ITT: We propose our own Socket AM3+ SKUs

[cbn]

Updated OP with Athlon x 8 8300.

 

[SPBHM]

unless they have a lot of chips with defective l3 and the rest good I don't see much sense in disabling it just for segmentation, simply because they have a lot of room to play with lower clock variations

AMD already have 65W 8 core Vishera like the Opteron 3380
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-Opteron 3380 - OS3380OLW8KHK.html

it would at least be faster than all the i3s for MT

 

[cbn]

unless they have a lot of chips with defective l3 and the rest good I don't see much sense in disabling it just for segmentation

Why wouldn't they have a lot of chips with a defect in the L3 cache?

As I have mentioned in the previous post, every chip in the line-up (with the exception of FX-4300) has the full 8 MB L3 cache. Even the FX-4350 has 8MB cache.

And look how big that L3 cache is.

So those chips with a defect in the L3 cache have to be somewhere right?

 

[cbn]

AMD already have 65W 8 core Vishera like the Opteron 3380
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-Opteron 3380 - OS3380OLW8KHK.html

it would at least be faster than all the i3s for MT

I think that is a really good idea for a Slim form factor pre-built desktop, but since that would be an expensive part to produce (due to lower yields involved to get the full L3 cache) I think they should use a die that has a defect in the L3 cache instead.

So reduced or completely disabled L3 cache octocore SKU for lower priced desktops, etc.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

unless they have a lot of chips with defective l3 and the rest good I don't see much sense in disabling it just for segmentation, simply because they have a lot of room to play with lower clock variations

AMD already have 65W 8 core Vishera like the Opteron 3380
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-Opteron 3380 - OS3380OLW8KHK.html

it would at least be faster than all the i3s for MT

Why this isn't in the main consumer channel is beyond me. From what I'm seeing though it does lack a few instruction sets. Could there be defects in those?

Edit: as always CPUboss is wrong as hell. They have the same if not more extensions.