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. . .
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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.