AMD's triple-core Phenoms to launch in March?

Earlier this year, we heard that AMD would be unleashing a few triple-core Phenoms in Q1 of next year, and now DigiTimes has a few more details surrounding the forthcoming launch. Reportedly, the B2 stepping Phenom 8400 (2.1GHz) and 8600 (2.3GHz) will be hitting shelves in March, while the B3 stepping 8700 (2.4GHz), 8650 (2.3GHz) and 8450 (2.1GHz) will be loosed sometime in Q2 2008. Beyond that, it looks as if we'll have to wait for more details to emerge, but at least you've got a few more hard numbers to pencil in for next year, right?

[Shadowise @ Dec 26th 2007 8:04AM]

It's a shame that AMD dropped the ball so much since the Core2 thing happened. I think they need to concentrate on releasing a more competitive Quad-Core, rather than wasting time releasing Triple-Core CPUs.

[iofthestorm @ Dec 26th 2007 12:18PM]

They aren't wasting time, they're just not wasting their stock of defective quads since their process technology seems to have many bugs that they are trying to fix.

[TriZz @ Dec 26th 2007 8:13AM]

I used to be a huge fan of AMD, but they have really REALLY fallen behind since the advent of multi-core processors. The AMD/Intel rivalry was a great display of how an open and competitive market was beneficial to the consumer...but it seems that the competition is gone. Intel has thoroughly excelled in the realm of multi-core. I hope AMD can pick it back up in 2008.

[Blacksheep @ Dec 26th 2007 10:48AM]

Don't forget AMD was the first company to go 64-bit and the first to have dual core processors on the market with their X2 line. They didn't fall behind at the beginning of multi-core, they fell behind with the advent of quad core and have fallen since.

As another poster mentioned as well, they aren't producing tri-core, these are failed quad cores with one die disabled.

[Wwhat @ Dec 26th 2007 8:32AM]

Be still my heart..

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Dec 26th 2007 9:18AM]

Triple core? No wonder AMD lags Intel in the chip market; and it isn't because Intel uses strong arm tactics.

[bliki @ Dec 26th 2007 9:54AM]

The 3 core chips are not something AMD 'designed'.
They are basically ordinary normal x4 Phenom chips which have one core that doesn't function properly. And AMD won't be producing them per se, they will just sell what is basically the byproduct of their poor 65nm fabrication process combined with the complexity of a 'monolith' quad core. Hence the steppings and core clocks that completely match those of the x4 Phenoms, as do the names (only instead of 9xxx it's 8xxx). I think this will be a good way for AMD to ged rid of defunct products and thus make a little more cash off of the whole Phenom bandwagon.

Not to mention that it is likely that this CPU will outperform intels C2D's (not C2Q ofc) and be cheaper at the same time.

[Iain @ Dec 26th 2007 11:39AM]

You should try reading up on these things before making such declarations: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=3

Basically, the Phenoms look at first glance to be worse than the Intel processors and more expensive too.
In most tests, the Q6600 (2.4GHz) out-performs the Phenom 9900 (2.6GHz), let alone the 9700 which at 2.4GHz is the equivalent spec, or the 9600 (2.3GHz) which is the closest in terms of price.

[bliki @ Dec 26th 2007 1:24PM]

Yes, the Phenom x4 CPU's are currently not competitive to the C2Q (notice the Q for Quad).
But a potential x3 8xxx CPU is likely to outperform most dual core solutions from intel - C2D (again, notice the D), and it is also likely to be cheaper then the new penryn C2D's. (It is also extremely likely that intel will lower prices if that happens).
I hope I clarified it well.

[Iain @ Dec 26th 2007 5:40PM]

My apologies - I somehow missed the the 'not' before the 'C2Q' in the last line of your first post.

Still, whether the triple-core processors are actually any better than Intels C2Ds is something we'll have to wait and see.
Given the tri-core units are actually faulty quads, they will (unless I'm mistaken) quite possibly fail to match dual-core processors in the same way that quad-cores currently fail - the higher FSB speeds of the dual-cores tip the balance in their favour for the time being.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that by the time the tri-core out-perform the dual-cores, the quad-cores will out-perform the tri-cores as they're all manufactured the same way. And, when that's the case, AMD are going to have problems because their quad-cores are just a joke compared to Intel's C2Q line-up.

[Constable Odo @ Dec 26th 2007 10:17AM]

Those chips will go nice with my three-legged chairs and tables. And to think people were trying to tell me that stuff was junk. Now it's in vogue.

[Joshua Walters @ Dec 26th 2007 10:52AM]

Why would I want a triple core? Ill have my quad in a week.

[palehorse @ Dec 26th 2007 12:37PM]

uhgg... AMD makes me a sad panda.

They'll need to be the first to give us 8 or 16 cores of goodness, or they're done.

A stock 4Ghz chip would be swell too.

[coolant8 @ Dec 26th 2007 2:18PM]

...Too little too late, Q6600 G0 is the way to go.

[Arsenic0 @ Dec 26th 2007 3:43PM]

Yea, because what i want when i am buying a $250+ chip is to be getting the ones that got put in the "Broken" bin on the Fab testing line..

Are they going to be selling these processors at Good Will or Salvation Army?

[OddManOut @ Dec 26th 2007 5:20PM]

Point taken. But I am one of those people who DOES occasionally peruse the "Clearance" bins in various retail venues. Always looking for a real bargain...an overlooked diamond in the rough...

A $100 - $150 Triple core CPU that equals or outperforms a $175 - $200 dual core equivalent behind the regular counter sounds like it might qualify. :)

Think a $100 - $150 range is absurd ? Keep in mind these CPS would be scrapped otherwise. Selling them at cost (say...$50 or less) would be useful from a business perspective. Overhead is cut dramaticaly. But given AMDs general sitch at the moment, I'd bet they want/need the extra "profit".

It will be interesting to see the pricing scale of these tripple cores...

[Wwhat @ Dec 27th 2007 7:46PM]

People that go for '3 cores is faster than 2 and cheaper' forget that AMD CPU's need their own platform also, so you need a mobo too, there goes your profit.

[Ayle @ Dec 26th 2007 6:12PM]

I don't think this is a bad idea as long as they sell they cheap, and I mean really cheap. Why not apply it to cpu with two or three failed cores?

[wickedpheonix @ Dec 26th 2007 9:22PM]

March? Only a year or so too late... who seriously cares about these when the price of quad-cores is dropping like pebbles in the sea?

[671GD @ Dec 26th 2007 7:20AM]

Amen brother. Amen.

[Standingfast @ Dec 26th 2007 7:45PM]

I care! If AMD does not get their act together, you think Intel will be pressured to design and release good stuff anymore? Without AMD, we would not have these nice cheap C2D's and Quad chips...

[Brendan @ Dec 26th 2007 11:42PM]

Standingfast, Intel doesn't need to be pressured by competition to save money which is what the fabrication process shrink does. A byproduct of that cost savings is reduced power usage and decrease in heat generated.

[futurepastnow @ Dec 27th 2007 12:23AM]

It's all about price. If these are cheap enough - as cheap as dual-core Intels - then there will be a market for them.

I might build a triathlon system if I can do it on the cheap.

[Abuzar @ Dec 27th 2007 4:37PM]

Totally useless...

[madmax @ Dec 28th 2007 1:26PM]

Wwhat:"People that go for '3 cores is faster than 2 and cheaper' forget that AMD CPU's need their own platform also, so you need a mobo too, there goes your profit."

The Phenom is socket AM2 so it can be used in existing AM2 motherboards.

[markdavis @ Jan 11th 2008 5:10AM]

i remember a short while ago intel was really down and the core duo was bad and expensive. amd made the wrong move to drop the 939 socket too soon and all potential upgraders had to reconsider another motherboard. and when you reconsider another motherboard you can switch to intel too.

99% of people just don't get the real dual core design was amd and not intel. but idiotic gamers buy anything with big numbers like 4 ht cores and big cache. also 99% of people don't understand that more chache isn't better when you have different design of cpus. intel played safe and won. for now.

[Mike @ Mar 13th 2008 1:02PM]

"Standingfast, Intel doesn't need to be pressured by competition to save money which is what the fabrication process shrink does. A byproduct of that cost savings is reduced power usage and decrease in heat generated."

What??? Man, did you forget to put your head on today? How can shrinking the fabrication process save money? Do you think "shrinking" in this case means cutting out bloated processes? It refers to making everything (in the processor) smaller. Every little baby-step for several years now has required massive amounts of research, which costs money. Every new process has required well.....new processes! These new processes require new equipment. This new equipment must be more accurate than previous equipment, which means more expensive. Shrinking IC fabrication is anything but cheaper.

Also, does anyone not realize that AMD decided to skip the b.s. intermediate step that Intel took (slapping 2 dual-cores together and calling it a quad) and is going straight to TRUE quad-cores? They had some trouble with the initial designs. Those problems have now been fixed, and they are now in the production stage. I'm 100% certain these quads will outperform Intel's, just as AMD's singles outperformed Intel's in the past. Just so you know, I'm not talking about the AM2 type....I'm talking about the Phenom FX's. Wait another 6 months, and you'll be glad you did. Intel will be eating dust yet again.

And I agree with those who say it's good to have both AMD and Intel doing well. It drives competition, keeping performance up and cost down.

[gamecrazychris @ Mar 14th 2008 11:26PM]

Is this the reason intel's delaying its penryn quads till march? They said it was because they had no competition and from the looks of this they won't have any for a long time to come.