Its not just the number of machines to consider, but also the number of applications that have and will use that as the base development platform...

Hmm, do I edit my article before it's published or leave as is. :cool:

Agreed. But that CPU is just not fast enough. It is priced really solid though!

I misspoke again.

I swear, my brain is not hardwired for communication. I think in broken and run-on sentences.

I'll rephrase one last time(Again, my fault. >..> Sorry, people.

Perhaps because they already have a line of 2 core cpus

I was under the impression those were being phased out.

The point is, AMD have some native quad-core CPUs that either can't run with all four cores at their specced TDP or have a physical flaw in one of the cores. As AMD prefers to make money rather than throw it out (well, one presumes ;P), they sell them as tri-core CPUs. Why? Just the fact that they have one extra core gives them a marketing advantage over dual cores, similar to (maybe even more prominent than) clock speed.

Why not cut them down to dual cores, to match the rest of the market, you ask? Well, if they've got lower clocks and lower per-clock performance, why would they want to make it a "fair"fight? Plus, it'd be boring.

Emphasizing power draw also fails to highlight AMD's current strengths (such as they are, at least in terms of desktop usage benchmarks).

As to your usage scenario, I don't see how the "more cores means more power" argument fails a tri-core vs. a dual-core. Not all ppl use their CPU to run one multi-threaded app at a time. If they're running more than one at a time, more cores won't hurt. Like Geo said, give three cores a chance (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=12877&page=7), man.

Why not make it four cores? Um, see the first paragraph--these are quad-cores that are likely defective in some way, so selling them as quads isn't an option. Dropping them to duals for power savings doesn't seem to be in the cards for now, for whatever reason (e.g., AMD thinks it can get more traction from three cores than lower-power dual-core, or maybe the power savings don't justify the performance drop).

I guess I'm not seeing why you think marketing a defective quad-core as another ho-hum dual-core is preferable to marketing it as a rather unique (in the desktop space) tri-core.

We were all freaked out when G70-GTX showed up with 24 rather than 32 fragment pipes, and maybe as much when G70-GT offered us 20, but I think we recovered nicely.

No, I was saying buying a triple core wouldn't add enough performance to be worthwhile compared buying to a quad core(Most likely, anyway.), especially when you consider Intel's recent quad core price cuts.Edit: Here, I'll quote the relevant part of the post you were replying to:

Aye, but none of that has any bearing on Phenom X3.

Sure if you are runing multiple applications or multithreaded apps 2 cores is better than 1 core.

If you run a LOT of applications simultaneously or a lot of multhreaded apps, then 4 cores is better than 2. If you don't then it is. Likewise, 3 cores is better than 2.

AMD with the phenom X3 is taking CPUs that would otherwise make them Zero dollars and instead offering them with 1 core disabled, and discounted off the the price of their quad cores.

Considering the majority of people barely get any use out of dual cores, quad cores for the vast majority of people go to waste.

In that sense an 3 core CPU makes as much sense as a 4 core CPU to the majority of consumers (including enthusiasts) seeing as in general most will see no benefit over having 2 cores.

Then again for enthusiats it's as much about bragging rights as it is about actually getting any use out of something. :P Just look at striped RAID arrays for example. Pretty much Zero performance gain in general computing and gaming usage yet there's an arseload of enthusiasts that just HAVE to have it. :P Quad core and Tri Core is currently in that area. Generally goes to waste but useful for a small segment of people.

My last upgrade recently was a choice between a E8400 or a Q9300. Yeah Quad core would be nice for the bling factor but the E8400 will do significantly better in the majority of games and applications that I would be using. So in that sense, yeah, Tri-core is just as useless as Quad-core for most people. :)

Regards,
SB

You're freakin' me out, man! How can a 3x core "add" anything compared to a 4x core?!

;)

OIC the disconnect. I was assuming the second half of the quote I was directly replying to was related to the first half ("disable" being the keyword, "buy" being nowhere in sight):

"Why disable one core instead of two? It just seems like the third core is useless. If the app you want to use can benefit from more than two cores, a four core CPU just seems like a better fit due to the higher performance. Plus, a 2 core CPU would draw less power."

But then you seem to have added another wriggle by comparing buying a 3x core AMD to a 4x core Intel. If your main point is that the Phenom X3 just isn't that compelling vs. comparably-priced Core2s (Duos and Quads) for typical workloads, OK, point taken, most benchmarks seem to agree. Those Hexus multi-tasking benches I edited into my previous post show a glimpse of how 3x can be useful, which was my main point (which assumes that 3x is cheaper than 4x and pricier than 2x, independent of IHV, though that may not be the case, and that seems to be your [latest and finally explicit :razz:] point).