Two heads are better than one, how about three?
Thursday, July 10, 2008 by PPV
How will you spoil your competitor's product? When AMD is set to launch their first "native" dual-core cpu, Intel glued two so they can claim they're the first.
AMD then launched the first true native dual-core. Onward to quad-core. When AMD is again aiming for their quad, Intel again glued two dualie to claim the first quad. But AMD is the first to set again "true" quads.
Now AMD have introduced tri-core cpu. So what would Intel do? Combine a single and dual to obtain a tricore? Not an easy thing to do for them. Their current architecture would not allow it.
Since they can't offer a tricore cpu, that market belongs to AMD alone. So to counter it, they provided a marketing promotion at Newegg. Look at the picture below:
In this advertisement, it says that their Core 2 Duo outperforms the tri-core alternative which is obviously the X3 of AMD.Two heads are better than three, of course Intel's quad is better than the tri-core and dual core, including their dual-core. So it is 4>2>3 thing :)
