Triple Core Nonsense

[Thorax_the_Impaler]

Hello everyone.

My friend recently built a gaming PC around the AMD Athlon II X3 450 processor. Comparing and contrasting the performance of this processor to quad-cores I have used, I have to say I see quite a difference. But I have numerous questions regarding triple cores. I have broken these questions into categories, each with the question, and an explanation of where my curiosity comes from. If anyone answers, thank you very much; I really appreciate it.

1. Value: How are these a better value than a Quad-core variant?
---For just a bit more money, you could go from the X3 450 to the Phenom ii 965 (according to AMD's website, $60 ---> $81), and get more performance. Possibility of false or understated prices aside, how is it a better option to take three functioning cores over four? Especially when one more core is available for just a bit more money?

2. Integrity: Are these just defective or locked quad-cores?
---I've heard that these processors from AMD are just their quad-core brothers with one core disabled due to a defective nature. If that's the case.........why buy it? You're paying for a broken or limited item; even if it technically works.

3. Incompatibility: Would these processors take a hit to performance due to most modern software being coded for processors with cores progressing in multiples of two?
---It doesn't take an expert to know odd numbers are called odd for a reason. Does this single core next to two cores cause problems or performance issues? I imagine programming code to fit a triple core would be difficult or at least different than for a quad-core.

4. Actual Implementation: Do these processors hold any advantages over quad-cores other than a slightly lower price?
---Well, do they?

Thanks again for your time.

 

[PP Mguire]

1. Depends on when it was bought, and the budget at hand. You could say the same thing and say why not just get an i3 3220 and B75 board. Too many questions to really place a real answer there.

2. Most triple cores have 1 core gimped, yes, but there is a reason. 9 times out of 10 the extra core can be unlocked with the proper board but the thing is they are usually quad cores that failed stability testing at the plant. Intel does the same thing so not exactly fair to dump the "broken item" thing in there. A 3960x is after all an 8 core Xeon with the cores disabled. In later batches I'm sure the core being disabled is perfectly fine, but made into a 3 core for demand.

3. No because if a program is programmed for more than 1 core it is either dual or simply multi-threaded, or made to take advantage of all cores available.

4. No, not really besides possibly fitting a specific budget back in the day. You have to remember when the triple core came out 2 cores was the absolute maximum a game would utilize and so a 3 core fit the bill very easy and was good on a budget. I ran with a 720BE for the longest time and can guarantee that it was a great price for gaming and some productivity. In some cases it made the difference between lag because a game would utilize 100% 2 cores and the extra core was free for Windows background tasks. We're talking about CPUs that were made like 4 or 5 years ago, so age has to be considered when talking about these. I can honestly sit here and say that when I went to the 955BE from the 720 there was no difference in 2009 due to cores. Only in benches did it show a difference.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Some people just don't need a quad, nor want one. For instance, I have no real use for a quad most of the time, I will actually go into my BIOS settings and disable two of the four cores and still get the same performance as I am not doing anything that requires the potential of a quad most of the time. Saves a decent bit in energy consumption.