AMD adds triple-core Phenom processor to desktop roadmap

We'd heard rumblings about this newfangled three-core approach just two days ago, and now it looks like AMD has gone and gotten all official on us. According to the chip maker, the forthcoming Phenom is "expected to be the world's first PC processor to integrate three computational cores on a single die of silicon." Additionally, it was noted that this design was "a response to demand for increased performance delivered by multi-core processors when running state-of-the-art applications," and AMD apparently hopes to grab the market that isn't quite ready for quad-core CPUs but could use a bit more oomph than their single or dual-core chip is delivering. The devices are set to land sometime in Q1 of next year, and if you're interested in digging around a bit more in the marketing buzz surrounding these bad boys, be our guest.

[Thanks, Dave and Jason]

[Shan @ Sep 18th 2007 8:28AM]

Unfortunately, AMD continues to fall behind. While the idea of a triple core CPU is interesting, it is also far too late to the party - if it had come along when quad-cores were out of reach for the general consumer then perhaps it would have had a competitive advantage. But Intel’s Q6600 can be had for a couple hundred bucks these days and by the time AMD comes out with their new core, Intel will be hot on their heels with a new one of their own, effectively making AMD one generation behind. Too bad for AMD. . .

[John B @ Sep 18th 2007 9:26AM]

What utter arrogance.

If I can get a tri-core chip without having to replace my motherboard, which could then result in Windows going nuts because of a potentially different motherboard chipset, then why the hell shouldn't I? Yap all you want about "falling behind" or being a "generation behind", but a triple core most people won't see the difference whether they use a triple or or quad-core.

If given the choice between having to rip everything out to upgrade to an Intel quad with new motherboard or paying significantly less just to have to swap out the CPU to gain an additional core, I'll be glad to pay less to get an additional core with a simple CPU swap.

Just because Intel is currently ahead does NOT mean that people are foolish for choosing AMD. Sometimes the "previous tech generation = sux0rz" attitude that I see on Engadget can be infuriating.

[Shan @ Sep 18th 2007 9:54AM]

@John B

Utter arrogance? have you been sleeping under a rock these last few years, because your comment is nothing but a load of rubbish. Please stop with your childish Intel bashing. If you like AMD fine - nobody is forcing you to change. The reality is that there is something better. When AMD came out with the 64bit - they jumped ahead of Intel and it looked like Intel would take ages to respond. When they launched the Core Duo - they got back the top spot because it really was a good processor.

This is not about jumping ship as your "lazy to change my motherboard" argument is about. This is about how late AMD are to the party. In terms of technology - why would you want a triple CPU when a Quad one is available? And if you don't need a triple, then a quad one would do fine.

I currently have 3 PCs in my home - all running AMD processors - theres no arrogance here. I'm just pointing out the reality. I'm a fan of the underdog like anybody else, but even I had to say bye to my Ati card and get Nvidia when its clear that the Nvidia card is just better for the money and performance. Maybe as an AMD fanboy - you need to wake up. AMD have a lot of catching up to do and this isn't going to help them. They ned to be concentrating on Quad CPUs and not be salvaging their damaged triple core CPUs and passing them off. If their production lines are really that bad to warrant enough triple core CPUs - then the future for them isn't looking bright.

Given that Intel have a number of quad based processors to suit a variety of budgets and then they also have their regular dual core CPUs in a variety too - so whether you wan't to spend $50 on a cheap dual CPU or $600 on the top quad core CPU - you have a choice.

Now tell me - where the hell will AMD's 3 core CPUs fit in? Intel have dual and quad CPU's spanning a wide price bracket - who needs 3 cores? As you said - most people won't see the difference between using a triple or a quad core CPU - then tell me - what is so good that you need to upgrade your dual core CPU to a triple one?

At the end of the day if you have a dual core and see no reason to upgrade - then fine, but if you need to justify going up to a Quad based CPU (perhaps for video encoding etc) - then why bother with a triple core when a quad core exists? The point is if you can justify needing more cores - then who the hell will want triple over quad? There is really no place these AMD processors will benefit because intels dual cores serve the lower end in terms of price/performance and their quad cores serve the higher end, and given that even the quad cores come in a budget variety (Q6600) - who would bother with anything less if they can afford it?

Eating your words now aren't you?

[jsn @ Sep 18th 2007 10:04AM]

I agree Shan. I've been an AMD zealot for years now. I just didn't want to support the Intel juggernaut and AMD processors performed well and were cheaper. Now the price/performance gap between Intel and AMD is quite large when you consider that a new Q6600 and motherboard can be hand for about $300 total and will be significantly faster than just replacing my X2 with an X3 , which will probably cost $200 alone.

I would rather spend a little more and get a generational leap in performance than spend a little less for a marginal upgrade.

[John B @ Sep 18th 2007 10:11AM]

Oh, spare me the diatribe. A CPU fits in wherever the *END USER* -- NOT YOU -- decides it fits in. Just because YOU see no need for a triple quad, as proven by your arrogant "then why bother with a triple core when a quad core exists", doesn't mean that no one else see a need.

If someone needs an additional core and can get it by a simple CPU upgrade for a minimal cost as opposed to the cost and hassle of getting a whole new motherboard as well as CPU, then there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. How dare you act as though your views on this matter are the only ones that someone should consider!

And nowhere did I ever say that I am against Intel. I want both AMD and Intel to do well because that will end up within innovations that will only help the consumer. In fact, this little cat-and-mouse game that they currently play is probably the best thing that can happen.

[Shan @ Sep 18th 2007 10:40AM]

How dare I act like my views are the only ones important? Pretty hypocritical coming from an AMD fanboy such as yourself who hasn't even acknowledged Intel.

Suddenly you see a need for triple core CPUs do you? Funny that you stated this then - "but a triple core most people won't see the difference whether they use a triple or or quad-core" So tell me - if there is no benefit for a triple core CPU, then why are you preaching about it? You talk about triple cores like they are the best thing since sliced bread. Since according to you nobody will see the benefit of extra cores - tell me why it is so important for you to upgrade to a triple core in hope of some imaginary processing benefit?

My argument is simply that dual core CPUs (from the bottom of the range to the top) will happily serve most people. For those that need more CPUs, then the bottom quad core range CPU - is just a little above the most expensive dual core CPU. This then goes all the way to the top Quad core CPU. If AMD want to get into the market then their CPUs have to come in somewhere between Intels dual and quad core CPUs in terms of price and performance, but then as you said - nobody would see the benefit of an extra core - so if you dont need it - why not just stick to dual core? If you need the extra cores - even Intels cheapest quad based offering will be only slightly more than a dual core.

Oh for crying out loud - enough of the "I can't be bothered to change my motherboard" argument. yes as an AMD user you should be able to upgrade, but instead of hoping for some miracle with a triple CPU - you should be pushing AMD to produce quad core CPUs and to give Intel a real challenge. I would have expected AMD to do what they do best - come out with a CPU that is like for like, but is perhaps slightly faster and is much cheaper. Instead they are acting like a dog with a limp leg and trying to justify slavaging their damaged quad based CPUs.

At the end of the day - if i was an Intel Quad core CPU user and if AMD are to get my business, then they need to come up with something to beat my current setup.. losing one processor in the process is hardly going to make me want to jump ship now is it?

At the end of the day you will never see this argument for what it is because you are so hooked on your belief to support AMD regardless of what they produce just because you want to support the underdog. If thats what you want then fine, but convice AMD to come up with a Q6800/6850 beater and stop wasting time on damaged Quad core CPUs and passing them off as triple cores CPUs. The market already has Intels higher end dual core and lower end quad core's for that.

[John B @ Sep 18th 2007 11:24AM]

Funny, but I'd swear that I said "I want both AMD and Intel to do well because that will end up [with] innovations that will only help the consumer." That to me acknowledges that Intel is just as important in this little CPU skirmish as anyone else. Interesting how you take a lack of verbal acknowledgment as no acknowledgment at all.

And as to your "where the hell will AMD's 3 core CPUs fit in? Intel have dual and quad CPU's spanning a wide price bracket - who needs 3 cores?" The answer is WHOEVER WANTS THREE CORES! And that's all that should matter. If that turns out to be no one, then so be it. If it turns out to be a niche, that's fine, too.

"Instead they are acting like a dog with a limp leg and trying to justify slavaging their damaged quad based CPUs."

Oh, really? Next time, read up on it. As per Ars Technica (emphases mine): "AMD is positioning the new processor, which will be marketed as part of the Phenom line and sport 2MB of shared L3 cache, ***as a response to consumer needs**. The company's PR is pitching the idea the dual-core/quad-core split has left a gap in the market and is implying that ***consumers will want to save some money instead by picking up a triple-core part more suited to workloads with lower levels of multithreading***."

Granted, it's PR so you can take that with a grain of salt, but if they price these properly (and that's the key), there is no reason why these cannot be a cost-effective, viable alternative to both dual- and quad-core CPUs. Just because you don't see that (or don't want to see that) doesn't mean that no one else will. We'll see when they hit the shelves, won't we?

[Fruition @ Sep 18th 2007 11:51AM]

Internet fight!

[bw @ Sep 18th 2007 3:06PM]

go away shan you retard. Upgrading my processor for a minimal cost, is better to men than upgrading my processor and motherboard for considerably more.

[DickHardknocks @ Sep 18th 2007 8:29AM]

But can it play CRYSIS?

[Zeus the God @ Sep 18th 2007 5:31PM]

You broke it.

[LondonConsultant @ Sep 18th 2007 8:30AM]

So, AMD's expensive quad-cores that fail QA with just one faulty core will become cheaper tri-cores...

[JD @ Sep 19th 2007 2:14AM]

That's not true, despite the fact that it makes lots of sense. The inquirer article a couple of days ago says that one core will essentially be disabled, allowing for faster clock speeds, and since most programs don't use even 2 cores, 3 cores at higher speed could have a greater impact for the end user than 4 cores at lower speeds. Admittedly, It's a stopgap until software catches up, but it may be effective. Time will tell, right?

All I know is that AMD uses tech from their server procs (HT, anyone? Gotta love fast RAM access) in their desktop procs, and their past couple of generations, while a little behind Intel in release date, have been pretty thorough thumpings when it comes down to it. Intel should be afraid of their more direct competition (read: the four core phenoms.).

[LondonConsultant @ Sep 19th 2007 4:02AM]

@JD

Undoubtedly the inquirer article is correct that one of the cores will be disabled. However, AMD would surely be negligent with shareholder money if that didn't include chips where only one core failed QA in an otherwise healthy quad-core chip. Also, AMD risks something like the consumer backlash on early 486SX units where consumers resented their working floating-point units being purposefully disabled. Anyway, I hope AMD closes the gap on Intel again - if only because tougher competition is good thing...

[Ice Raider @ Sep 18th 2007 8:32AM]

"expected to be the world's first PC processor to integrate three computational cores on a single die of silicon."

Too bad the Xbox 360 has been using a 3 core system for almost 2 years now.

[Ignatius @ Sep 18th 2007 9:53AM]

When did the Xbox 360 become a desktop PC?

[Zeus the God @ Sep 18th 2007 5:34PM]

Well, technically it is the first computer system (yes, it technically is a computer system, but primarily used for games so its called a "game console") to use a 3 core processor, and also the first system to have a unified architecture GPU (early ATI R600 GPU...), but the issue is, this type of processor hasn't been released for the PC market, so its the first in the PC market- the Xbox is a computer, not a PC.

[LondonConsultant @ Sep 18th 2007 8:33AM]

...and maybe use DX and SX to differentiate them.

[Vanillacide @ Sep 18th 2007 8:35AM]

Tri-core ... just like the Xbox 360

Good use of quad-cores where one core failed, which would otherwise be trash. :)

[John B @ Sep 18th 2007 9:17AM]

And guess what? As long as the price is substantially cheaper and the three cores are stable, I'm fine with that. I won't buy Intel not because I don't like them but I prefer competition more and if I can help AMD to stay in business while still getting a more-than-satisfactory desktop experience, I'm fine with that. (Before anyone starts criticizing me as wasting money by doing that, take a look at the iPhone that's in your hand. Don't lecture *me* about wasting money.)

If AMD can offer a 3-core chip that's actually a 4-core-with-a-failed-core-but-at-a-significant-discount chip, then that's fine by me. If those chips can be used, then why waste them?

[Justin @ Sep 18th 2007 9:27AM]

No, actually, I haven't been. I tested out of it (AP test here in the US) and ended up in a contemporary writing class in the summer with 2 other students.

I guess this wouldn't be an issue (hopefully) if they actually had an editor, but really, if one is going to style himself a writer, the least he can do is know the language and proofread his own material.

[Justin @ Sep 18th 2007 10:36AM]

Nifty. My comment ended up on two articles at once.

[Paris @ Sep 18th 2007 10:11AM]

Did they announce on what socket these will work?

[Fruition @ Sep 18th 2007 11:06AM]

I dunno, but I somehow doubt it will be available in the socket 939 I'm running.

[Silverfrog @ Sep 18th 2007 11:39AM]

Shan, there are a couple of logical assumptions you make in your point of view--ones that are ultimately bound to disprove your viewpoints.

The first fallacy is that neither Intel nor AMD currently has a true quad-core CPU. In the case of the Q6XXX series, it is actually two dual cores on one chip. Intel die size is 2x143 mm squared. So, the AMD processor we're reading about here is an evolution beyond the current "quad-core" solutions.

The second is that since you haven't even seen the benchmarks for the Triple core solution, you have no idea what performance it has. It could absolutely crush the QX6XXX Intel procs when it comes out. See point #1.

[Fruition @ Sep 18th 2007 11:55AM]

Two dual-cores on one chip? I didn't know that, but it sounds like Pentium D all over again...

[octoberasian @ Sep 18th 2007 8:44PM]

Actually the Intel dual and quad core CPUs are just two CPUs under one package-- two single core or two dual cores. The AMD quad cores are TRUE quad core CPUs if you have seen the photographs of the CPU dies themselves in their presentation slides from months or two years ago. I'll have to look them up again, but they are true dual and true quad cores instead of Intel's approach.

[Shibathedog @ Sep 18th 2007 12:41PM]

I understand how a processor works, a dual core processor, and a quad core processor, but i don't really see how a triple core processor could work efficiently. I'm sure it can be done but it just seems like one core is going to end up being stressed more than the other two, it seems like more of a pain in the ass than something thats going to be efficient. I'm pretty sure there would be certain situations where this processor would really fall behind the others. I guess AMD has it figured out though, id rather just see dual and quads with varying clock speeds though.

heh...its like my friends shitty geo metro, it has a 3 cylinder engine.

[tbt @ Sep 18th 2007 1:19PM]

As long as this new tri core processor gets good gas mileage and gets you and up to 2 other friends where you want to go, its a good deal :)

[Jon @ Sep 18th 2007 1:15PM]

This is all about the process. They can take a 4 core chip with a broken core and still sell it.

And we've all heard about the trouble AMD has had clocking their newest chips above 2.0 Ghz. If they can disable the 'slowest' core and clock the other 3 at 2.5 Ghz, that's a good tradeoff. It will buy them some time until they can improve their fab process.

[eddy_88_nite @ Sep 18th 2007 5:00PM]

They said that the cpu will automatically turn off one of cores when not in use to reduce power use and that's not a bad idea. Right now my 6000+ is taking at least 125watts which is a real rip considering intel has better CPUs running at Half the voltage.

[Blue @ Sep 18th 2007 7:20PM]

Whatever the comment, it's still cool! Especially if they can keep it close to a Dual-Core price.

[Arran @ Sep 20th 2007 5:15PM]

a three-core processor wioll be able to run faster than a 4core because the 3cores will run cooler so thay realy up the core speeds so that will run just as good as a fore core processor and most multi core programs only use 2 cores at the moment heck i would upgrade to get try core as there is nothink out there at the moment that depands 4core's yet so if u buy 4core cpue now by the time a program comes out that can use 2 core's the processor will be old and u will need to upgrade 3 corte cpu's will be good for gamers & media editors other than that i dont see any need for them as the average user is still fine with single & dual core cpu's

[LG1815 @ Sep 22nd 2007 8:19AM]

It probably in the end will all come down to price and "upgradability". If priced low enough, people will by them. Also, if it can be mounted on a AM2 motherboard and relatively cheap, they will be used. This is as much about AMD not having to trash quad core chips with a bad cpu. Even if sold at a very low price, still better than complete trash.

[symbios @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:21PM]

on what socket will the triple core be? on am2?

[Socal-Jim @ Oct 12th 2007 3:08PM]

The new phenoms will use the AM2+ socket, but can be used in the standard AM2 socket, but you lose the increased HTT that the phenoms can utilize. If you already have an AM2 board then you can buy the chip and wait till the AM2+ boards come down in price. I saw that asus as already announced some AM2+ boards.