AMD may seemingly be out of circulation these days on the “big breakthroughs” and “chart-topping” side of the business, but it heartens loyalists to know that AMD is still working hard to find chinks in Intel’s new-found Core2 armor.

                                             AMD has fast HP regen and godly comeback powers.

AMD’s latest news surprises, as always. The company has announced concrete plans to release a triple-core chip into the market under the new Phenom line of processors. AMD performs this seemingly backward step in chip evolution for many reasons, not least is that of continuing to poke at that Intel armor. There are many other reasons, some of which I’ve compiled and are listed here.

                                              Representation only; no official logo exists as of yet.

Due to differences in the two competitor’s manufacturing processes, AMD aims to go down an avenue of churning out viable (saleable) chips that Intel cannot similarly do, or at least can’t do without significant change in tooling, processes and additional investment. Specifically, AMD’s chips are of the “real quad-core” design – to quote the AMD’s marketing lines – and AMD decides to simply disable the fourth core of chips that doesn’t reach the level of performance required for their quad-core products. This is a simple procedure due to the layout of the quad-core chips themselves, something that can’t be emulated on the Intel front.

At the same time, AMD kills two birds with one stone by plugging a market-demand hole in the form of limited demand for quad-core processors in general. Before you protest the accuracy of this statement, do note that everything is relative. AMD and Intel’s expected sales in the quad-core processors for enthusiasts and heavy workstation use does not come close to their production capacity. Majority of processors sold is of the dual-core variety. Thus both companies find themselves with more stock than they can quickly dispose of, and this creates a backlog for their other products. AMD has found a way to circumvent this problem by the above method coupled with the fact that these products can be sold at a lower price than quad-core products, thus weaning consumers out of “dual-core preference”.

Of course, simply disabling a fourth core of a processor and selling them at a lower price does not constitute an attractive-enough lure for most consumers; AMD recognizes this fact and leans on the old power-user’s standby – the hidden performance lure. In other words, it may be AMD’s course of action to somehow sell three-core chips that can be “unlocked” by consumers after a little bit of tinkering – overclocking enthusiasts and power users go crazy over products that they can “squeeze” for more (free!) performance – it’s like paying less for more – and who doesn’t like less-for-more products?

                                             Extreme measures in the search for extra performance.

AMD capitalizes on this fact, and since Intel cannot easily do the same, that’s another positive for the underdog. This is similar to AMD’s short-lived 4x4 campaign for the ultra-enthusiast, only in the opposite direction – where the intended message was “more-for-more”. The enthusiast had to buy 2 dual-core chips and plunk down a sizable amount of cash for a motherboard that supported the 4x4 functions. This combination resulted in good performance that nevertheless was less cost-effective than Intel’s single-chip solutions. Now it seems like AMD is rectifying that less-than stellar campaign.

                                             Regardless of actual performance, this much excess still gets my heart all a-beating.

Now this is pure speculation on my part, but this development may pave the way for AMD to significantly cut into the existing enthusiast market currently dominated by Intel. While there will always be the unique subset of the market that demands the absolute “best of the best” products, and more importantly has the funds to satisfy this demand, the bigger and somewhat more neglected group is the group of enthusiasts that want the best, but simply can’t afford them. In other words, if it were a choice between a dual core processor that is within budget, and a triple core proc that is also within budget, compared to a quad-core’s ridiculous premium, then the budget-conscious enthusiast will most probably spring for the triple core.

                                             The first true quad-cores came from AMD.

It’s true that there will be quad-cores that may fit this same-said budget once lower speeds and different variations are introduced, but nevertheless, the introduction of triple cores gives consumers an interesting option and more choice – plus this might well continue until quad cores become standard fare and octo-cores become the new “extreme”. At that point it is hardly speculation to assume that AMD will introduce hepta-cores for the same reasons stated above, if this current campaign proves to be successful.

                                              The new Phenom range - encompassing odd-numbered cores in its processors.

As an AMD faithful (at least I think I’m one), I wish AMD the best for their current campaign. I believe that this is simply the opening salvo for AMD on its way back to processor supremacy – but only the market will tell whether this will pull AMD back into the limelight or will simply form just another AMD probe to explore Intel’s vulnerabilities. C’mon AMD, I want to upgrade my Athlon X2 4800 939-pin already.