Is AMD readying three-core processors?

According to reports that have been slowly making their way through the chip manufacturing community, everyone's favorite underdog, AMD, is planning on launching a new line of three-core processors sometime in the near future. Sure, it sounds weird, but apparently the technique for creating a triple-core CPU is akin to "switching off" one core in a four-sided chip, and the process can yield significant speed enhancements while keeping costs reasonable. Reports speculate that the three-core model could happen partially due to the need to salvage bad four-core chips, but also because the triple-core concept is easy to market, and resistance from Intel will be low. Word on the street is that the new chips will appear on the consumer side to begin with, and might migrate over to the enterprise / server domain if there's sufficient movement on sales. Browse on over to the read link and feast your eyes on a succulent sea of technical mumbo-jumbo.

[Via Techmeme]

[Fernando @ Sep 16th 2007 10:13AM]

No!

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 16th 2007 11:59PM]

WOOT!!!!!!!!!

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 17th 2007 12:00AM]

YES!!!!!!!

[Zach @ Sep 16th 2007 10:19AM]

Give it a couple more years and binary will be comeobsolete. Computers will understand the number 2 and trinary will restart the information age.

[Anonymous Coward @ Sep 16th 2007 10:43PM]

It would be great if processors could understand *ternary* (not trinary), but the reason it's so tricky is due to the fact that reacting to either no voltage and "some" voltage is not so much of a problem.

On the other hand, figuring out the difference between no voltage, "some" voltage and "some other" voltage is much more difficult.

Call Bell Labs and get to work on the new transistor.

[waiownsyou @ Sep 17th 2007 1:12AM]

ternary and trinary are the same things... ternary is just the formal name

[Arjy @ Sep 16th 2007 10:19AM]

I could be wrong about this but wouldn't 3 core chips be very inefficient?

[Xzavier @ Sep 16th 2007 10:54AM]

Why? I thought we all wanted more cores? The more the better that is, if applications, especially gaming "at least in the consumer market" will utilize them.

1 fast core is Great! 2 cores in 1 processor is Awesome. 3 cores in 1 processor, keep it coming! I'll take more and more and more just make them affordable! Ultimately most to all developers will start writing proper code for these puppies.

[Arjy @ Sep 16th 2007 10:56AM]

I dunno, I imagined it to be something like having 3 gigs of RAM, being more inefficient since its an odd number.

[E71 @ Sep 16th 2007 1:16PM]

Well, an OS should allow you to set affinity for each process in order to run several demanding ones at the same time. However, for applications designed to take advantage of multiple cores, I always thought they just split up the tasks into 2 or split each of those split up tasks into 2 (for quad-core)... or is this a misconception?

Besides, who would want 3-core when 4-core is available? :p

[rootw0rm @ Sep 16th 2007 2:01PM]

you could be, but i'm sure you're used to it.

does nobody else recall that the xbox 360 uses a 3-core PPC? it seems to work well enough for it.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 16th 2007 11:37PM]

No, AMD is not the first, second, or third to make tri-core processors IBM has been doing it for years. If AMD can price these triple core CPUs at the same price or just a few dollars lower than an equivalent competing Intel dual core processor of the same single threaded capability, then AMD will surely have a successful hit on it's hands.

Dual Core Durons with 512k-1MB cache for the win!

[Dwarden @ Sep 16th 2007 10:24AM]

why ? you get 3 cores that's more than 2 or 1 :) lol ... it's all about price / perf / watt

[blackeagle @ Sep 16th 2007 11:40AM]

please stop talking

[elmer @ Sep 16th 2007 10:27AM]

This reminds me of the trick Sony pulled with Cell. They put 8 SPEs on every chip, but by essentially "switching one off", or at least limiting developers to only using 7 of them, they can tollerate a single fabrication error across the chip and get away with it. This can greatly increase their yield making the chips cheaper, and less temperamental chips probably means they can push the speed up higher without burning it out. It's actually adapted from that ATI trick, where they were able to sell 16-pipeline chips with a fault in one of the sets of four as 12-pipeline chips, instead of throwing the chip away.

[cmonkey @ Sep 16th 2007 12:14PM]

Indeed. AMD has also been pulling this trick for years with L2 cache, which takes up a significant portion of a CPUs surface area. If part of the L2 is defective, rather than throwing the chip out, they disabled the broken half of the L2 and sold the processor as a Duron (Not sure if they do it now with Semprons too).

It's essentially recycling chips that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill. Good news for everyone.

[SirPasta117 @ Sep 16th 2007 10:29AM]

When is Engadget going to have another Photoshoping contest?

[Chris Aubeck @ Sep 16th 2007 10:41AM]

But will it really give a closer shave?

[Stu L Tissimus @ Sep 16th 2007 10:42AM]

This is nothing out of the ordinary, to salvage faulty chips. It's what Sony/IBM do with Cell and what ATi used to do with faulty pipelines. As for three-core processors being inefficient, what makes you say that? Ooooh, odd numbers, scary. For the record, an X360 has a three-core architecture.

[Mark @ Sep 16th 2007 10:54AM]

I understand that this could be a useful way to re-use faulty quad-core chips, but honestly, why would anyone choose to limit their computer's performance by buying three cores instead of four? I'm willing to bet that this idea will be dead fairly soon (

[engadget @ Sep 16th 2007 11:08AM]

"why would anyone choose to limit their computer's performance by buying three cores instead of four?"

Simple.

Cost.

[Mark @ Sep 16th 2007 11:13AM]

I agree fully. For whatever reason, my message was truncated (hence the random "(" at the end)and left that part out. Either way, AMD will truly need to make it affordable to entice customers away from the dual-core product lines.

[Paris @ Sep 16th 2007 12:56PM]

"why would anyone choose to limit their computer's performance by buying three cores instead of four?"

I just bought a new PC and chose two cores instead of four.

[James @ Sep 16th 2007 5:01PM]

I'll bet you a dollar that pretty soon, people will be asking "why would you buy two cores when you can get three?". I mean, the more you make, the cheaper the unit cost gets, right? Both companies should switch all their production lines to quad-core, then sell the rejects as triple-core, and in no time I bet the triples will cost less than today's doubles.

[moe @ Sep 16th 2007 11:06AM]

i find it very odd that engadget would link to site that itself links to the inquirer for the story. if your going to reference a story use someone credible who does not post bogus news and rumours.

[thethirdmoose @ Sep 16th 2007 11:25AM]

The Inquirer is a British IT newspaper
The National Enquirer is bullshit
This is the first, not the second

[moe @ Sep 16th 2007 11:29AM]

if you had any knowledge of news reporting you would now that both write trash. the it version has posted bad information for years and uses lousy sources that in many cases turn out to be their own writers making up shit.

[spyyder @ Sep 16th 2007 12:53PM]

"the it version has posted bad information for years and uses lousy sources that in many cases turn out to be their own writers making up shit."

What are you new here? Welcome to engadget.

[Leo @ Sep 16th 2007 11:37AM]

I find it strange that the 'core wars' create such buzz i mean I am in no doubt that having 8 cores will show performance increase in many areas of computing over say 4 cores or 2 cores but aren't we getting ahead of ourselves due to the lack of multi-core support in software? - I'm not preaching by any means here, my computing knowledge is i suppose 'intermediate', not 'expert' so please, nobody bite my head off!

[mike @ Sep 16th 2007 11:45AM]

When i spend money on new computer parts i want them to be as fast as humanly possible regardless of if they are worth it at the time. nothing like the warm felling of having a quad core rig that already runs fast and then a year later new games and apps start coming out that actually use the quad core parts then suddenly ....... you still have a fast computer with no upgrades.

[Urza @ Sep 16th 2007 12:09PM]

mike: Or you could do what I choose to do. Instead of buying a $500 quad-core CPU today, you get one that's just good enough for what you want for $50. A year later you upgrade again, buy a new one for $50. Because by the time software starts making full use of quad cores, they're gonna be dirt cheap. I find it makes a lot more sense financially to just keep buying what's barely good enough.

Of course, then again, I'm about at the one year mark for my last $50 CPU, and I see absolutely no reason to upgrade it.

[Juaquin @ Sep 16th 2007 7:38PM]

You're absolutely right Leo - before we go making 8-core chips we need to make software that can scale to any number of cores. Programming for dual-core or quad-core is stupid because it will only keep increasing, then you'll have to program for 8-core and 16-core etc. Software developers need to make their code scalable to any number of cores. Of course, from my somewhat limited knowledge of programming, that task is easier said than done - but if we continue upping the cores, we're going to have to.

[On @ Sep 16th 2007 5:12PM]

i read this somewhere before but the benefit of 3 cores over quad core is in the arbitration. there is always just a core-core exchange with only one other waiting for the data or whatever instruction needs to follow in line. with a quad core, there could be up to 3 cores asking for the same data or something like that and there needs to be more complex prediction going on. anyway, hope that helps..

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 16th 2007 11:59PM]

YES!!!!!!!!!!

[nfoo @ Sep 16th 2007 11:47AM]

Hope they are ready by the team we're cruising our quad-core-cpus in our MacBook Pros by mid-late 2008 ... better hurry AMD ... oh, wait ... then you're still ... behind?

[Liam Billington @ Sep 16th 2007 11:58AM]

Triathlon?

[Phil @ Sep 16th 2007 12:59PM]

Best. Name. Ever.

[David @ Oct 24th 2007 10:34AM]

I've been thinking triathalon since I heard about these... It would be a great marketing scheme, epecially to top "dual core, do more"

[moe @ Sep 16th 2007 11:58AM]

buying quad cores now does not make you ready for what is coming. there will be a handful of better quads by the time it is worth buying. This is the biggest reason for only buying what you can use. an e6750 and e6850 will out game any quad on the market.

[rudebo @ Sep 16th 2007 12:01PM]

favourit under dog ? ??? what ? are we forgetting the nice smear campaign directed towards intel ... with that nice whiny attitude ?

[Urza @ Sep 16th 2007 12:05PM]

Yes. I've never spent more than $50 on a processor. Currently running a 64-bit 2GHz AMD. Considering moving up to dual-core soon, but I don't really have much of a need to. The biggest problem for me is not CPU speed, not RAM (3.5GB of that, and yes, I still sometimes use swap), but my network speed. Specifically upspeed, which sucks because comcast offers better downspeed but not upspeed.

[oneybm @ Sep 16th 2007 12:09PM]

I find the argument over this hilarious. So quickly did we all forget the Celeron and Duron processors? Was it not Intel first that did just the same thing with faulty procs and ended up making one of the hottest chips on the market for budget machines for a short time?

[Patuxentbball @ Sep 16th 2007 12:48PM]

Those had disabled cache, this is an entire core disabled.

[eddy_88_nite @ Sep 16th 2007 12:34PM]

well i hope they release and cuz i wanna see how this turns out.

[hacp @ Sep 16th 2007 12:41PM]

Thats pretty smart of AMD. Perfect Chip? Market it as quad core. 1 core fail? tri-core. 2 cores fail? Dual core. Three cores fail? Single core sempron! All cores fail? Investigate your manufacturing techniques.

[NettiWelho @ Sep 16th 2007 12:44PM]

but can you play doom with it?

[Solomon @ Sep 16th 2007 1:11PM]

But can it play you with Doom?

[Oddjob @ Sep 17th 2007 7:40PM]

In Soviet Russia, Doom plays you!

[Paris @ Sep 16th 2007 1:01PM]

I hope they do well cause I wouldn't want intel to remain alone in the x86 CPU market.

[Bennett @ Sep 16th 2007 1:35PM]

Well, Microsoft went with a 3-core architecture (albeit PowerPC-based).

And that seems to work pretty well for them. Oh wait...red ring of death...ooh....

Really though, I think that at this point, as with any multi-core architecture, the snag is getting software to properly use it. I like to think that programming for multiple cores is like trying to coordinate and delegate between a team of workers.