4x4 Next Month

[harpoon]

duby229, may I add you are the FIRST and ONLY person that I've come across to claim FX-7x chips will have a combined TDP of 125W.

Even the folks @ xtremesys are convinced it's 250W.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116874&highlight=quadfather

No offence, but if the Xtremesys guys think it's 250W, chances are, they are right, you are wrong.

Hey duby, why don't we start a new thread on this topic? I'd love to have a poll, one for 125W, one for 250W, and let people decide for themselves.

I'm quite sure it's 250W, but you seem so CERTAIN it's 125W, why not put your money where your mouth is and put it on the record?

If it turns out to be 125W combined TDP, I'll happily eat humble pie once 4x4 is released.

 

[Theli]

I don't have any intentions of buying a 4x4 because I just recently upgraded and I have no wish to install and cool two processors, installing one Scythe Ninja was bad enough.
So I only have two wishes when it comes to this new system:

1. That people will start calling it "The quadfather" more and...

2. ...that it bombs horrifically.

I mean, a few years from now it could find itself on one of those "top 20 worst products" lists, especially considering its timing (looks like an act of desperation), and its name (bad word pun).

I think we'd better wait for K8L to see what AMD really has up their sleeves.

 

[duby229]

You asked me for links I gave you links. You provide a link to another forum full of !!!!!!s I provide links to several reputable sites.

You logic by the way is flawed. I can right now buy a 35w 3800x2, they seem to be sold out, but the point is they are for sale. These arent even the highest bin. I'm sure AMD could get some bins at around 65w at 3ghz. Yes even at 90nm. They will be rare, but hey, that's why they are FX's The best of the best bin. Now I dont have any proof of this so all I can do point out that so far nobody but the !!!!!!s have said anything besides 125w.

That is what it boils down to really. Everything i've read says 125w. no-one has said anything different except for a few !!!!!!s on a few forums.

If you want to start a poll be my guest. You made the offer, you can make the poll.

 

[duby229]

I don't have any intentions of buying a 4x4 because I just recently upgraded and I have no wish to install and cool two processors, installing one Scythe Ninja was bad enough.
So I only have two wishes when it comes to this new system:

1. That people will start calling it "The quadfather" more and...

2. ...that it bombs horrifically.

I mean, a few years from now it could find itself on one of those "top 20 worst products" lists, especially considering its timing (looks like an act of desperation), and its name (bad word pun).

I think we'd better wait for K8L to see what AMD really has up their sleeves.

Whats sad really is that we for the first time in YEARS have the opportunity for dual socket goodness on the desktop, and we get people in here saying crap like this. No offense to you. I dont know you. But this has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard anybody ever say in the history of computing.

"I really hope that "3d" graphics crap dies soon. Who needs it?"
"What?! Cache we dont need no stinkin cache! I hope it dies."
" Faster then then 1ghz? That is stupid, we dont need anything faster then 600mhz"
" Dual cores? We can't even use one. I hope that crap dies."
"IMC? Why? It works just fine on the north bridge!"

You see I've seen these types of arguments before, and they always prove to be ignorant.

 

[Theli]

That is what it boils down to really. Everything i've read says 125w. no-one has said anything different except for a few !!!!!!s on a few forums.

Because these !!!!!!s are probably looking at the whole system while the link you provided speaks of the single processor. It doesn't matter if they are sold in pairs or if they are sold as single processors, their specs will be the same.

Now, have you seen anyone say that the pair will have a total TDP of 125W?

No offense to you. I dont know you. But this has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard anybody ever say in the history of computing.

Either you are new to the internet, or this is quite an achievement of mine. Although, more probably, it's hyperbole.

"I really hope that "3d" graphics crap dies soon. Who needs it?"
"What?! Cache we dont need no stinkin cache! I hope it dies."
" Faster then then 1ghz? That is stupid, we dont need anything faster then 600mhz"

Not exactly the same thing, nobody really needs "The Quadfather", it's not like it's the only option for increase in CPU performance. 3D is quite another thing, it would be pretty difficult to advance in graphics without it. But none of your examples described any particular products, but rather technologies. There's a difference.
It's just a product line, it's not like the light bulb or the transistor. I don't expect any great innovations or revolutions in technology to come out of it. In fact, failures has their value also, we can look back at them and laugh.

 

[wildcard442]

You need to think of 4x4 as an Opteron solution for the masses and Overclockers.

I don't think 4x4 is comparable to anything Intel has to offer (in price or performance).

People who have dual socket systems (like myself) know the advantages and will likely never go back to a boring, single socket.

There are some disadvantages: Expensive: Mobos / RAM / CPUs all cost more than mainstream gear. Also, limited in OC capabilities (these are SERVER boards).

4x4 is aiming to create a dual socket, opteron platform for the masses with OC capabilities.

I would say 4x4 and any single socket solutions are apples and oranges and can't be compared, just like you can't compare my dual Opteron 275 Tyan Thunder K8WE system with an intel Core 2 system and say: "Look I already have 4 cores!! I can beat a core 2 system in any multi-threaded benchmark!!"

They are different platforms. Myself, I am never, ever, going to go to single socket solution, ESPECIALLY now that they are getting cheaper. Price was the main deterrent in the past and will be less so now.

4x4 is not a fake, or a "cop-out". It's dual socket solution. Different.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

AMD doesn't have quad core, and won't until next year sometime. 4x4 is NOTHING but a dual processor system that doesn't need Registered memory. It's NOT quad core. Quad core is 4 cores PER socket. 4x4 is 2 cores per socket. And here is where you'll see 30 posts form people bashing Intels quad core because it's not "native" LOL

I think your definition is flawed. A Quad core is at the name says 4 cores. What does it matter if its 4 single cores on a 4 socket board. or 1 cpu with 4 cores on a 1 socket board. Or 2 dual core cpu's on a dual socket board. They all equal 4 cpu cores.

It kinda reminds me of the licensing thing with MS while back, and how the licensed windows to the actual cores and not the sockets in the system which makes logical sense to me.

 

[Poncho]

I think your definition is flawed. A Quad core is at the name says 4 cores. What does it matter if its 4 single cores on a 4 socket board. or 1 cpu with 4 cores on a 1 socket board. Or 2 dual core cpu's on a dual socket board. They all equal 4 cpu cores.

So then a DP system using single core CPUs would be a dual core processor? Yea, I didn't think so. The simple fact that you guys can't see this system, though not really the system but the marketing strategy behind it, as a desperate attempt by AMD to counter Intel actual quad core processors then you need to accept the !!!!!! in you and move on. This is nothing new... and nothing revolutionary. DP systems have been around for YEARS... what makes this any different? Oh that's right... you don't have to use registered memory but you have to offset that cost savings by buying the top end CPUs from AMD. You'll probably end up spending more on this system than a normal DP system... and you'll lose the security and stability that you'll find with REAL server/workstation platforms. Good Job AMD.....

It kinda reminds me of the licensing thing with MS while back, and how the licensed windows to the actual cores and not the sockets in the system which makes logical sense to me.

Actually... Microsoft licenses are by the socket... not the cores. You can run XP Home on a 80 Core CPU if you want... and it'll see every single one.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

So then a DP system using single core CPUs would be a dual core processor? Yea, I didn't think so.

You must be one of those marketing guys. Where in my post did I ever say a Dual socket system would be considering a Dual core cpu.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

And my mistake MS is doing it per socket and not per core. Haven't been out of bed long. I knew what I meant to say, just typed it the opposite.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

 

[Poncho]

You must be one of those marketing guys. Where in my post did I ever say a Dual socket system would be considering a Dual core cpu.

You didn't... there is just an annoying trend for people here to compare this to Intel's actual quad core CPU. If you want to compare this to quad core CPUs... then you CANNOT say that it's quad core. It's the same old shit that's been around for years.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

And why shouldn't it be compared, as I stated in my original post, it has 4 cores so does intels. Does it matter one is on 1 socket, and the other is on 2.

Kinda of the same with AMD's saying there cpu design is a native one, and intels is just two processors glued together. To me they are both the same.

In the end we as consumers, just care about price and performance.

And Average joe Best buy shopper just cares about price.

 

[Poncho]

And why shouldn't it be compared, as I stated in my original post, it has 4 cores so does intels. Does it matter one is on 1 socket, and the other is on 2.

If you don't see why a DUAL PROCESSOR system shouldn't be compared to a SINGLE PROCESSOR system then you are clueless. They are totally different.... and will perform different, I don't give a shit how many cores the CPU/System/GPU/whatever has. They are different platforms. That'd be like comparing a laptop to a desktop. Sorry... but that comparison just doesn't belong. And in case you were wondering why these comparisons should happen.... it because the CPU doesn't make the fucking system. Actual performance is determined by EVERYTHING on the system.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

First of all relax with the anger bro. U don't know me or the level of my knowledge.Keep your clueless comments to yourself puto.I am not comparing a single core system to a dual core system, i'm comparing a single socket system to a dual socket system, with the same amount of CPU's Cores!

 

[Poncho]

First of all relax with the anger bro. U don't know me or the level of my knowledge.Keep your clueless comments to yourself puto.I am not comparing a single core system to a dual core system, i'm comparing a single socket system to a dual socket system, with the same amount of CPU's Cores!

Umm.. I'm not angry, I'm just trying to highlight the idiocy of comparing a Single CPU system to a Dual CPU system. It's an apples to oranges comparison, which is fine, but for Christs sakes don't say one sucks compared to the other. If you don't see the difference then you are clueless. There are a shitload of other factors, besides the CPU and it's cores, that will make a system faster or slower. How can you not see this? A DP system will, typically, outperform a UP system. That's no shocker... this platform DOES NOT compete with kentsfield. It competes with the DP offerings from Intel.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

u must be talking to someone else then, cause I never said anything about comparing a single cpu system to a dual core one.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but QuadFather will be competing with kensfields. There will be a ton of reviews up on the net, including here!
Regardless if u like it or not. AMD's 4x4 is gonna be for hardcore gamers and such, your telling me were suppose to compare it to Intel's Server offerings?

i'm starting to think your the clueless one.

 

[Poncho]

u must be talking to someone else then, cause I never said anything about comparing a single cpu system to a dual core one.

I'm assuming that you meant to say dual CPU system... and yes you are. If you are comparing 4x4 to kentsfield... then you are comparing a DP to a UP system.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but QuadFather will be competing with kensfields.

Only to the !!!!!!s who cannot see the difference between the 2. I can't wait to see this system flop. It's a total joke and a last minute effort by AMD's marketing to slow the buzz that's around Intel at the moment. Anybody with half a brain can see that this is nothing more than a DP system that is MARKETED towards gamers... even though those gamers won't see any actual benefits of owning one compared to a UP Intel or AMD system. Which brings me to this....

Regardless if u like it or not. AMD's 4x4 is gonna be for hardcore gamers and such, your telling me were suppose to compare it to Intel's Server offerings?

LOL... please tell me how a DP system will perform better FOR GAMERS than a UP system. Please... I would love for you to show me some games that "hardcore gamers" play that benefit from Dual Processors... hell, show me games that benefit from a dual core processor. Please... show me. Oh wait... they don't exist and they probably won't for another year at least... and even then they won't benefit from 4 cores. Yea.. I'm clueless.

 

[wildcard442]

IThey are totally different.... and will perform different

True they are very different. I disagree that they will perform radically different. I've benchmarked my dual opterons (two cores total) vs single (dual core) opterons and for multi-threaded apps they perform the same.

I compared 2 Opteron 248's (2.2 GHz Rev E4) vs 1 Opteron 275 (2.2 GHz Rev E6) (same board only one socket used) and they perform the same.

Two totally different solutions, probably will endup performing the same. The performance difference will come from CPU microarchitecture, not the motherboard platform.

 

[Wahrscheinlichkeit]

Technically the dual socket should be better.
Does it not have two memory controllers and twice the bandwith?

I know dual cpu dual core opteron boards have a healthy supply of it.
Seems kinda pointless to have four cpu's fighting over the same FSB.
Just a thought.

 

[Poncho]

Does it not have two memory controllers and twice the bandwith?

Somebody gets it. Even without the IMC you still get more bandwidth over a UP system.

Seems kinda pointless to have four cpu's fighting over the same FSB.
Just a thought.

I agree completely. I've been VERY critical of Kentsfield, due to the limitations of the FSB and stupid high TDP I've said from day 1 that quad core, in it's early stages will be purely marketing when it's talked about in the desktop world. Funny... people here aren't that critical of this "band aid" solution to AMDs sliding market share. Oh well... the !!!!!! is strong here I guess.

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

Your right about that.

 

[Donnie27]

duby229, may I add you are the FIRST and ONLY person that I've come across to claim FX-7x chips will have a combined TDP of 125W.

Even the folks @ xtremesys are convinced it's 250W.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=116874&highlight=quadfather

No offence, but if the Xtremesys guys think it's 250W, chances are, they are right, you are wrong.

Hey duby, why don't we start a new thread on this topic? I'd love to have a poll, one for 125W, one for 250W, and let people decide for themselves.

I'm quite sure it's 250W, but you seem so CERTAIN it's 125W, why not put your money where your mouth is and put it on the record?

If it turns out to be 125W combined TDP, I'll happily eat humble pie once 4x4 is released.

Isn't it funny how everything he doesn't agree with is FUD?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Funny... people here aren't that critical of this "band aid" solution to AMDs sliding market share.

i guess while we're in thread crapping mode, perhaps if you were to actually notice something for once, NOBODY thinks 4x4 is gonna move any significant volume. if you think it's gonna help AMD's market share, you are BATSHIT CRAZY

donnie, unneeded comment, you too are not innocent here, so stfu
duby, sadly, the TDP probably is 125w per cpu. however, we both how amd is with the TDP, so it's probably like 100-140w combined wattage at full load

 

[Donnie27]

Donnie I thought you said you were only posting here for help? All I've seen is FUD.

Now for the truth..... AMD PR spin Omitted.

FUD, where?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

FUD, where?

oh, let's see here..

(sorry, but you asked for it)

Nope, you'll have to buy 2 New FX 7x processor, FX-72 or FX-74. These get 7x numbers because they have different sockets, reconfigured Sc-940. These processors are the same as the 2.4, 4.6 and 2.8GHz dual core processors currently on sale.

incorrect. LGA1207, aka socket F. and they are not the same as the operons, as they do not require registered ram.

You'll more than likely want a 650W NAME BRAND Power Supply at a minimum. No Name or Generic brands aren't going to work at all. I hope like hell I'm wrong on that though.

depends on the gpu. if you use the system for what it's good at.. multithreaded apps, which doesn't require a strong gpu, my 420w powerstream will most likely be more than enough. dunno what name brand has to do with it though, cause some name brands suck ass

You might want to look at the Quad Core Specs again? Quad Core with ship with the newer 1207 Socket. These are said to have an IMC that's 256Bit, not the current 128bit. Just like Intel, AMD would be creating a Bottleneck with 4 cores and one 128bit controller. No it wouldn't kill AMD, hell, it's not killin' Intel's Kentsfield but we know Kentsfield will not last long before Intel's real Quad Monster launches. It will ship with what amounts to 4 FSB's

ok, let's break this down.
so you're saying that revH, amd's quad core chip that should be shipping sometime next year, will have a 256bit IMC, aka quad channels? FALSE! it has two memory controllers, one DDR2, one DDR3. using both at the same time for quad channel is a laughable notion.. not to mention the extreme prices and complexity of having that many traces on a normal ATX mobo

next.. dual channel will bottleneck quad core? last i checked, dual channel DDR1 was more than enough for the X2's. with DDR2, bandwidth has effectively doubled. double the bandwidth, double the cores. i fail to see the problem. besides, latency is really what counts when you got reads and writes from multible threads at once.

for kentsfield, all that ram bandwidth has to go through the fsb that's shared with the chipset. slightly different story

 

[Donnie27]

i guess while we're in thread crapping mode, perhaps if you were to actually notice something for once, NOBODY thinks 4x4 is gonna move any significant volume. if you think it's gonna help AMD's market share, you are BATSHIT CRAZY

donnie, unneeded comment, you too are not innocent here, so stfu
duby, sadly, the TDP probably is 125w per cpu. however, we both how amd is with the TDP, so it's probably like 100-140w combined wattage at full load

I said I'd only post here for help, to offer some help. No more statements about what we already know.

Nope, you'll have to buy 2 New FX 7x processor, FX-72 or FX-74. These get 7x numbers because they have different sockets, reconfigured Sc-940. These processors are the same as the 2.4, 4.6 and 2.8GHz dual core processors currently on sale. This Monster is not meant for General Market but for power hungry AMD Followers with Money.

IMHO, there is no Great R&D or break through and this could have launched Last Year. There's little stopping AMD, ATI or nVidia from doing this on Current Opteron Boards for example. Then you could talk about a second Processor.

If I won one in a Contest, I'd go straight to E-Bay with it and sell it LOL!

Is that FUD? Now look at Posts #31 and #33? Please enlighten me?

Message boards use to be about helping folks get the correct info and clearing up misinformation. Compared to not only the whole 250W thing Duby posted but his "Whats sad really is that we for the first time in YEARS have the opportunity for dual socket goodness on the desktop, and we get people in here saying crap like this. No offense to you. I dont know you. But this has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard anybody ever say in the history of computing. That's the silliest thing I've read in along time, even coming from Duby. Many Dual Processor systems will be more Mainstream and affordable than $ X $, sheesh! WOW, you mean we don't get DP until $X$ ships?

 

[SLee]

donnie, unneeded comment, you too are not innocent here, so stfu
duby, sadly, the TDP probably is 125w per cpu. however, we both how amd is with the TDP, so it's probably like 100-140w combined wattage at full load

I doubt that:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-shootout/power-2.png

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Is that FUD? Now look at Posts #31 and #33? Please enlighten me?

Message boards use to be about helping folks get the correct info and clearing up misinformation. Compared to not only the whole 250W thing Duby posted but his "Whats sad really is that we for the first time in YEARS have the opportunity for dual socket goodness on the desktop, and we get people in here saying crap like this. No offense to you. I dont know you. But this has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard anybody ever say in the history of computing. That's the silliest thing I've read in along time, even coming from Duby. Many Dual Processor systems will be more Mainstream and affordable than $ X $, sheesh! WOW, you mean we don't get DP until $X$ ships?

what about posts 31 and 33. 31 is correct afaik, there are no dual opteron systems with quad sli.. but that's simply because the market doesn't need it. they need cpu power
for 33, i replied to in my post.. if you even read it

and duby is right. up until now, all DP solutions have been targeted to server/workstation use, not for desktops. while i agree, it's not practical in the least, it's being targeted to desktop use, that's the entire point... i know more than a few people who can put that kind of power to use too... it's just the price that is the major sticky point.

I doubt that:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-shootout/power-2.png

hey, just an educated guess on my part. feel free to shoot me down later if i'm wrong
interesting comparing to this though
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_fx60/6.shtml

key thing:

Along the same lines, under full load, the FX60 actually draws less power than the X4800+. Keep in mind, though, that we are comparing two processors with different manufacturing dates and the lower power consumption may reflect the fine tuning of the silicon mixture in the Dresden Fab. Nevertheless, the numbers are very impressive.

i know amd knows power is a concern, they'll sabatoge yields a bit to get lower power, especially since they know that overall volume of these chips is gonna be VERY low, yields don't have to be high

 

[wildcard442]

what about posts 31 and 33. 31 is correct afaik, there are no dual opteron systems with quad sli.. but that's simply because the market doesn't need it. they need cpu power

Wrong!!!

http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=77396

Check out the system in the first post. Quad SLI dual opteron. These are *serious* rigs, not the chew toys single socket users have.

4x4 will bring *serious* rigs to the masses. Well, maybe not the masses, but it will at least make dual sockets more available and more flexible (OC, standard RAM, ETC).

I think alot of people are missing the point of 4x4. If you don't have a dual socket system (right now - opterons / xeons), I don't think you're getting it, and you probably won't. Once you do have a dual socket system, you'll get it.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Wrong!!!

http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=77396

Check out the system in the first post. Quad SLI dual opteron. These are *serious* rigs, not the chew toys single socket users have.

4x4 will bring *serious* rigs to the masses. Well, maybe not the masses, but it will at least make dual sockets more available and more flexible (OC, standard RAM, ETC).

I think alot of people are missing the point of 4x4. If you don't have a dual socket system (right now - opterons / xeons), I don't think you're getting it, and you probably won't. Once you do have a dual socket system, you'll get it.

well there you go. tell that to donnie who made the original statement. i just ignored it cause i wasn't sure if it was true or not, thus the critical "afaik" in my post

 

[Donnie27]

oh, let's see here..

(sorry, but you asked for it)

incorrect. LGA1207, aka socket F. and they are not the same as the operons, as they do not require registered ram.

Nope you mixing two replies. I said $X$ will ship with Socket-940 and that Quadcore will ship with 1207, NOT that $X$ would use it. $ X $ is NOT QUAD CORE=P

depends on the gpu. if you use the system for what it's good at.. multithreaded apps, which doesn't require a strong gpu, my 420w powerstream will most likely be more than enough. dunno what name brand has to do with it though, cause some name brands suck ass

Yes but we were talking about a full 4 X 4, not possible simlar systems. NOT FUD. I'd love to see you run Full 4X4 with only a 420W anything though.

ok, let's break this down.
so you're saying that revH, amd's quad core chip that should be shipping sometime next year, will have a 256bit IMC, aka quad channels? FALSE! it has two memory controllers, one DDR2, one DDR3. using both at the same time for quad channel is a laughable notion.. not to mention the extreme prices and complexity of having that many traces on a normal ATX mobo

I saw it saying ONE 256bit controller. Math equation. 1207 - 940 = ? I read that those 267 pins are for 256 for memory expansion to 256Bit and 11 for grounding, probes and etc...

next.. dual channel will bottleneck quad core? last i checked, dual channel DDR1 was more than enough for the X2's. with DDR2, bandwidth has effectively doubled. double the bandwidth, double the cores. i fail to see the problem. besides, latency is really what counts when you got reads and writes from multible threads at once.

for kentsfield, all that ram bandwidth has to go through the fsb that's shared with the chipset. slightly different story

A Quad Core (NOT TWO Processors) with only ONE 128bit Memory Controller would have less bandwdith that Two Processors with Two memory controllers=P Doesn't matter if its Two Woodcrests vs. One Kentsfield. See, don't need to bring in AMD! That's what some don't like about Kentsfield.

For AMD, all of the Bandwdith would STILL have to go through a Single Crossbar. If that's still 128bit, Dual Opteron Dual Cores would still have an advantage. There's no FUD there at all.

Native Dual Core is just that, Native, that's Four Execution unites with may one L1 or at least ONE L2. No need for L3, of core Buffers or arbitration Logic. Please try that stuff on someone else? AMDtalking about Native Quad Core is pure Marketing and they know it.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Nope you mixing two replies. I said $X$ will ship with Socket-940 and that Quadcore will ship with 1207, NOT that $X$ would use it. $ X $ is NOT QUAD CORE=P

4x4 is socketF though... not s940.
quad core will be both F and AM2. i never said 4x4 is quad core, so stop imagining me saying things for your own benefit

Yes but we were talking about a full 4 X 4, not possible simlar systems. NOT FUD. I'd love to see you run Full 4X4 with only a 420W anything though.

this was one of the things that i partially agreed with, but it depends on how the system is set up. send me a 4x4 to test, and i'll show you that it runs fine with my psu.

I saw it saying ONE 256bit controller. Math equation. 1207 - 940 = ? I read that those 267 pins are for 256 for memory expansion to 256Bit and 11 for grounding, probes and etc...

what is "it"? you probably just read it wrong. quad channel will be a great surprise to me... regardless of the platform. if you're talking about quad channel with 4x4, it's more like dual-dual channel.. but if you're gonna call it quad, you have to call it quad core too, to be consistant

A Quad Core (NOT TWO Processors) with only ONE 128bit Memory Controller would have less bandwdith that Two Processors with Two memory controllers=P Doesn't matter if its Two Woodcrests vs. One Kentsfield. See, don't need to bring in AMD! That's what some don't like about Kentsfield.

i was comparing s939 dual core to AM2 quad core. dunno how you interpreted differently.

For AMD, all of the Bandwdith would STILL have to go through a Single Crossbar. If that's still 128bit, Dual Opteron Dual Cores would still have an advantage. There's no FUD there at all.

and you know how much bandwidth the crossbar can handle? thought so.
but yes, obviously two dual channels will be better than one, assuming that the ht link can keep up

Native Dual Core is just that, Native, that's Four Execution unites with may one L1 or at least ONE L2. No need for L3, of core Buffers or arbitration Logic. Please try that stuff on someone else? AMDtalking about Native Quad Core is pure Marketing and they know it.

no shit sherlock? since when did i say otherwise? again, stop imagining things that i didn't say


now, i have to ask you this. with amd making this move into 4x4.. you're obviously.. well not really against it, but you chastize the decision. what would you say if amd hadn't done anything? that they're slow to respond to intel's move?

 

[Poncho]

Check out the system in the first post. Quad SLI dual opteron. These are *serious* rigs, not the chew toys single socket users have.

Last time I checked quad SLI is available on the "chew toy" systems (UP) that most people own. Unless there are 4 PCIe slots on the board for graphics, I don't recall that there are, then this is no different in regards to graphics.

4x4 will bring *serious* rigs to the masses. Well, maybe not the masses, but it will at least make dual sockets more available and more flexible (OC, standard RAM, ETC).

If you think the masses care about overclocking and using standard memory then you are sadly mistaken. The "masses" don't give a shit about overclocking. This is another E-Penos part just like the latest XE line from Intel, quad core CPUs in desktop, etc. That's fine... but don't make 4x4 sound like it's a must have enthusist part or some BS. It's simply not true.

I think alot of people are missing the point of 4x4. If you don't have a dual socket system (right now - opterons / xeons), I don't think you're getting it, and you probably won't. Once you do have a dual socket system, you'll get it.

Oh I get it... I work with DP systems everyday. And I'll tell you that for normal use there is little benefit to a DP platform. By normal use I am considering your average user as a person who games, surfs the web, plays media, rips media, etc. I'm NOT talking about the people who fold, do design work, etc.

Here is the reality of this system. The people who could ACTUALLY use a DP system would be better off getting a typical server/workstation system with the redundency of ECC memory, the stability, etc. These are the people who don't give a shit about overclocking since they wouldn't want their system to be down for any reason since they rely on them for income. The people that will buy 4x4 are the VERY tiny % of people who want the best and don't consider the cost. These are the same people who buy the X6800 the day it comes out... the same people who will buy Kentsfield to put in their game box. Again... there is nothing wrong with that, I'm guilty of it myself, but don't make them(me) sound like a smart consumer. Cause we are not.

 

[BigMacAttack]

...and if I had the means to afford one I would too. Just for grins. After all more is better (if you can afford it) isn't it?

 

[Donnie27]

4x4 is socketF though... not s940.
quad core will be both F and AM2. i never said 4x4 is quad core, so stop imagining me saying things for your own benefit

this was one of the things that i partially agreed with, but it depends on how the system is set up. send me a 4x4 to test, and i'll show you that it runs fine with my psu.

what is "it"? you probably just read it wrong. quad channel will be a great surprise to me... regardless of the platform. if you're talking about quad channel with 4x4, it's more like dual-dual channel.. but if you're gonna call it quad, you have to call it quad core too, to be consistant
i was comparing s939 dual core to AM2 quad core. dunno how you interpreted differently.

and you know how much bandwidth the crossbar can handle? thought so.
but yes, obviously two dual channels will be better than one, assuming that the ht link can keep up

no shit sherlock? since when did i say otherwise? again, stop imagining things that i didn't say

now, i have to ask you this. with amd making this move into 4x4.. you're obviously.. well not really against it, but you chastize the decision. what would you say if amd hadn't done anything? that they're slow to respond to intel's move?

First I'd ask you to stop imaging things. A Dual Processor system is NOT a quad core LOL! There's a Two Socket License fee to prove that. 4 cores on one package is not the same as two Dual Cores of any kind=P

IMHO, all AMD had to do was add SLI to its CURRENT rigs and go from there. They don't need to try and BS anyone. AMD doesn't have to try and out market Intel. So what they're not top dog, who in the hell cares? Dell didn't care.

I repeated what I said to make a point.

No you didn't say 4X4 was but that was where I was trying to help the guy. I saw somewhere that they said that the S940 was a reconfigured S940 that wasn't compat with the old 940. Yes I got it about the $X$ with Socket 1207/F, my bad I'm not diggin' a deeper whole. I hope like hell that stuff about reconfigured 940 NOT true. The Guys was NOT going to just "drop in a Quad core" into his current rig. Or possiblely NOT into a current "Quadfather".

To make this clear, it was implied that "I could keep my current AM2-based Processor, buy an AMD based 4X4 platform, then add another AM2 based processor and WA-LA, Quadfather. That's just wrong. This was called FUD! I'm sure I saw only FX-7x working on $X$.

and you know how much bandwidth the crossbar can handle? thought so.
but yes, obviously two dual channels will be better than one, assuming that the ht link can keep up

Want to at least ask me first? Note, I gave an example of an Intel Quad Core vs, two Dual Cores, ummmm. Was that missed?

what is "it"? you probably just read it wrong. quad channel will be a great surprise to me... regardless of the platform. if you're talking about quad channel with 4x4, it's more like dual-dual channel.. but if you're gonna call it quad, you have to call it quad core too, to be consistant

I'am being consistant When K8L launches, I'll call it Quad Core. I'm not calling two DC Woodcrests Quad Core and I'll not call Two DC Opterons/FX-7x or etc.. Quad core, fair?
Using your example, both AMD and Intel are already shipping Quad Core, right?

I didn't come into this thread calling folks Dumb or saying what they said was the Dumbest thing since whenever. Folks on this side of the forum aren't nice to Intel Folks on the other side, is there a double standard? If I screwed up something I said, I stand corrected. I'll go farther and say THANK YOU for the corrections.

 

[Wahrscheinlichkeit]

with DDR2, bandwidth has effectively doubled. double the bandwidth, double the cores. i fail to see the problem. besides, latency is really what counts when you got reads and writes from multible threads at once.

DDR2 doesnt have double the bandwidth not even close. In most cases its slower than ddr1 and has higher latency.
Only instance that ddr2 600 will beat ddr 533. Is if you somehow manage to get the ddr2 memory timings at 4-4-4. Even then its only a mere 700-900mbps difference but with the downside of 4-5ns increase in latency.

Only real great thing about ddr2 is power consumption which is around 30% less than its ddr1 counterparts.

 

[Donnie27]

DDR2 doesnt have double the bandwidth not even close. In most cases its slower than ddr1 and has higher latency.
Only instance that ddr2 600 will beat ddr 533. Is if you somehow manage to get the ddr2 memory timings at 4-4-4. Even then its only a mere 700-900mbps difference but with the downside of 4-5ns increase in latency.

Only real great thing about ddr2 is power consumption which is around 30% less than its ddr1 counterparts.

No! DDR2 does have twice as much bandwidth at the same speed.

Let's look at it another way. Take an Opteron Dual Core. Place it on a Dual Socket Board. Each Opteron has its own 2 banks of RAM for Dual Channel. You end up with something like 26GB of Bandwidth because you have four banks with something like 6.4 to about 6.8 GB each. These are DDR1 figures.... DO they even have the DDR2 dualie opty boards yet?

Now, you get Quad Core (one package) with ONE 128bit memory controller. DDR2 800 best case, about 12GB? Even if you could get an impossible 16GB 100%, you're still short of the 24 to 27GB that a Dual rig might see. AMD and Intel knows this.

Same goes for Dual Core Woodcrest with as much as 21GB vs. the less than 10GB on the i965P or i975X with Kentsfield. There are cases when Quad Core + 128bit will do better but it will also get crushed when the system is pushed.

Disclaimer. If I screwed that up, I take the blame. This NOT FUD but as I understand. This has to be addressed by both AMD and Intel.

 

[Wahrscheinlichkeit]

But those ddr2 equiped dual opties are only acheiving 13gbps not 26.

DDR1 only has around 3.4gbps bandwidth and 6-7 in dual channel mode.
Same for ddr2 at 400mhz that is.

 

[duby229]

Donnie, Nobody called anybody stupid. I certainly did not. What I said was that his comment was the dumbest thing I ever heard. And it was. It doesnt reflect on him in any way. Hell I'm sure I may say some stupid things from time to time as well. I hope you are the only one to take it in such a way. If not then I apologize for saying it. I didnt mean it in a bad fashion.

As far as the power consumption thing goes. I dont think I'm wrong, but we'll have to wait and see.

As far as the crossbar thing goes. It is a fully meshed switch. Bandwidth is additive when new cores are added.

As far as the memory controller being 256bits, that is false, it's actually 2 dual channel 128bit memory controllers, one per socket.

As far as whats native,and whats not.... My personal opinion is that if it's on a single die, and it doesnt send cache traffic over the FSB, then it's native. Otherwize if it's an MCM it's a hack, and if it's a dual socket, then it's a dual socket.

So there you have it. !!!!!!s go ahead and rip me apart, as per usual. You guys might want to get a different hobby though. The truth is I'm nobody important, what Is the point in trying so desperately, and failing to prove me wrong? I dont get it. Some of you guys have made it you life goal to crap on what I say. Why?

 

[harpoon]

As I understand it, DDR2 and DDR1 provide the *same* bandwith when at identical clockspeeds/latencies.

However, DDR2 was designed to scale to 1GHz and beyond, DDR1 tops out at around 500MHz.

Therefore, DDR2 @ 1GHz will provide close to 2x the bandwith of DDR1 @ 500MHz. I say 'close' because DDR2 latencies are still higher than DDR1 latencies.