see Task Manager showing 3 graphs - as I don't think that's been seen before

 

[RaiderX]

it would be the multi-core sempron

 

[Cupra]

ill stick with my already purchased quad, i think they will have to be less than 140 quid to sell them so its a pointless chip tbh unless there stopping all dual core chips

 

[Kyle009]

bizare. i just cant understand why anyone would want a tri-core over a quad core?

 

[plasmahal]

bizare. i just cant understand why anyone would want a tri-core over a quad core?

It says it's a marketing decision and it may be designed to recoup any loses incurred from faulty quad cores but mainly fill a gap in the market.

It's like saying 'the quad cores are out why would anyone want a dual core now ?'

If the market is there and the price is right people will but a tri-core.

Intel must have had some dodgy batches of quad cores, better to sell than stick 'em in the bin.

 

[MoD_Callidus]

As stated if it was a quad ( it has to be they're not gonna develop a native tri core tbh ) and AMD cunningly price it to undercut INTEl dual's it could be a winrar.

e.g

AMD Quad = £250
Intel Dual = £150
AMD Tri = £ 130

if it shows performance gains over the Dual ( and I'm talking about to Joe Public not to overclockers etc ) then why not, saves money from rejected / binned quads, passes savings on directly to AMd means they can be more competetive on price in general

 

[randal]

If it's anything like the San Diego/Disabled Toledo thing, that'll mean they won't overclock that well

Jon

My 4000+ Sandy romped on the o/c, the Toldeo 4400 I had also hit FX60 speeds quite easily too.

That pic in your sig... that isn't somewhere between West End and Chobham is it??

 

[BillytheImpaler]

bizare. i just cant understand why anyone would want a tri-core over a quad core?

People would want a tri-core chip over a quad-core chip because the tri-core chip would be significantly less expensive that its bigger cousin. As above, it's the multi-core Sempron.

 

[yipyipboo]

Are software applications specifically written for 2 or 4 core cpus? Would a multi-core aware piece of software care if it saw 2, 3 or 4 cores to work better? (Bit of noob in this area ).

 

[azteched]

Depends on the app - what it does & how well it's written. Some tasks scale to N threads nicely, others don't.

 

[Schnippzle]

Traditionally AMD's always been cheap though, it's only in the last few years that their prices have increased.

Amen

 

[Teaf]

Looks like Intel might be going tripple core as well...

Linky

Warning: Fudzilla

 

[NathanE]

Are software applications specifically written for 2 or 4 core cpus? Would a multi-core aware piece of software care if it saw 2, 3 or 4 cores to work better? (Bit of noob in this area ).

Only badly written multi-threaded software will scale linearly. A lot of the "multi threaded" games at the moment simply spawn a handful of threads and then those threads are dedicated to one specific task. It's a crap design.

A truely multi threaded piece of software will simply spawn as many threads as there are CPUs/cores and then allocate "work jobs" on a round robin type basis to those threads. That way no thread is tied down to executing a specific job and you gain a higher overall processing throughput because all threads (and hence CPU/cores) can be used to the full extent possible. The only downside is that it's 'harder' (although more elegant) to code such software and old game engine code can't easily be updated to support the new design - hence rewrite.

 

[stickroad]

Only badly written multi-threaded software will scale linearly. A lot of the "multi threaded" games at the moment simply spawn a handful of threads and then those threads are dedicated to one specific task. It's a crap design.

A truely multi threaded piece of software will simply spawn as many threads as there are CPUs/cores and then allocate "work jobs" on a round robin type basis to those threads. That way no thread is tied down to executing a specific job and you gain a higher overall processing throughput because all threads (and hence CPU/cores) can be used to the full extent possible. The only downside is that is 'harder' (although more elegant) to code such software.

And is their currently any software avaliable that does this Nathan?

 

[FreeStream]

Looks like Intel might be going tripple core as well...

Linky

Warning: Fudzilla

Don't see how that'd work with the shared cache tho TBH.

one core would have all 4mb and the other two 2mb each (in theory).

But then again im no hardware engineer

 

[Mr Jack]

Only badly written multi-threaded software will scale linearly. A lot of the "multi threaded" games at the moment simply spawn a handful of threads and then those threads are dedicated to one specific task. It's a crap design.

A truely multi threaded piece of software will simply spawn as many threads as there are CPUs/cores and then allocate "work jobs" on a round robin type basis to those threads. That way no thread is tied down to executing a specific job and you gain a higher overall processing throughput because all threads (and hence CPU/cores) can be used to the full extent possible. The only downside is that it's 'harder' (although more elegant) to code such software and old game engine code can't easily be updated to support the new design - hence rewrite.

Um. No. Really no. Multi-function threads are inelegant, inefficent and difficult to write.

Managing your own threads is tricky and shows negligable gains over letting the system do it; and it's far, far worse on a PC where you have an unknown number of other threads running. If you want multi-threaded goodness the proper way of doing it is have many different threads capable of running independently with few sync points. Then you throw them at the thread manager and let it pick the best way to divide the load. The problem with this approach is that it fits badly with the natural model for games where you have a large number of important sync points and interdependent systems.

Of course, on a PS3, for example you have complete hardware control and can, if you want, push the edges of the system by custom balancing each CPUs load - but, believe me, writing that kind of code is that exact opposite of elegant.

 

[pegasus1]

I can see the sales pitch from the Purple Shirt man
"Yes madam, more powerfull than C2D but with a smaller Carbon footprint than a Quad Core"