We dun really need this IMHO. A slighty cheaper quad core proc in a month or so will do.

It is a weird product surely, but AMD probably needs it at this point. Even a single cutdown core should help quite a bit with yield, unless it is really bad. Intel is likely to slash their quad core prices even lower if needed, so AMD may have to position this vs the dual cores in terms of price.

doesn't look intertesting

On NCIX it's ~950 ringgits, that's precisely where the cheapest 6600 batches retail for now.
And 20% less at stock, not really what the general consumer's buying.

What I'm implying is that AMD *can* afford to price these low (even possibly C2D low) and clock them 10%+ higher than a relative C2D.
Single threaded performance it should win (extra clocks), multi threaded performance it would win (3 vs 2 + K10 does look happier on core scaling)

The X3 isn't targeting the C2Q market- it's locking on to the E4300-6850s we buy today.


(Note: 3 cores > 2 cores in promotion, OEMs might actually snatch these chips faster than the retail channel would)

This post has been edited by X.E.D: Sep 18 2007, 06:37 PM

wicked news

Humm yeah. If its price is almost the same with Intel's dual core proc then that would be great.

Intel Wants Triple Core Processors Too

This post has been edited by komag: Sep 18 2007, 07:02 PM

this triple-core=AM3???it based on what platform???

he he he... my assumption is based on "didnt read deep enough"... i thought that tri core is native tri core.... never thought of disabled core... juz disregard my previous statement

can wait to see this amd 3 core perform

Hmmmm.... Did you check Lowyat's own price lists? According to our retail price here its about RM899 only! (e.g Compuzone price list)

Ahem! The E6850 and Q6600 are about the same price. If the tri-core is targetting low end to mid range dual core segment, that makes sense... However the manufacturing cost of the "tri-core" is much higher than dual cores due to the die size (which is actually quad core die size). My guess is AMD is trying to get some leverage in this part of the market, rather than reducing them to just "dual cores".... I can hear the words "Buy 2 Get 1 Free!"

On the yields issues, here's an interesting find (from AMD's own slides), see the "Defect densities below 0.5mm^2"....



And according to this http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/CEICM/SECTION3.pdf ..theoretically Barcelona's huge 283mm^2 dies have only less than 30% yields. The other 70% are considered defective and that's quite a big amount, definitely big enough for AMD to start the 3-core product line.

This post has been edited by lex: Sep 18 2007, 09:49 PM

30% theoratically- but there are a lot of 'buts' I think.
1- AMD should be taking the Intel Core approach to all its CPUs- all the same model, bin and cut. This would equate to much higher yields than 30% even on the fully functional QC units on the long term, and hidden cost savings in getting a unified chip to all SKUs. Once 65 matures to AMD's sweet spot (their later steppings are quite good, evidenced by their 90 work) they won't have that much of a problem competing.

2- It should improve by time- getting unified (I don't know if Kuma is even native dual or cut-down quad) might also get clocks to competitive speeds, even in dual/tri cut-down scenarios. If AMD can get production of 3.2Gigas (B2 Max, B3 is currently unknown) before Q2 ends, kudos to 'em.

3- C2Qs are only made cheaper nowadays because Core manufacturing is already rather mature at the 65 level, plus the retooling to 45 CMOS they would have no incentive to price that high for even the base chip (Note the Q6700 is still there for margin suckers lol)


ps: Shanghai could make it considerably smaller (<200?), if they get hi-k dielectrics they'd be on even ground with Penryn clock wise. (Yet the fact that AMD's collab with IBM on SiGe on 65 might indicate that they're delaying it.)

This post has been edited by X.E.D: Sep 18 2007, 10:49 PM

Mario Rivas once said "If I could do something different, I wish we would have immediately done a MCM - two dual cores and call it a quad-core," (see The Register: AMD praying 'Barcelona' makes up for four-core mistake)

Have you wondered why AMD's fastest dual cores (like the 3.2GHz X2 6400+) are still on 90nm, and the highest clocked 65nm dual core is 2.6Ghz only? AMD hasn't hit the 65nm sweetspot yet and still have a long long way to go.

So far we have only seen 2GHz, even the announced release is 2GHz. And the 2.5GHz Anandtech had seems to be overclocked. So the 3.2GHz figure still looks a long way far off. 2.5Ghz to 2.6GHz looks more likely, IF they can reach "maturity" like their dual cores. That's a big "IF"...

Intel's 65nm matured very quickly, as did Intel's 45nm (as seen from the 3.33GHz Penryn showing at Beijing IDF).

IMHO I think AMD should abandon SOI, just look at all the delays and "technical glitches" (as quoted by Hector Ruiz recently). Intel once warned AMD about going 65nm on SOI (e.g. "floating body effects"), and if I'm not mistaken AMD's "65nm" isn't exactly ideal shrink.

So far we have not seen any working 45nm prototypes from either AMD or IBM, just announcements, PR statements and wafer fashion show. Sorry for being harsh, I am a "show me the beef" guy.

This post has been edited by lex: Sep 18 2007, 11:34 PM

I hate quoting and unquoting so I'll reply in whole lol.
Mario was referencing to the delay of Barcey more than the currently disproportionate performance ad/cost disadvantages. Dual Kuma would be a good proposition, but that would just make them play the manufacturing game once more- and lose. And servers won't like it (Everyone hated 4X4 v1, face it )

So far we've seen B0 at 1.6, B1 at 1.9,2.0 and 2.5 (a clock it's not supposed to run at), B2 maxes out at 3.2 and 3.4 for quad/duals respectively (cherry picked you may argue, but this is the first production stepping, want to compare- compare it to the first X2s. The 3.33Ghz Yorkfield by all means might be too.)

AMD did NOT tape out Brisbane >2.6 (though OCs to 3+Ghz was quite feasible) because it's useless then- Intel counters with higher clocks/price drop, your ASPs dive, your next chip is held on an even higher clock bar to compete with. They went for IPC first, and IMO the only feasible solution.

45 is solely a roadmap thing- they should have taped it out by Q4 if it were to happen. AMD might go SiGe on K10 (10.5 too) and for Bulldozer, revert back to CMOS- since "ATI" chips are still using that, Fusion might be easier to do.

They will not have high-k ready before 32nm.


AMD's 65nm transition looks to be like intel's 90nm transition. It does seem to have caused them quite a bit of problems. Leakage seems to be a big pproblem.

---

Added on September 19, 2007, 12:12 amSeems to me like the problem was more of leakage at higher voltages/clocks. That's why they could not get the clocks up too high on the 65nm shrink. It would have worked (as evidenced by 3+ghz overclocks), but exceeded the thermal budgets.

This post has been edited by ikanayam: Sep 19 2007, 12:12 AM

feel pity to Amd remember when their outperform with 64bit and dual core they sell their proc very expensive then when Intel Launch Core 2 Duo all Amd Proc were Left Behind and Amd starting to reduce the Price like nobody so moral of the story dont sell Proc very expensive till can easily outperform by other brand

intel also plan to into 3 core proc, could the price cheaper then current quad core... hope so

btw could new amd proc capable fight with inte core proc?

hmmm interesting news you have there

arjuna_mfma

who knows in the old days AMD could win Intel but lately it seems they are fighting an uphill battle

First quater next year will be their first battle

Btw, upcoming Phenoms and Penryn are not bad. But a 3 core are confusing me

Do tricores able to find their place in next year? With now, the cheapest Q6600 price possible is RM800, i think in next year by Q2 it should drop to around RM500 or lesser. Next year could be a year where the Quaddies start to kick in massive magnitude.