AMD promises tri-cores next year

So we can expect these the year after next then?

For some reason I read the first instance of triple-core in this article as nipple-core.

Very Freudian I'm sure.

I hope this name sticks.

WHY single core? specially when you have x2 3800 (the dual core) which sells for $50-ish.. i mean just how low do they want to go with single core (performance wise)?

if the tri cores are just quads with a failed 4th core, it must be a good sign for AMD Fabs not to have lots of tri cores available now

I see AMD engineers running around.. THESE ARE.. SEMPRONS!

For some reason I read the first instance of microprocessors in this article as micorporcessors. Is the second c hard or soft?

...It'd be pretty sad if AMD tri-core still lags behind Intel dual-core in gaming performance.

Just imagine all the math jokes on all the tech review sites if that ever happens

Already outdated.......... next ? so pathetic, but at least , those on a tight budget will be able to get a cheap but good computer... AMD cpu will sell for next to nothing...

There are a couple of reasons I can think of for single cores. 

1. The equipment making those 3800X2s may be used to make these tri-cores, so that means no more cheap 3800X2s.

2. Low Power. There are many times where you don't need multicore mega processing, but you do need low power consumption. 

This could be in appliances like dedicated routers in datacenters where power consumption and heat must be considered, or in devices that run on batteries like PDAs and laptops.

Triple core = 3 strikes and you're out. Too little way too late. 

Your reasoning makes no sense.

Firstly triple cores aren't 'made', they are merely quad cores with one core being defective, hence the core is deactivated.
Secondly AMD has the technology to 'shutdown' a core on the fly if it isn't needed ( ie. to conserve on power ).

Thirdly the single cores they are planning to release are still for the consumer market so the examples you gave such as routers etc. does not apply.

I am with Ayush, there is no need for single cores.

I think tri-core cpu's are going to be a failed idea (with the exception of the xbox360). 

This is AMD's way to try to get back into the CPU race with intel. 

When dealing with technology everything is in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 and so on.. Not 3, 6, 9--- LOL

Nipple-core lol, run with it Inq the fans demand it!! Thanks Johnboy

Methinks triples are likely quads that fail QC...

Anyone seen a photo of a die for a triple? I just attended an AMD event and a die shot was available for quads but not for triples. Hmmmmm.

And wasn't it Otellini that proclaimed, "All our cores work." (BTW, possible the best quote in years for the industry, IMHO)

I know Intel's Core 2 Quad isn't a fully integrated quad core but rather 2 dual quads side by side on a die, but the fact still remains that it's a quad core, not a triple core. AMD is wasting its time with 3 cores when Intel is working on the next gen quad cores which will be completely integrated quad cores. What are they thinking? I'm beginning to feel as if the glory days of AMD are behind them...