AMD Quad Core Discussion & Editorial

Personally (and I say personally because I know others will disagree with me), I really hope that the 4x4 platform does not catch on....it is a loophole to get the performance crown (Nvidia started it).

So now in addition to getting two vid cards for a system, we have to get two CPUs?

If this catches on, Intel will have a variation of the same thing. Then AMD will have an 8x8 platform...

I wish they can focus on competing on a singe module CPU front.
 
Lolento said:
Personally (and I say personally because I know others will disagree with me), I really hope that the 4x4 platform does not catch on....it is a loophole to get the performance crown (Nvidia started it).

So now in addition to getting two vid cards for a system, we have to get two CPUs?

If this catches on, Intel will have a variation of the same thing. Then AMD will have an 8x8 platform...

I wish they can focus on competing on a singe module CPU front.
Click to expand...

Why not go multi core? It is only a matter of time before every software platform utilizes threading extensively. In due time, games will make heavy use of threading, and adding cores will, hopefully, increase performance linearly.
 
simpsond said:
Why not go multi core? It is only a matter of time before every software platform utilizes threading extensively. In due time, games will make heavy use of threading, and adding cores will, hopefully, increase performance linearly.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on adding more cores to the system. I'm commenting on the way they're going about it. The trend that they are trying to set.

Intel is going to 4 cores by using a multi chip module (Kentsfield). AMD initially will be going to 4 cores by the way of 4x4. Which way is more flexible to the average consumer?

I think the direction of where AMD is going (wrt to system) is kind of goofy lately. For example (in addition to the 4x4), they mentioned that AM3 (DDR3 memory controller) will be backward compatible to AM2 (DDR2 memory)... So, why not make AM2 backward compatible to s939? This way the people who wants to upgrade through AMD will have less headache...
 
A little vague IMO, but any news is good news when it's AMD... ;)

4x4 will hardly be aimed at the masses, if anything it is a stopgap solution so that AMD has a pseudo 'quad core' to combat Kentsfield in the meantime.

So I figure AMD has ~6 months of 4x4 65nm K8s before it moves to K8L. Once K8L is released, with native quad core, who will consider 4x4? 4x4 K8L quad core for eight cores?

That is hardly practical for the desktop market unless you are a hardcore folder.
 
harpoon said:
4x4 will hardly be aimed at the masses, if anything it is a stopgap solution so that AMD has a pseudo 'quad core' to combat Kentsfield in the meantime.
Click to expand...

4x4 is not a pseudo 'quad core'. It is a 2P platform.

If it could manage 2 quad core's it would still be a 2P platform, not a pseudo 'octo-core'. And if it manages 2 single cores, it would still be a 2P platform, not a pseudo 'dual-core'....you get the idea.
 
Xbox 360 has three dual-core processors onboard..
Click to expand...
Wow, the Xbox 360 is much more powerful than I thought. :eek:

I find it highly amusing that people actually believe AMD is going to give any real information about K8L. I have a sneaking feeling AMD is withholding a universe of information on their next gen products.
 
yeah, was gonna nit pick on about the xbox proc also.. (tri-core w/HT) ;)

it was neat to read about the amd/ati merger.. i really hope something cool comes out of it, not just amd/ati boxes.
 
Lolento said:
I'm not commenting on adding more cores to the system. I'm commenting on the way they're going about it. The trend that they are trying to set.

Intel is going to 4 cores by using a multi chip module (Kentsfield). AMD initially will be going to 4 cores by the way of 4x4. Which way is more flexible to the average consumer?
Click to expand...
4x4 since it is possible to purchase one CPU now, the second one later. At least that is how the Opteron 2P platform works.
I think the direction of where AMD is going (wrt to system) is kind of goofy lately. For example (in addition to the 4x4), they mentioned that AM3 (DDR3 memory controller) will be backward compatible to AM2 (DDR2 memory)... So, why not make AM2 backward compatible to s939? This way the people who wants to upgrade through AMD will have less headache...
Click to expand...
Because the memory controller is on the CPU, it would be difficult and wasting space to support 3 different types of RAM. What is so bad about AM2 anyway? If you don't like it, don't upgrade. And if you want 4x4 you will need new mobo + CPU + RAM anyways.
 
harpoon said:
So I figure AMD has ~6 months of 4x4 65nm K8s before it moves to K8L. Once K8L is released, with native quad core, who will consider 4x4? 4x4 K8L quad core for eight cores?

That is hardly practical for the desktop market unless you are a hardcore folder.
Click to expand...

But for low-cost DC workstations this could be a bliss! I tell you I'd gladly swap our entire renderservers (20x500W, 20xgraficscards, 20x HDDs etc etc.) for 3 nice 4x4 workstations with 24 cores total :D
 
If you want to add a game that support dual-core you forgot Company of heroes. It just released and is the best RTS I have played removing C&C Generals from my PC.
 
drizzt81 said:
4x4 since it is possible to purchase one CPU now, the second one later. At least that is how the Opteron 2P platform works.

Because the memory controller is on the CPU, it would be difficult and wasting space to support 3 different types of RAM. What is so bad about AM2 anyway? If you don't like it, don't upgrade. And if you want 4x4 you will need new mobo + CPU + RAM anyways.
Click to expand...

yea, i think the 4x4 platform is established explicitly to compete with Intel's quad core chip. i don't think anybody would be surprised if reviewers compare this 2P system with Intel's 1P 4-core system eventhough they are different platforms. With that said, I personally do not wish that 4x4 will catch on because it starts a bad trend... And like you said, 2P platform is not new.

Regarding to my comment on AM3, I think if AM3 can be backward compatible to DDR2, then AM2 should be backward compatible to DDR. I'm not saying AM3 should be compatible to all DDR generations. Does AM2 have any other killer feature other than DDR2 controller?
 
Lolento said:
Personally (and I say personally because I know others will disagree with me), I really hope that the 4x4 platform does not catch on....it is a loophole to get the performance crown (Nvidia started it).

So now in addition to getting two vid cards for a system, we have to get two CPUs?

If this catches on, Intel will have a variation of the same thing. Then AMD will have an 8x8 platform...

I wish they can focus on competing on a singe module CPU front.
Click to expand...

You are right, why in the heck would anyone want a system where they could add a second GPU for more graphics capabilities, or another CPU for more SMP performance enhancements.

Monolithic FTW! :rolleyes:

While it may not be for everyone, I personally have the exact opposite view.

1. While I'm not using SLI, I purchased an SLI motherboard so that if I ever wanted to, I could pickup a second card and have enhanced performance. This covers me for in between GPU generations as the early adopters will sell their older cards on ebay for fairly cheap. I've seen lots of arguments from non-SLI or CrossFire adopters that it's insane to buy two older gen cards when a single new-Gen card may provide similar performance. YET, this market segment is growing so they must all be idiots like myself ;)

2. Upgradeability of CPU performance by adding another processor. This personally excites me as instead of having to wait for an Octa-Core single processor, I can add two of the quad-core (or add two dual-core for quad-core like performance). This makes even more sense than SLI or CrossFire in my opinion. I could for example, purchase a 4x4 motherboard and one single CPU of the best performance that I could afford at that time. Another year or so down the road, I could throw in a second at a much cheaper price (especially since AMD and Intel will be locked into pricing wars to win the CPU battle).

Having those options available doesn't mean you are forced to exercise them, but it provides additional options to the consumer, which is always a win.

If like SLI it catches on, and I'll personally be one of the purchasers of a 4x4 motherboard, you can just sit back and tell us all how lame we are when we could purchase the next gen single proc system for less (and have to purchase them more frequently to keep a reasonable performance crown).
 
HighTest said:
You are right, why in the heck would anyone want a system where they could add a second GPU for more graphics capabilities, or another CPU for more SMP performance enhancements.

Monolithic FTW! :rolleyes:

While it may not be for everyone, I personally have the exact opposite view.

1. While I'm not using SLI, I purchased an SLI motherboard so that if I ever wanted to, I could pickup a second card and have enhanced performance. This covers me for in between GPU generations as the early adopters will sell their older cards on ebay for fairly cheap. I've seen lots of arguments from non-SLI or CrossFire adopters that it's insane to buy two older gen cards when a single new-Gen card may provide similar performance. YET, this market segment is growing so they must all be idiots like myself ;)

2. Upgradeability of CPU performance by adding another processor. This personally excites me as instead of having to wait for an Octa-Core single processor, I can add two of the quad-core (or add two dual-core for quad-core like performance). This makes even more sense than SLI or CrossFire in my opinion. I could for example, purchase a 4x4 motherboard and one single CPU of the best performance that I could afford at that time. Another year or so down the road, I could throw in a second at a much cheaper price (especially since AMD and Intel will be locked into pricing wars to win the CPU battle).

Having those options available doesn't mean you are forced to exercise them, but it provides additional options to the consumer, which is always a win.

If like SLI it catches on, and I'll personally be one of the purchasers of a 4x4 motherboard, you can just sit back and tell us all how lame we are when we could purchase the next gen single proc system for less (and have to purchase them more frequently to keep a reasonable performance crown).
Click to expand...

Yea, I know people would disagree with my personal view that SLI and 4x4 is a bad trend. And I'm not saying that adopters of the SLI or 4x4 platforms are idiots.

I just don't think 4x4 is an elegent engineering solution. It seems more like a business decision to market this platform.

We're already seeing Nvidia go from two gpus to 4 gpus. I would expect ATi to match it. Then Nvidia would top it....then ATi....
 
§kynet said:
Wow, the Xbox 360 is much more powerful than I thought. :eek:

I find it highly amusing that people actually believe AMD is going to give any real information about K8L. I have a sneaking feeling AMD is withholding a universe of information on their next gen products.
Click to expand...
ehhhh
 
Lolento said:
Yea, I know people would disagree with my personal view that SLI and 4x4 is a bad trend. And I'm not saying that adopters of the SLI or 4x4 platforms are idiots.

I just don't think 4x4 is an elegent engineering solution. It seems more like a business decision to market this platform.

We're already seeing Nvidia go from two gpus to 4 gpus. I would expect ATi to match it. Then Nvidia would top it....then ATi....
Click to expand...

How could it not be elegant? It's a non registered version of what Opteron does, and to this day HT is THE single most elegant interconnect in use today... Not to mention that so far NOBODY has come close to competing with the scalability of MOESI....

It's a tried and true, mature solution that has finally trickled down to the desktop. It has taken far too long in my opinion.
 
Lolento said:
I just don't think 4x4 is an elegent engineering solution. It seems more like a business decision to market this platform.
Click to expand...

No worries, just wanted to get the rebutal out there. As for elegent engineering solution, I can understand the point of view of a single well engineered and high performance system with a single GPU, CPU and whatnot.

At the same time though, I also see greater parallelism or multithreaded processing based solutions as elegant as well. Even if for marketing purposes, the idea of multiple cpus with multi-core solutions is an engineering solution that could be viewed as an elegant and yet simplified way to acheive an end. End-user upgradeability to yet greater processing performance.

Having multiple CPUs with multpile cores are really an extension of a single CPU with multiple cores of a greater density. It's far easier to develop solutions with multiple lower cost processors than a much higher cost single integrated processor. Not to mention redundancy. Servers have long promoted dual or more processors so that the system could recover from a single processor failure, albiet at a lower performance with the failed processor not contributing to the processing load.

An excellent example of elegant engineering is your brain. It is filled with millions of single core processors called neurons in an extreme example of parallelism taken to a facinating degree. Look how many can lead productive lives when portions of their brain are damaged due to accident or disease. If we had a single processing brain, any damage would result in immediate death as there would be no biological redundancy.

Elegant, and so is greater parallelism of processors.
 
§kynet said:
I have a sneaking feeling AMD is withholding a universe of information on their next gen products.
Click to expand...
ORLY?!

of course, amd tends to do that :p
 
HighTest said:
No worries, just wanted to get the rebutal out there. As for elegent engineering solution, I can understand the point of view of a single well engineered and high performance system with a single GPU, CPU and whatnot.

At the same time though, I also see greater parallelism or multithreaded processing based solutions as elegant as well. Even if for marketing purposes, the idea of multiple cpus with multi-core solutions is an engineering solution that could be viewed as an elegant and yet simplified way to acheive an end. End-user upgradeability to yet greater processing performance.

Having multiple CPUs with multpile cores are really an extension of a single CPU with multiple cores of a greater density. It's far easier to develop solutions with multiple lower cost processors than a much higher cost single integrated processor. Not to mention redundancy. Servers have long promoted dual or more processors so that the system could recover from a single processor failure, albiet at a lower performance with the failed processor not contributing to the processing load.

An excellent example of elegant engineering is your brain. It is filled with millions of single core processors called neurons in an extreme example of parallelism taken to a facinating degree. Look how many can lead productive lives when portions of their brain are damaged due to accident or disease. If we had a single processing brain, any damage would result in immediate death as there would be no biological redundancy.

Elegant, and so is greater parallelism of processors.
Click to expand...

I am reminded of Torrenza. This is the first step. What would most of you guys do if you only had one PCI slot? It'd suck. I know. Becouse we got sound cards and Ethernet cards, and other devices that need to be plugged in...

Soon real soon Torrenza will be on us.
 
I suppose the 4x4 platform does give the average user more flexibility to upgrade. And eventhough I'm dead-set against it, there are people who will support this platform.

But I guess the rhetorical question is where will the line be drawn?

If 4x4 is successful, it will not be difficult for Intel to market similar solution; common sense tells us that AMD will then try to top itself...

Nvidia is already putting 4 GPUs in one system...ATi is working to put a third PCI-express slot on motherboards.

Off the shelf business servers can have as many as 8 processors...

If there is that much processing power in a consumer level system, softwares (games) will be written to utilize it.

The state of setting up a decent gaming system now is that if you get a single mid-range card or low-mid range card, don't expect to run all the latest games with the latest features...(ie try to get a single 7600gt to run Oblivion at decent frame rate and resolution) How far will this "discrimination" extend in the future with consumer level multi-processor setups?
 
Lolento said:
If there is that much processing power in a consumer level system, softwares (games) will be written to utilize it.
Click to expand...
and that's really a bad thing? we want to get multithreading programs out there quickly, since quite a number of us have multicore processors... ;)
 
He's just making excuses becouse he know Intel wont have anything to compete for quite some time.
 
Bao01 said:
Damn right, that's confusing. The quad cores have been said to be same power as current parts, and yet, only 50% more IPC?

IPC is not a measure of real world performance or a marketing catchword, as you well know, but some certain benchmark criterion.

If we look at Kentsfield and see how well it does in SiSoft Sandra, we'd think that a 50% IPC per watt gain for a quad-core is falling backwards, not moving forwards.

Thanks for trying to remain impartial, Kyle. Though the impression Phil might have wanted to convey is that K8L will exceed Core 2 Duo in performace, I'm convinced of the opposite.

If we look at your own overclock of the E6300 on the Intel stock heatsink, we might as well conclude that even if Phil were referring to K8L dual cores, the K8L will be well behind the Core 2 Duo.
Click to expand...


IPC shouldn't change with the amount of cores. 50% improvement should be per core, unless this is total marketing BS, which I doubt.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
IPC shouldn't change with the amount of cores. 50% improvement should be per core, unless this is total marketing BS, which I doubt.
Click to expand...

The guy quoted is the chief engineer. I wouldnt be surprized if what he says is true.
 
wizzackr said:
which is why I said "low-cost" in my first post. 4x4 should be considerably less. than a workstation buit around fb-dimms and cloverton.
Click to expand...

You said two things:

1) low-cost DC(dual-core) workstations.

2) replacing your render farm with 3 4x4 workstations with 8 cores each - meaning 2x QC(quad-core), not dual-cores.

So,

A) I don't know how or why you would compare 4x4 DC workstations to Clovertown and not Woodcrest

and

B) How you know 4x4 QC would be cheaper than Clovertown. But, that's irrelevant because you can't get it until the middle of next year and that was my only point.

Sure, FB-DIMMS are expensive. But, they're pretty much enthusiast/gaming level pricing so that the bulk of the cost is still in the MOBO+CPU.

But, if you're saying low-cost is important, there's still Kentsfield which won't need as expensive motherboards as 4x4 or FB-DIMMS.

Make sense?
 
Bao01 said:
You said two things:

1) low-cost DC(dual-core) workstations.

2) replacing your render farm with 3 4x4 workstations with 8 cores each - meaning 2x QC(quad-core), not dual-cores.

So,

A) I don't know how or why you would compare 4x4 DC workstations to Clovertown and not Woodcrest

and

B) How you know 4x4 QC would be cheaper than Clovertown. But, that's irrelevant because you can't get it until the middle of next year and that was my only point.

Sure, FB-DIMMS are expensive. But, they're pretty much enthusiast/gaming level pricing so that the bulk of the cost is still in the MOBO+CPU.

But, if you're saying low-cost is important, there's still Kentsfield which won't need as expensive motherboards as 4x4 or FB-DIMMS.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

There is also the cost of upgradability, and functional expansion. We know that there will be co-processors available for Socket AM2 in the near future. We also know that quad cores will be available for socket AM2 in the near future....
 
One of the things that was mentioned about the second socket in the 4x4 is the application specific co-processor possibility.

In the enthusiast arena, there is only really two application specific co-processor necessity, graphics and physics.

It is not hard to imagine that ATi can support and design a graphics chip as a co-processor, but will Nvidia embrace it as well? Hard to say since PCI-express is right now the industry standard.

Who will design a physics co-processor for AMD remains to be seen... I think it is too far into the future to speculate about these possibilities since third party design will only be viable if the 4x4 platform is an overwhelming success (which is also remain to be seen).

For now, I would say 4x4 is a quad core alternative to Intel's Kentsfield in the immediate future.
 
Lolento said:
Personally (and I say personally because I know others will disagree with me), I really hope that the 4x4 platform does not catch on....it is a loophole to get the performance crown (Nvidia started it).

So now in addition to getting two vid cards for a system, we have to get two CPUs?

If this catches on, Intel will have a variation of the same thing. Then AMD will have an 8x8 platform...

I wish they can focus on competing on a singe module CPU front.
Click to expand...


Dude the technology doesn't have anyway to go form here but multicore...Do some research first before you post your wishes...or change your wishes to adjust to reality, ITS PHYSICALLY IMPOSIBBLE TO GET AHEAD MUCH FURTHER ON FREQUENCY ONLY.

Unless you wanna pay thousands and thousands on Si+Ge chips...350 Ghz anyone whoooo...
 
Lolento said:
I'm not commenting on adding more cores to the system. I'm commenting on the way they're going about it. The trend that they are trying to set.

Intel is going to 4 cores by using a multi chip module (Kentsfield). AMD initially will be going to 4 cores by the way of 4x4. Which way is more flexible to the average consumer?

I think the direction of where AMD is going (wrt to system) is kind of goofy lately. For example (in addition to the 4x4), they mentioned that AM3 (DDR3 memory controller) will be backward compatible to AM2 (DDR2 memory)... So, why not make AM2 backward compatible to s939? This way the people who wants to upgrade through AMD will have less headache...
Click to expand...


i'm not absolutely sure but i deduct is becaus there is a technology barrier between the DDR 1 and DDR 2 works(this i'm certain of), what I'm not certain of is if the same happens with DDR2 and DDR3, again do your research...
 
wizzackr said:
But for low-cost DC workstations this could be a bliss! I tell you I'd gladly swap our entire renderservers (20x500W, 20xgraficscards, 20x HDDs etc etc.) for 3 nice 4x4 workstations with 24 cores total :D
Click to expand...


i feel ya... SMP all the wayy baby...yeah!!!!
 
Lolento said:
yea, i think the 4x4 platform is established explicitly to compete with Intel's quad core chip. i don't think anybody would be surprised if reviewers compare this 2P system with Intel's 1P 4-core system eventhough they are different platforms. With that said, I personally do not wish that 4x4 will catch on because it starts a bad trend... And like you said, 2P platform is not new.

Regarding to my comment on AM3, I think if AM3 can be backward compatible to DDR2, then AM2 should be backward compatible to DDR. I'm not saying AM3 should be compatible to all DDR generations. Does AM2 have any other killer feature other than DDR2 controller?
Click to expand...


On second though is just a matter of economy and good engineering thinking.. AM2 was designed for dual core which DDR2 is thought for, not DDR1...which is for singleton.
 
Lolento said:
Yea, I know people would disagree with my personal view that SLI and 4x4 is a bad trend. And I'm not saying that adopters of the SLI or 4x4 platforms are idiots.

I just don't think 4x4 is an elegent engineering solution. It seems more like a business decision to market this platform.

We're already seeing Nvidia go from two gpus to 4 gpus. I would expect ATi to match it. Then Nvidia would top it....then ATi....
Click to expand...


And what do you suggest instead of that approach?

Cause you just got me curious. Is he a talker, or a smart one?

Your choice to disclose.
:cool:
 
HighTest said:
No worries, just wanted to get the rebutal out there. As for elegent engineering solution, I can understand the point of view of a single well engineered and high performance system with a single GPU, CPU and whatnot.

At the same time though, I also see greater parallelism or multithreaded processing based solutions as elegant as well. Even if for marketing purposes, the idea of multiple cpus with multi-core solutions is an engineering solution that could be viewed as an elegant and yet simplified way to acheive an end. End-user upgradeability to yet greater processing performance.



Having multiple CPUs with multpile cores are really an extension of a single CPU with multiple cores of a greater density. It's far easier to develop solutions with multiple lower cost processors than a much higher cost single integrated processor. Not to mention redundancy. Servers have long promoted dual or more processors so that the system could recover from a single processor failure, albiet at a lower performance with the failed processor not contributing to the processing load.

An excellent example of elegant engineering is your brain. It is filled with millions of single core processors called neurons in an extreme example of parallelism taken to a facinating degree. Look how many can lead productive lives when portions of their brain are damaged due to accident or disease. If we had a single processing brain, any damage would result in immediate death as there would be no biological redundancy.

Elegant, and so is greater parallelism of processors.
Click to expand...

You're my man. Totally agree, smart answer.
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top