[~*77*~]

Two cores not enough? Four cores seem like overkill?

Split the difference with AMD Phenom Triple Core:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103253

Or, what I assume is scrap quad cores that can pass with three.

How do you split 3.5MB of cache memory over 3 cores? 1.16666666666MB each?

Not much cheaper than quad core. The link is to 8650, but an 8750 is only 20 bucks less than a 9750...

[~*77*~]

Two cores not enough? Four cores seem like overkill?

Split the difference with AMD Phenom Triple Core:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103253

Or, what I assume is scrap quad cores that can pass with three.

How do you split 3.5MB of cache memory over 3 cores? 1.16666666666MB each?

Not much cheaper than quad core. The link is to 8650, but an 8750 is only 20 bucks less than a 9750...

[Exilon]

There's no room in the market for tri-cores. The price difference between a good dual core and a quad core is already nothing. Where's the tri-core going to fit in that market?

[daemon]

I guess AMD's gotta offload all those bad quadcore chips somehow.

[BeerCheeze]

Yep, that's exactly what I read when they announced the Tri-Cores. There isn't enough price room between the 2 and 4 cores to slide a 3 core in. But maybe the play is to phase out the dual's and only have tri & quad's.

Who knows???

[BeerCheeze]

Yep, that's exactly what I read when they announced the Tri-Cores. There isn't enough price room between the 2 and 4 cores to slide a 3 core in. But maybe the play is to phase out the dual's and only have tri & quad's.

Who knows???

[bobletman]

I honestly dont know why the released the tri core it seems like a waste.

[edvallie]

[Shadowsilence]

[Jason]

Must have sold out, which is scary. They were in stock before.

This review kind of shows that systems don't really use 4 cores, let alone 3...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1397/1/page_1_introduction/index.html

Results are all very close between 3 and 4 core processors of the same speed.

[Jason]

Must have sold out, which is scary. They were in stock before.

This review kind of shows that systems don't really use 4 cores, let alone 3...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1397/1/page_1_introduction/index.html

Results are all very close between 3 and 4 core processors of the same speed.

[CoolZone]

It seems people buy everything nowadays,no matter the performance

[T-shirt]

No these were layed out as triple cores from the beginning, and seem(seemed) to have some production advantage. However quads are so available and cheap, it's hard to see the value.
As far as multicore value, very little software uses multi-core processing natively (yet) and even less use it effectively.
however YOU could assign a process (say security apps/AV anti-malware) to a single core and unassign all other apps to that core (it's called set Affinty in XP in the task manager, some windows process cannot be set or denied) this would allow you to set the priority to high-realtime, without effecting other processes on the other cores
MAXIMUM protection with MINIMUM impact.