I vividly recall the flight to San Francisco in fall 2007 for a press event to announce the addition of the world’s first triple-core x86 processors to our roadmap. I expected tough questions (looking back 18 months later, it appears our competitor may not face the same scrutiny on the identical subject; read on). My private thoughts en route:

• Will news media focus more on the value the processors should deliver to consumers, or on the mechanics of how it is made (from a quad-core die)?
• Will they appreciate that the ability to make a triple-core is a deserved windfall for AMD customers based on our investment in making a monolithic quad-core processor first, rather than a two dual-core multi-chip module (MCM)?
• Will they rightfully extrapolate that Intel would likely emulate this approach once it also began to manufacture native quad-core processors?

The press event went well enough, but the Q&A session was a little rough. We were asked whether we thought triple-core would confuse consumers, and responded that differentiating on cores or “brains” seemed far more intuitive than differentiating on abstract brand names and the size of Level 3 cache memory. And we were asked “Aren’t these just quad-core processors with one core disabled?” with an accusatory tone that just as easily could have demanded “Weren’t you the one seen in the parlor holding the candlestick over Colonel Mustard’s body?”

Clearly, these anticipated questions didn’t surprise, and our execs handled them well. What we didn’t anticipate, however, happened soon after at the Intel Developer Forum. Here’s how ExtremeTech reported it:

“During a question-and-answer session following his keynote speech, Otellini was asked his thoughts on including three cores on a processor die, as AMD indicated it would on Monday. AMD’s solution turns off one core, which may or may not have met its rated speed. “We see a distinct advantage in having all the cores on our die work,” Otellini replied.”

Otellini’s comment was widely reported and it entered into conventional wisdom about triple-core. In hindsight, perhaps Otellini did not anticipate that his own roadmaps would deliver, only 1.5 years later, server processors with two cores on the die disabled?

Egged on by the CEO of the world’s largest semiconductor company, scrutiny of how AMD triple-core processors are made became part of the processor’s narrative within the industry, distracting from its amazing performance and value. Consider this review conclusion from Tech Report, which manages to praise performance while alluding to manufacturing approach in one fell swoop:

“Well, jeez, it’s hard not to like the Phenom II X3 720, which is just a bundle of gimpy goodness…In more widely multithreaded apps where the 720’s third core kicks in, the Phenom II X3 almost always outruns the E8400, sometimes dramatically. Oddly enough, the 720’s combination of three cores and relatively high clock speeds may be the ideal trade-off for the current state of PC software. Who knew? Add in the X3 720’s fairly tame power consumption, its apparently excellent overclocking proposition, and the fact that—regardless of memory type—the Phenom II has a superior system architecture to the Core 2, and the E8400 starts to look rather weak by comparison. The Phenom II X3 720 is our new favorite among mid-range PC processors.”

Need more convincing about the solid value proposition that is AMD Phenom II X3?

Anandtech: “…The most interesting CPU is the Phenom II X3 720; at $145 its only Intel competitors are the Core 2 Duo E7500 and the Core 2 Duo E8400, both of which are dual-core CPUs. The extra core in the 720 can provide a clear advantage in well threaded workloads.”

But then, last week Intel had its big coming out party for Nehalem EP, and I was a little disappointed with the level of analysis present in the first days of coverage, and pointed to questions of my own. Here’s one more question from me:

Why has not one reporter asked Intel, or at least published a story, about the die used for the new dual-core Intel Xeon E5502 and L5508? According to Insight64 principal analyst Nathan Brookwood, he has confirmed with Intel these are “defeatured quad-cores that create a low-end socket-compatible part.”

Intel publicly jeered AMD triple-core desktop processors with one core “defeatured,” yet they are apparently “defeaturing” two cores for their new datacenter darling.

Perhaps no one wrote this story because the press now “get it” that this is just good, smart business in making a complete product family from a monolithic quad-core. But let’s just hope this remains a tri-lateral “agreement” honored by all involved parties: Intel, AMD, and the news media.

John Taylor is Director, Global Platform & Product Communications at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.