• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why doesnt Intel make a 3 core cpu...?

Bartman39

Bartman39

Elite Member | For Sale/Trade
Just got one of those Phenom II X3 740BE`s from the egg and love it... But the thought just passed as to why Intel did not make a 3 core version of anything...? Also why did AMD do so...?

BTW it for now wont unlock but does OC quite well (3.9ghz on 1.452 volts)
 
Triple-core was a competition move on AMD's part. They couldn't match processing power of Intel cores so they banked on threading. They wanted to increase yields on their quad-cores by turning off one of the processors. Thus, you have triple-core.
 
I think AMD did it initially as a yield-saving measure. But now, it just lowers the ASP of their chips, most likely, because they have to take a chip that could sell as a quad and instead cripple it and sell it as a tri.

If Intel did that, then it would likely hit their ASPs too hard. Intel generally has good yields, although I don't know about their 32nm.

For a similar question (which I might have asked in the past), is why Intel never released any single-core Nehalem chips.

At least on LGA775, some of their Celeron chips, were salvaged from other defective dual-core dice.
 
VirtualLarry said:
At least on LGA775, some of their Celeron chips, were salvaged from other defective dual-core dice.
Click to expand...


Thanks Larry for the info... But another question came to mind with what I quoted from you...? What are the newer T series Celerons...? I bought the wife a laptop with a T3100 1.9Ghz cpu and it seems to rock along quite well even with having the cursed Celeron name... It makes a Celeron 900 powered laptop look like hammered shizz... It would have made alot more sense to make what you said the single core Nehalem cpu which I`d bet would have been a hit for super netbooks or even lower end laptops...?
 
I love AMD's tripple core chips. Got six Phenom II X3 740 Black Editions from newEgg last week and they all unlock and OC to at least ~3.4GHz (haven't pushed them further yet - waiting on Hyper 212+ HSFs to arrive).
 
zwanzig said:
maybe Intel wants to save the 3 core cpu for later? This is probably a marketing strategy...
Click to expand...

When 6GHz is low end they'll have a triple six and finally those folks with the "Satan Inside" stickers will have something to brag about! :biggrin:
 
Rubycon said:
When 6GHz is low end they'll have a triple six and finally those folks with the "Satan Inside" stickers will have something to brag about! :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I know your the resident Intel lover AMD hater and will overlook your current comments that dont even pertain to the subject but as the OP I will ask if you dont have any relevant information then dont post but if you do feel free k...
 
Bartman39 said:
I know your the resident Intel lover AMD hater and will overlook your current comments that dont even pertain to the subject but as the OP I will ask if you dont have any relevant information then dont post but if you do feel free k...
Click to expand...

Entirely false. It's called a joke.

FYI I still have an FX60 system that runs great. If AMD came out with a better CPU I'd buy it. (providing there was a decent motherboard to support it)
 
Because they were trying to grasp on to something that would catch the public's attention.

In reality they were just selling defective quads.
 
I think they also use it's unlockability to generate hype. some unlocks and functions just like a quad. I think they probably blend some of their quad into the bunch.
 
The dual core i3/i5's with HT (hyperthreading) perform about equivalent to a 3 core processor.

fritz chess benchmark …

i5-750 … 8253
i5-661 … 6325 … (76.6% of the i5-750)

If one of the 4 cores of the i5-750 was disabled, you would end up with about 75% the performance of the original 750, or about the same as the 661.

In this other benchmark of multitasking they ran the Crysis benchmark while a RAR process was running in the background loading up one logical processor.

i3-530 (2.93) … 42.5
G6950 (2.8) … 19.9

The G6950 is a dual core version of the i3 without HT (and a slight clock disadvantage). The G6950 saw its Crysis frame rate drop to 1/2 with the RAR task running at the same time.

The i3 was over 2x as fast as the G6950 while running RAR in the background, meaning that the i3 was still performing like a dual core processor. In fact, the i3 even while running RAR in the background was faster than the G6950 dual core with no RAR task running in the background. So, the i3 basically performed about like a 3-core processor in this test of multitasking.

There are different ways to skin a cat. Intel needed to provide a jump over their previous dual cores, so rather than a 3 core they went with HT and high clock rates on the i3/i5 dual cores.
 
Last edited:
Bartman39 said:
Just got one of those Phenom II X3 740BE`s from the egg and love it... But the thought just passed as to why Intel did not make a 3 core version of anything...? Also why did AMD do so...?

BTW it for now wont unlock but does OC quite well (3.9ghz on 1.452 volts)
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't make triple core CPUs, it makes dual, quad, and hexa cores, and sometimes disables a core on their quad core to make a triple core. This was originally due to yield problems (the disabled core was defective), and later due to marketing decisions.

Intel is not in the "budget" market, it sells to the mid-upper range and it makes a much higher profit, economically it does not currently make sense for them to sell such a product while for AMD it does.
 
taltamir said:
AMD doesn't make triple core CPUs, it makes dual, quad, and hexa cores, and sometimes disables a core on their quad core to make a triple core. This was originally due to yield problems (the disabled core was defective), and later due to marketing decisions.

Intel is not in the "budget" market, it sells to the mid-upper range and it makes a much higher profit, economically it does not currently make sense for them to sell such a product while for AMD it does.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the laymans terms...:thumbsup:

I recently dropped back from an I7 920 D0 @4.0ghz setup and sold/traded everything for enough to have 3 systems 1-Ph II 925 @3.64Ghz system, 1-E7200 mini ITX system & even an Athlon II 250 @4Ghz system and all have 4gigs ram & good size HD`s... Also have 2-5770HD`s, 2-250GTS`s & a GT240 all from the parts of the I7... Hehe 8 cores swapped for 8 cores go figure...



Rubycon...Ah...! You do have a "dark side" (no problem on the joke)
 
Bartman39 said:
Thank you for the laymans terms...:thumbsup:

I recently dropped back from an I7 920 D0 @4.0ghz setup and sold/traded everything for enough to have 3 systems 1-Ph II 925 @3.64Ghz system, 1-E7200 mini ITX system & even an Athlon II 250 @4Ghz system and all have 4gigs ram & good size HD`s... Also have 2-5770HD`s, 2-250GTS`s & a GT240 all from the parts of the I7... Hehe 8 cores swapped for 8 cores go figure...



Rubycon...Ah...! You do have a "dark side" (no problem on the joke)
Click to expand...

You mean 4 cores swapped for 8, I7 is a quad.
 
Probably because their dual core + HT already gives AMD's quads a run for their money so selling a triple core may cannibalise the sales of intels own quads which it can charge a premium for now as nothing AMD has can beat them yet.
 
Maximilian said:
Probably because their dual core + HT already gives AMD's quads a run for their money so selling a triple core may cannibalise the sales of intels own quads which it can charge a premium for now as nothing AMD has can beat them yet.
Click to expand...


Uh my E7400 C2D does not come close to giving my PhII X4 925 a run for its money...? Also only gave $125 shipped for the AMD cpu & MB w/cooler too... Also the 740BE only cost me $68 with free shipping... Got lucky I only had $68.02 left on a gift card and the egg did a price adjust from $68.99 and sent it to me... :thumbsup: BTW the E7400 doesnt compare to it either... I7`s are just newer better tech which is always around the corner...

But will say I do miss the I7 setup but remember why I did not keep it though... $$$
 
Remember Intel's hilarious response to AMD's triple cores?

"We find a distinct advantage in having all cores functioning."
 
Why no triple core? Easy, where would it fit? Intel has a pretty diverse bunch of SKUs, I honestly don't see them making a triple core that didn't cannibalize one of their other markets.

AMD, on the other had, had plenty of wiggle room to create another set of SKUs. Increasing yields wasn't a bad thing either.
 
Bartman he was referring too the i5 and i3 chips, with their clock speed advantage and i5 HT capabilities, the e7400 is a bit slower clock for clock as well though not much
 
faxon said:
Bartman he was referring too the i5 and i3 chips, with their clock speed advantage and i5 HT capabilities, the e7400 is a bit slower clock for clock as well though not much
Click to expand...


Ah... Keep forgetting about those little buggers...
 
I thought a fictitious native triple core SB would be nice. But why bother, Ivy Bridge is only a year after Sandy Bridge and they are already doing 2 dies concurrently for mainstream and below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top