What would happen if Intel released a "triple-core"?

[throwa]

Will this ever happen? Or would it hurt the sale of Core i5's too much (profit motive)? Seems that going forward dual-cores will be less and less relevant and maybe even obsolete in a few years with the way things are going.

I remember AMD briefly had some triple cores some years back, I wonder how a triple-core Intel chip would shake up the "market". I think it's possible, but unlikely because once again, profit motive.

Of course, one of the reasons we keep getting these small 5%-10% incremental boosts in performance from Intel is because they haven't really had much competition from AMD lately on the cpu front. Maybe that's also a reason we still have mostly Intel dual-cores (pentium / core i3) as the "main" choices in the < $180 market.

 

[i7Baby]

Same as disabling one core.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Intel-Skylake-Gen9-Graphics-Architecture

Seems a dumb idea.

 

[tential]

Doesn't add enough value to the market lineup to be worth implementing.
The cost of additional skus created and all that goes into it vs the benefit of having a more convulted lineup? Wait that's not a benefit.... you'll cram how many chips into a small price lineup? Nope.

 

[dark zero]

Only AMD and VIA managed to disable one core... and VIA used the SAME system Intel used...... sadly even cores can't manage propperly.

 

[greenhawk]

No point as it would just cause more stock that needed to be held/sold while creating a possible market of people looking to "unlock" that extra core. The issue with the AMD one was, IIRC, even with a disabled core, it still used power of a working core.


Besides, the market segmentation between 2 and 4 cores is the same reason why intel has kept the middle range stuck at 4 cores for so long. (not wanting to upset the high end of 6/8 cores).

though the current goal of intel for the last few years has not been performance increase, it has been power reduction, so I would be surprised if they released anything that had a core like performance increase over a previous generation anytime in the next 5 or so years.

 

[bigboxes]

(not wanting to upset the high end of 6/8 cores).

Not to mention that not many people need 6/8 cores.

 

[Ken g6]

I suppose, even if it worked, triple-core without HT would be undercut by i3's, which use less silicon; while triple-core with HT would undercut i5 sales without using less silicon.

 

[MongGrel]

There isn't a reason for it really.

Or they would have.

I would imagine it would make them hard to produce to begin with.

Use a couple of old 6 cores here myself, on a couple of machines.

Why would they got to three when they are doing 8 atm, and the others are working fine.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

Hopefully at some point Intel is going to start selling more cores for the non-enthusiast level platform.

i3 = native 3 core 6 thread
i5 = native 6 core 6 thread
i7 = native 6 core 12 thread

That would be nice

 

[cbn]

Hopefully at some point Intel is going to start selling more cores for the non-enthusiast level platform.

i3 = native 3 core 6 thread
i5 = native 6 core 6 thread
i7 = native 6 core 12 thread

That would be nice

Here is what I want:

BCLK overclockable 2C/4T Pentium! This could potentially bring about a Linux revolution in gaming since we would be able to build ultra cheap PCs that could rival Xbox One (which is also cheap).

Origin on Linux! I want that!

Skyrim on Linux! I want that too!

 

[EndlessWargasm]

Here is what I want:

BCLK overclockable 2C/4T Pentium! This could potentially bring about a Linux revolution in gaming since we would be able to build ultra cheap PCs that could rival Xbox One (which is also cheap).

Origin on Linux! I want that!

Skyrim on Linux! I want that too!

Sadly Intel has zero reason to ever allow overclocking on anything other than top end chips.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hopefully at some point Intel is going to start selling more cores for the non-enthusiast level platform.

i3 = native 3 core 6 thread
i5 = native 6 core 6 thread
i7 = native 6 core 12 thread

That would be nice

I suppose that changes the argument for 3-core CPUs significantly in favor, IF Intel moves to a 6-core at the high-end of their consumer platform CPU lineup. Then I could see perhaps an i3 being a real 3-core.

 

[MongGrel]

I suppose that changes the argument for 3-core CPUs significantly in favor, IF Intel moves to a 6-core at the high-end of their consumer platform CPU lineup. Then I could see perhaps an i3 being a real 3-core.

Depends on production methods I suppose.

Seems iffy to me, why develop something backwards and set up a lines for it atm.

Reduction in some areas of die size might make it viable I suppose, but I am honestly not informed enough to say say so, one way or the other.

 

[cbn]

Sadly Intel has zero reason to ever allow overclocking on anything other than top end chips.

Intel did allow overclocking on the G3258 Pentium though.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

Intel did allow overclocking on the G3258 Pentium though.

A one off I doubt we will see repeated unless AMD steps up its game.

Also that chip was not actually very good for any sort of modern workload, no matter how high you clocked it, in most cases you were much better off with a i3.

Nothing like the days of FSB/BLK overclocking.


Edit: Looking around, there are rumors of BLK overclocking being available on z170 mobos in a more substantial way that is has been for many generations. Will be interesting to see what this means of non-k skylake chips. I remain skeptical that it will allow more than 2-300mhz of head room however.

 

[throwa]

I think a huge factor would be price. If such a "triple-core" were to come out as a "replacement" for the core i3 and sell at $120, it would probably be the final nail in the coffin of AMD's budget cpu line.

But as you guys mentioned, Intel really has no reason to introduce any "big" changes to the ole' lineup due to a simple lack of competition from the other side. They dominate in market share as well, so I take it they are in a sort of "comfort zone".

Of course, 2C/4T Pentiums would be interesting as well depending on the price.... I guess we'll see in a few days when the Skylake pentium/core i3 details emerge.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Same as disabling one core.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Intel-Skylake-Gen9-Graphics-Architecture

Seems a dumb idea.

Why do you post a GPU architecture article while this thread is about CPU cores?

AMD used this to harvest more useable dies or sell them for more than as a 2 core CPU.

Having an additional physical core with HT might be similar to 4c/4T CPUs in performance, so it's disturbing the lineup. And without HT it competes with 2c/4T.

 

[ShintaiDK]

A triple core from Intel just doesnt make sense. Pointless product.

It would perform around an i3. Perhaps even worse.

 

[dark zero]

Not to mention that not many people need 6/8 cores.

*looks to ARM chips* Yeah... yeah...

A triple core from Intel just doesnt make sense. Pointless product.

It would perform around an i3. Perhaps even worse.

Errr...
Real Cores >>>>> HT in ALL posible scenarios.


PS: only in Intel's case. Intel Real Cores are strong even alone.

 

[BigDaveX]

Errr...
Real Cores >>>>> HT in ALL posible scenarios.

Assuming they have the same clockspeed, yes. However, i3s generally tend to have higher base clocks than i5s. And since any hypothetical triple-core Intel chip would be derived from the latter, it would be required to have similar base clocks to keep a reasonable TDP.

Not to mention that the major problem that AMD had back when they offered tri-core Phenoms was that they got to the point where they were having to cripple fully-working quad-cores to meet demands. It would only make sense for Intel to offer tri-cores if the yields on Skylake (or its successors) were so bad that they were having to scrap a large portion of their dies.

 

[SAAA]

The current Skylake die layout doesn't favor 3-cores native chips at all.
It was much more likely that they released a 3 core before when the cores where all in a line, now they are in pairs: if Cannonlake brings 6 core mainstream then I expect still 2-cores i3, 4-cores i5 and 6 cores i7 all with HyperTreading and a K variant, while Pentium/Celeron could be Atom only.

 

[NTMBK]

One of the most popular and widely produced CPUs of the past 10 years was a tri-core- the one inside the Xbox 360.

 

[TeknoBug]

I had a Turion X3 laptop, and built my mother a Phenom II X3 PC (unlocked 4th core), it's too late- it's like singing a song on the roof like it's a new thing when U2 already did it.

 

[ninaholic37]

Hopefully at some point Intel is going to start selling more cores for the non-enthusiast level platform.

i3 = native 3 core 6 thread
i5 = native 6 core 6 thread
i7 = native 6 core 12 thread

That would be nice

Or

i3 = 3 cores
i5 = 5 cores
i7 = 7 cores

Then their odd naming scheme might finally make sense :awe:

 

[Eug]

Interestingly, my desktop (AMD), tablet (iPad), and game console (Xbox 360) are all triple-core.