Originally Posted by [-0MEGA-]

What processor companies such as Intel and AMD do are produce processors with the same architecture (such as the Core 2 Duos, Xeons, Pentium 4's, etc). Now they dont make ones designed for the E6600, or X6800, they test each one and the ones that are more stable then others become the higher end models such as the X6800, QX6850, etc, and the ones that cant handle as high of a clock speed become the E6300 and such.

So back to the tri-cores, AMD has to test each individual processor, so the ones that only have one core damaged are most likely what are used for the tri-cores, instead of just throwing them out.

Originally Posted by [-0MEGA-]

Actually he is most likely right. MaximumPC had an article stating how AMD's upcoming tri-cores actually have 4 cores, one is just disabled. They went on to say that they believe the "tri-cores" were originally quad cores, however one of the cores wasnt functioning properly, so they disabled it and sold it as a tri-core.

Originally Posted by ThatGuy16

True, but i though i read somewere that it was truely 3 cores on a wafer, no extra disabled core?

Originally Posted by mep916

I read both and I'm really confused.

I can't wait for the Q9450.

Originally Posted by ThatGuy16

True, but i though i read somewere that it was truely 3 cores on a wafer, no extra disabled core?

Originally Posted by [-0MEGA-]

I'm not 100% sure, I just saw a MaxiumPC article which showed the die of the tri-cores, which were clearly 4 separate cores, and they believe that one is just disabled.

Originally Posted by mep916

I read that article too. Unfortunately, it's not on their website. It's in one of their older issues.

Originally Posted by KevinKevin

Accordingly to what I have read and seen Intel is faster but AMD last longer and can be left to idle longer than a Intel can without breaking. AMD is cheaper, mainly the same speed. If you're looking for a decent, long-lasting processor, I'd recommend AMD 64 X2.