Shortcuts

AMD Phenom X3 8750 Tri-Core Processor

rated by 0 users
This post has 11 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,699
Points 1,207,655
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Tue, Apr 22 2008 9:50 PM

When AMD first announced plans to introduce triple-core processors back in September of last year, reaction to the news was mixed.  Some felt that AMD was simply planning to pass off partially functional Phenom X4 processors as triple-core products, making lemonade from lemons if you will.  Others thought it was a good way for AMD to increase bottom line profits, getting more usable die from a single silicon wafer and mitigating yield loss.  We were somewhat perplexed by the first reaction.  This is an age-old strategy in the semiconductor space and after all, the graphics guys have been selling GPUs with non-functional units for years.  AMD was simply borrowing a play from ATI's playbook.


Without actual product, it's tough to argue either way, of course.  But thankfully, AMD has delivered their first batch of triple-core processors and we can finally put the whole debate to rest.

AMD Phenom X3 8750 Tri-Core Processor




  • | Post Points: 65
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Nice!  I've been waiting for a review of a tri-core Phenom ever since they were announced.  The performance is about what I expected.  It beats most dual cores in applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores.  Gaming is still mostly dual-core only though.  But it did show a good lead over the 4600 (also 2.4ghz) in gaming, showing that the K10 core is a little more efficient per MHz than the K8.

I don't understand AMD's pricing here, but I guess that's as low as they can afford to sell them.  But they won't sell a lot at that price.  Anyone willing to go with AMD still would likely go for all 4-cores. 

Hello

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,614
Points 67,270
Joined: May 2000
Location: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Moderator
^Bad_Boy^ replied on Wed, Apr 23 2008 7:00 AM
Great Review :)

Dammit! What's My Age Again???

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,368
Points 48,730
Joined: Apr 2000
Location: United States, Connecticut
ForumsAdministrator
MembershipAdministrator
Marco C replied on Wed, Apr 23 2008 9:22 AM
If you have a moment, please digg this one for us too. Thanks all!

http://digg.com/hardware/AMD_s_Triple_Core_Phenom_X3_8750_Unleashed

Marco Chiappetta
Managing Editor @ HotHardware.com

Follow Marco on Twitter

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 259
Points 4,555
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Nevada/Arizona
willardcw4 replied on Wed, Apr 23 2008 10:25 AM

I'm not impressed with the new processor... the stock Q6600 is essentially better in almost every arena (and most people overclock it to at least 3.0 GHz, so it would score better in many areas)... I know the AMD proc isn't supposed to be 'top of the line' (couldn't compete with Penryn I think), i'm still, as usual, not impressed... even if it is "three core"

Dynamically Scaled Oblique Flying Wing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV-eTXIyYYQ

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,017
Points 43,210
Joined: May 2005
Location: United States, Virginia
Moderator

I would say that maybe if they were the same clocks speed and price compared to the core 2 duo's than maybe a esier decision. I am torn on this because I can take an E8400 for the same price as the x3 8750 but have higher clock speeds stock. Now the question is with both chips overclocked which performs better and in real world comparison. Now if the the x3 8750 was stock at 3.0ghz and the same price than the extra core would be worth it imo. You also have to take inot account upgrade path. Intel is releasing better chips so for the same price it would be wiser to go with a 775 socket than an AM2 for future upgrades. nice article guys

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Wed, Apr 23 2008 2:16 PM

you guys got linked from engadget.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/amd-triple-core-phenom-x3-review-roundup/

 

great review guys 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 25
Joined: Apr 2008
ArthurT replied on Wed, Apr 23 2008 4:36 PM

 Mission Accomplished: Intel dropped the price of Quads by up to 50%.

The real target was dual cores.

The tri-core was never suppposed to complete with Quads, it was supposed to be better than Core 2 duo, and it was.

Do you know that a 6 core processor is in the pipeline to compete with Quad Cores?
( and a 12-core to compete with V8s?)

As far as helping games which support dual cores, try setting ALL OS processes to Core 2. ( i.e. the third core), and see how your game runs!

 

Yours,

Former evanglest for

Marty.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Yeah, tri-core is not 'sposed to compete with Quads, but when it's priced only $20 cheaper, it is.  If the 8750 were $140 it would be more competetive.  $195 just doesn't make sense.  The 2.2Ghz Quad core is the same price.  Any program that can take advantage of 3 cores, will take advantage of four.  The only advantage of going with the tri-core would be for dual or single threaded programs in which the extra 200Mhz would make it faster.  But if you are going above two cores, obviously that's not your major concern.

Hello

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,629
Points 21,115
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: United States, California

 I bet the price will drop pretty quick.  Especially when you start seeing them on newegg as OEM's.  These CPU's seem to be more tegeted at wholsalers, and large manufactures like HP at the moment.  Give it some time, and the price will drop.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 25
Joined: Apr 2008
ArthurT replied on Tue, Apr 29 2008 5:31 AM

Actually from what I heard, the price was set up at a price point to get intel to drop their pants. Now they have done so,

AMD is SERIOUSLY dropping their pants to oems, bigtime. I head they were offering them to HP for

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 4
Points 20
Joined: Jun 2008
obi replied on Mon, Jun 2 2008 11:44 PM

 the amd athlon 64 3800+ windsor, was probably the best chip AMD ever made

it had an idle rating of  8 watts and a max load of 35 watts. AMD  pulled it off the market for some mysterious reason

A truly efficient CPU does not go over 10 watts in idle mode , it would be very informative  if you guys mesured cpus in solo mode under load and idle

and mention what hard drives you are using with its bandwidth specs, so we can estimate cpu stress from the hdd bottleneck.

it would also be real nice to know to what extent the cpu can be undervolted and underclocked for efficiency and if the cpu is Rohs compliant.

one shot system load only mesurements are really not informative nor consistent enough to make a buying decision.

 


this is Spartaaaahhh!
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS