It would be hard to write about anything else on the daythat AMD announced it was doing triple-core versions of its forthcoming Phenomprocessor.So here is my take on AMD's 'multi-core triple threat', as the official pressinformation calls it.

Seeing triple?

Rumours had been circulating for more than 18 months thatAMD was considering triple-core processors. One website even mocked up a test to see how such a thing might perform. But the announcement that AMD really isplanning to make a three-core version of its Phenom still came as a bit of asurprise. The asymmetry doesn't seem natural. Until you look a little moreclosely, that is.

Gaming as a threesome

It makes perfect sense that Xbox360 games optimised for theconsole's triple-core architecture could run best on three cores when ported tothe PC, as AMD claims. Running Halo 3 better than Intel would make for a greatheadline. Even without the highest quad-core performance ground, AMD would thenhave a strong argument for mainstream gamers - where the Athlon 64 had beenmost popular until Core 2 arrived.

The argument that AMD is trying to spoil Intel'sannouncements at Intel Developer Forumis also pretty plausible. AMD has a history of setting up camp in a nearbyhotel during IDF, then luring journalists over to its parallel announcements inthe hopes of adding them to the IDF headlines. Indeed, my first whiff of theAMD64 architecture was under just such circumstances, back in 2003.

Reclaiming the middleground

However, that just explains the timing of the triple-coreannouncement - not the processor's actual existence. AMD didn't createtriple-core Phenoms purely so it could spoil Intel's IDF news. It had much larger-scalespoiling in mind. If AMD can sell you a triple-core processor for only slightlymore than an Intel dual-core one, or even the same price, it would have aserious contender in this all-important high-volume middle sector of themarket.

Of course, Intel could just drop the price of Core 2 Quad tomatch, but that could be rather counter-productive from a revenue point ofview, as Core 2 Duo would have to be even cheaper.

Method in theirAMD-ness?

At least, that's what those of us who like to see a bit ofcompetition in the market hope. But there's no guarantee that AMD in itscurrent state will act in a way which anyone finds logical as an outsideobserver.

AMD is a company in considerable turmoil at the moment.Until Core 2 arrived, the Athlon 64 had been winning over the hearts and mindsof enthusiasts, and chipping away slowly at Intel's market share. But Core 2shattered all that good work, and AMD's acquisition of ATI has merely broughtmore confusion. ATI doesn't have the best track record of delivering productsin a timely fashion. Both the Radeon X1000 series and HD 2000 series arrivedtoo late to provide the impact intended.

Make mine a triple

AMD's new processor architecture is similarly tardy. Thelatest announcement could be seen as an admission that Phenom really won't takeback the performance high ground - it has arrived too late for that. So thefocus has been shifted towards creating a new middle ground where Intel won'tbe able to compete.

Since Core 2 Quad consists of two dual-core dies packagedtogether, a triple-core version would be totally asymmetrical - with two coressharing one Level 2 cache, but the third core having exclusive use of its Level2. AMD's design, with dedicated Level 2 for each core and 2MB of Level 3 acrossall cores, allows much more elegant scaling to three cores.

So the triple-core Phenom looks like more bad news for thosehoping for a return to benchmark-topping form from AMD. But it could be thepoor man's answer to quad core. Shame we have to wait until 2008 to find out.