Tri-Core Chips?
What Are They Thinking?
AMD Bets on Tri-Core Chips as Quad-Core Market Lags
When your larger competitor outguns you financially and can crank out powerful products at blinding speed, you work with the strengths you have. In Advanced Micro Devices’ case, that’s architecture.
On Monday, AMD executives confirmed this weekend’s rumors and admitted that the company will indeed introduce a triple-core microprocessor sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
Ok. I do agree that it looks like quad-core chips are not being adopted very quickly, dual-core seems to work fine for most people. But, last time I checked the whole computer concept was based on binary and not on ternary Math. I wonder how the extra processor will fit into this?!
Anyway, from my point of view the quad-core processors are still simply too expensive. So, if you do not run software that makes use of the extra cores, why would you pay the premium instead of just buying a dual-core processor?
I think the same reasoning applies to tri-core chips. Unless they are cheap I doubt people will go that route. I cannot see AMD coming out ahead unless they have found some type of cheap shortcut to develop that chip, and a cheap way to manufacture it.
I’m wondering the same thing. What market is AMD catering to with tri-core chips? From what I’ve seen people either want more cores (so they’ll go with the quad) or fast cores (so they’ll go with the dual). I don’t think three (somewhat fast) cores will satisfy either user.
There are two scenarios where tri-cores might make sense. If AMD quad-core chips are incredibly expensive, tri-cores might make sense for people who want more cores, but don’t want to pay the premium for four cores. AMD might also be able to convince system builders to produce systems with tri-core processors; after all, the system builders could claim they’re “50% faster” than the equivalent dual-core system.