AMD Phenom X3 8750: tri-core Phenom to challenge Intel's Core 2 Duo?

[HEXUS]

AMD's tri-core Phenom X3 processor aims to fill the void between dual-core and quad-core. Does it succeed?

Read more.

[sawyen]

boy this is such a great analogy to how 3dfx got trounced by Nvidia and everyone was wishing the Voodoo 5 6000 would come and save the day..

[roadie]

AMD needs their 45nm chips ASAP. That's the only way clock speeds are going to be raised to 3Ghz+ and these chips will come with a slew of other enhancements.

[rjpearce]

Something not quite right here..

USA Pricing - (Phenom X3 prices (1000) units)

Phenom X3 8750 (2.40 GHz) $197 (Using XE.com this is £99.81)
Phenom X3 8650 (2.30 GHz) $167 (Using XE.com this is £84.61)
Phenom X3 8450 (2.10 GHz) $146 (Using XE.com this is £73.96)

Got this list from THG it doesnt quote a source for the figures.

This doesnt really match with the prices of thoose models available from Scan, Komplett in the UK..

Phenom X3 8750 (2.40 GHz) £128.08 (Scan)
Phenom X3 8650 (2.30 GHz) £109.26 (Scan)
Phenom X3 8450 (2.10 GHz) £95.75 (Scan)

If the UK pricing was closer the USA pricing im sure these would be selling like hot cakes. Maybe its just the usual post-launch price hike before the price settles back down.

[nuculerman]

First of all, thank you editors at Hexus for making my first PC build a wonderful experience. I've been able to select all my parts that, with your help, have been the perfect balance of value and performance (for me).

AMD's major problem is that Intel is too far ahead of them in manufacturing technology. I don't see AMD ever being able to compete with Intel on the high end unless their research scientists and engineers have a major breakthrough (like they discover something other than photolithography that allows them to print features under the 29nm mark, supposedly the smallest photolithography can do). Otherwise, their business model needs to be what it always was, namely, focusing on technology that is obsolete to Intel and cornering the budget PC market. They made a mistake when they got swept away in the hype of claiming they had a "quad core" and trying to compete with Intel performance wise. What they should have done was stuck only with 65nm technology and focused on producing chips for less money. A dual-core 3.2 GHz processor that sells for half the price of Intel's E8400 could have stood a chance. Instead they spent all their money developing a quad core that they had to sell at a similar price as Intel's high end dual cores, yet is not as good. Their business model should have been "AMD processors all for under $150." Instead the wasted time developing the 9850 and 9950 BE with inferior technology, ending up with some quad core processors that can't compete.

Personally I don't think they can do it. Their stock price has dropped 90% and I don't see them recovering. Their best option is a new focus. They have the facilities now to start producing all-in-one GPU/CPU builds, so maybe they should try opening up a new market. In any event, you won't see me investing in them anytime soon.

[Mosfetv]

Amd sucks right now.In the cpu field they are almost dead,and in the gpu field they will be dead soon.Nvidia is smart with physics and other implementations.Amd is just raw power and old architecture,both gpu and cpu wise.

[Jay]

Welcome to Hexus!

Ps

This is a REALLY old thread.