AMD ships triple-core Phenom processors

While there have certainly been questions surrounding AMD's ability to deliver its Phenom 9700 / 9900 chips on time, it looks as if the chip maker is right on target with the launch of its triple-core lineup. Just as we expected it to, AMD has indeed began shipping its Phenom 8400 (2.1GHz) and 8600 (2.3GHz) to Dell -- for use in its OptiPlex 740 -- and HP (respectively), which has it mounted in the AL195AW desktop. Reportedly, the CPUs are only shipping in volume to PC manufacturers at the moment, and unfortunately, it failed to spill the beans on when they'd be available on a wider scale. Nevertheless, those parked across the pond can get their fix of tri-core sweetness by picking up one of two Mesh Computer rigs that are being made available as we speak.

[Via PC World]
Read - Dell OptiPlex 740 [PDF]
Read - HP AL195AW
Read - Mesh Computer Matrix xXx Plus
Read - Mesh Computer Matrix xXx Pro

[Neoprimal @ Mar 13th 2008 8:43AM]

Yay? I hope they're worth it. I suppose if they're priced competetively with Intel Core 2 Duos they would be? I used to be big on AMD and I hope that someday soon they catch up to Intel.

[timatl @ Mar 13th 2008 8:52AM]

AMD does not make the fastest processor but it is the best bang for the buck.

[IsleOfMan @ Mar 13th 2008 9:01AM]

There's not a huge price gap between the Dual-Core X2 6400+ and the Quad-Core Phenom 9500... so where do the Phenom 8400/8600 fit in the scheme of thing? If we see a $150 Phenom 9500 in the next 3 months (likely), the 8400/8600 will need to come in at closer to $100/$125 respectively which is well below the X2 6400+ and down in X2 5000+/5400+ territory. The performance differences are about the same as the cost differences too, so the 8400/8600 may be filling a gap that's pretty small to begin with.

[tom @ Mar 13th 2008 9:32AM]

It has to do with the production yield. To make a chip with four core all function properly involve quite a bit of rejects (which can include some core not working properly). Instead of scrapping it, AMD disable it and price it competitively. It is a very smart and green thing to do, instead of sending it to the landfill. Will wait for the benchmark report come out and build one myself =D

+1 to AMD

[Ayle @ Mar 13th 2008 9:32AM]

Or maybe they are destined to replace the x2?

[tom @ Mar 13th 2008 9:38AM]

Athlon 64 series has had its glory time, i agree, down the road amd should retire it

[IsleOfMan @ Mar 13th 2008 9:41AM]

If it is indeed a replacement for the X2 line then it will have a clear place in the lineup... but if it's shoe-horned in between the 6400+ and the Phenom 9500 then it's filling a gap that isn't very big. I'm very curious to see how the price... I've just built a X2 4400+ system and am already contemplating replacing it with a 5400+ or higher when a good deal comes along... maybe seeing what price the 8400/8600 hit at is a better plan.

[initialxy @ Mar 13th 2008 9:03AM]

these ones got the phenom bug fixed without performance penalty right?

[Dan @ Mar 13th 2008 5:39PM]

Yes; they fixed that ASAP. The B3 stepping Phenoms don't have that problem.

[Digg @ Mar 13th 2008 9:16AM]

dugg
http://digg.com/hardware/AMD_ships_triple_core_Phenom_processors

[kal326 @ Mar 13th 2008 9:54AM]

Any benchmarks on the tripod? Interesting to see what kinda legs its go under it...

[Roland @ Mar 13th 2008 10:02AM]

Can you guys help me out here...why would I buy a triple-core when I could get a quad core. Is there sometime I am missing?

[LJKelley @ Mar 13th 2008 11:43AM]

Why would I buy a Ford when I can buy a Mercedes? Well not everyone wants to buy the lastest/greatest/most expensive. And yes I'm sure the price difference won't be as dramatic. In fact you wonder, based on your comment how NewEgg or TigerDirect manage to sell inferior processors.

[Steffen Jobbs @ Mar 13th 2008 10:11AM]

Why these three-core models? Wouldn't they be inefficient in use of space? Are they laid out in some sort of a triangle or set up like four cores with an empty space. Hard to imagine odd numbers of cores although I suppose their just as simple to manufacture.

It was mentioned that if yields are poor for four-core models, just make them into three-cores. I guess that's a useful point to save on waste.

[Ayle @ Mar 13th 2008 11:24AM]

It a quadcore with one dud core, and anyway there is plenty of space to use under the heatspreader.

[Walter @ Mar 13th 2008 12:13PM]

Actually the triple core has better communication between the processors.

With a 4 core processor, due to chip layout, each processor is directly connected to 2 other processors. But to communicate with the 4th processor, you need to go through another processor.

With 3 processors, each processor can communicate directly with each other processor. This can result in better overall performance.

[dan2600 @ Mar 13th 2008 12:59PM]

actually quad cores are being developed with direct communication already, so this still makes the tri core the poor mans quad core.

also you posted incorrect, only 2 processors can communicate with each other for each pair in a current quad core (eg 1-2 and 3-4 communicate). I would venture to guess that if the tri-core is a dud quad the communication would be 1-2 and 3)

[James @ Mar 13th 2008 1:56PM]

Actually you are wrong as well. You are thinking of the Intel Quad Core design. That 1-2 3-4 communication scheme is why people called it two dual cores glued together. AMD quads are TRUE quad-core processors. That means that all cores can communicate with all other cores through the Crossbar switch if I am not mistaken. I haven't been on the white paper in a while. :) intercommunications between all 4 cores is the mark of a TRUE quad-core, which Intel is also now producing.

[Evan @ Mar 13th 2008 1:59PM]

I was under the impression that cores had to be in powers of two. Interesting.

[Paris @ Mar 13th 2008 3:01PM]

Yes, very interesting.

[Derek @ Mar 25th 2008 3:15PM]

There is a Gateway available right now at Circuit City for anyone looking for a cheapo brand name computer, as opposed to building one themselves. It's listed as a Gateway GT5670.

They list it in a weird way. In one paragraph they say "Change the way you do everything with extreme AMD triple-core processing" and then in the next say "AMD Phenom processor: The quad-core 2.1GHz Phenom 8400 processor delivers the ultimate mega-tasking experience" I'm not even sure Gateway or Circuit City knows exactly what it is yet.

[Korki Buchek @ Apr 12th 2008 6:04PM]

I have a GT5670 "On Hold" for $499.

Am I getting good bang for my $500 with this system? I cannot afford more money.
System:
AMD Phenom Triple-Core 8400
• 320GB hard drive
• 3GB of DDR2 memory 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) Expand to 4GB
• Burns DVDs and CDs
• LabelFlash technology
• 15-in-1 media card reader
NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE
keyboard, mouse, speakers

I intend to upgrade card to nVidia GTS 8800...some day
Thanks

[Korki Buchek @ Apr 13th 2008 10:56AM]

From what I can tell I'm getting pretty good Bang for my Buck with this Gateway GT5670 at $499.

THIS IS ME: anyone looking for a cheapo brand name computer, as opposed to building one themselves.

I LIKE gaming but dont Live gaming...and I'm poor.