For the indecisive among us who need a bit more than two but just can't wrap their wallets around four, AMD's out to show you exactly what three cores of computing magic can do. Make no mistake, we've been
waiting quite some time for these buggers
to ship, but they've finally made it into the capable hands of reviewers web-wide. The general consensus seems to be that the tri-core processors offer no real surprises: it performs better than a dual-core AMD CPU, yet worse than a quad-core AMD CPU. Needless to say, it tends to
lag even further behind an Intel quad-core. Still, the Phenom X3 wouldn't be a terrible option if quad-core Intel chips were still as pricey as ever, but with it slashing prices a few weeks back, the X3 seems to lack the value AMD was hoping we'd see. Still, don't take our word for it -- there's lots and lots of words on the matter right down there.
Read - HotHardware (...the X3 8750 should also appeal to modders on a budget.)
Read - MaximumPC (Basically, it's a quad core with one core turned off.)
Read - TweakTown (...a perfect choice to replace Athlon 64 X2s...)
Read - PCPerspective (...isn't a slam dunk in performance or value...)
Read - Bit-Tech (...Phenom X3 8750 is a good processor in isolation...)
Read - Computer Shopper (...a worthy choice for Athlon X2 owners on a tight budget...)
posted Apr 23rd 2008 12:19PM
but is it worth it?
Not right now, 4 core Phenom processors are only slightly more money. The big pull is these 3 core processors overclock quite nicely and stay cool for their price.
Wait for a price drop and they might be more competitive, but then Intel might do the same...
They aren't as bad as the pre-thunderbird AMD chips though (back in the 800Mhz range) as they are still considered "top tier"
Oi!
AMD WTF...
I hope you have some amazing plans hiding somewhere.
The only major plans I see concern "reorganization" and layoffs. Which is unfortunate.
I'll buy a multicore CPU when my applications and operating system can actually benefit from it. That time isn't here yet. Triple and Quad core chips are just marketing bull right now.
My single core A64 with 4GB of RAM still performs as fast as a dual core in real world applications.
@Iridium
Thats simply not true. Head over to tomshardware.com and see for yourself.
if by real-world apps you mean in a non-multitasking, non-CPU intensive (i.e. video transcoding, etc), then sure
@phanbouy
And you'te thinking that most people use CPU intensive applications or multitasking? riiighhhhhhhhhhhht........
at th moment my x2 4400+ EE proc does a good job of video transcoding movies, but i can see a quad core being VERY handy when HD media becomes a viable source of downloads when FiOS (and similar) is more widespread
well what is multitasking? just means a lot of programs open at once. anyone who wants to do even anything remotely CPU involved such as playing back 720p video (let alone 1080p) with _anything_ else open in the background will find themselves up shit's creek with a single core CPU.
I hate to tell you this but the OS can utilize one core and decide on it's own which core to put *any* running process. Only if the application specifes a processor affinity does it have control over which core it runs on. Therefore, if you are running an NT based operating system (NT, 2000, Vista, 2003, or 2008) - you *will* benefit from a multi-core processor.
While further benefits can be had when applications (such as Adobe Premier and FSX) natively support utilizing the multiple cores on their own, there is definitely benefit in overall speed to the underlying operating system having a core to it's own and the application running to be on another one.
Sorry to disappoint you lot, but i also run everything just fine on my single-core athlon64 3700+ and im a keen gamer. Even with ancient AGP i can run Crysis at medium-high settings, CoD4, WIC, Assasins Creed, you name it, all run fine.
I also have no problem watching a 1080p movie on here.
I've used core2duos and i honestly cant tell the difference, except a slight improvement in unraring and raytracing.
I think these multi-core cpus are pretty much a con, price-performance wise.
nonamo.
um. maybe read the replies a bit? CPU is hardly the bottleneck on most games. if ALL you do is game, why not buy a console instead?
The anandtech review was proper.
They pointed out that if you're not gaming, this is the best thing going. You have to consider the platform. The 780G and Nvidia chipsets do HD stuff MUCH better; they can even play some low setting games decently. The G35 motherboards from Intel don't come close.
So, this lets you get a phenom chip which adds post processing to the 780G chipset, but at a lower price point. Until the G45 in Q3, this will be the best/cheapest HTPC and standard desktop combo going.
Not for gaming, so it cannot play Doom? bah!
Brandon, did you actually stretch that far for an old meme?
Three... is the magic number
yeah, it is!
You want some fail?
The one time I had the chance to see if 3 was the magic number... I passed out.
at this present moment YOU ARE BEST GETTING A 9550 OVER AN 8750 (FOR ONLY $5 MORE)
source Newegg, plz excuse the CaPs!!!
Add XP to that list of NT based operating systems that would benefit from mult-core processors. I forgot that one... although our internal testing shows that Vista benefits far more because it is based on the Windows Server kernal which is designed for many processors, whereas XP was pretty much designed for no more than 2.
Get the cheapest mutli-core proc, 4GB of ram and a damn good video card and in reality that's all you need. It makes no sense spending large amounts of cash on a proc that will never be pushed to its limits.
If you think you don't multi-task try opening Windows task manager and tell me how many processes you have running even when staring at your desktop.
taskman.exe FTW
Read - MaximumPC (Basically, it's a quad core with one core turned off.)
Genius....
Some of us can't count to 4, they had to dumb it down.
Seriously though, that was indeed very lame.
Thats why I subscribe to MaximumPC =) Best no-bullshit available on or off the internet.
at least they didn't name it Phenom Trinity or something...
The quad core processor is in its infancy and at this point isn't being utilized to its fullest potential unless you are a high end graphics designer for Universal Studios.
I think if they released the X3 6 months ago, they would have had a better welcoming into the market.
SpaceVT
http://www.pcinfohunter.com
in a nutshell... these chips are still crappy...
Not really much of a market for the foundries sloppy seconds. Sounds like a lot of marketing work to try and push defects on the market.
Maybe that's why Intel didn't try to make a native quad core, but instead stuck with a known working model of combining two dies from a mature process into a quad core.
You guys are bashing it too much. Take it for what it is. It is, in essence, a 'budget' quad core for those who_may_sometimes need multiple cores, but who don't have the money for a quad core. You can get one of these for $160...not a terrible price to performance ratio. They are decently overclockable for the enthusiast on a budget. They DO fit a slot in AMD's marketing plan, as they are going to be seen en masse in pre-built systems, which is the mainstay of PC component sales to begin with. I think this was a pretty decent move on AMD's part. And the fact that they turned off a defective core to me isn't a problem. If the three cores that are ON work, what do I care if the core that is off doesn't?