QUAD CORE AMD coming in a month! Motherboard showing off today

4 cores in 2 sockets has been around for ages. I wonder why this is "news" ?
 
Order said:
No, in fact I see it as a good thing for me, personally. I don't really game and when I do I don't really care if I have 1000fps. I just want raw power as cheaply as possible. If AMD is bringing down the price of dual-socket boards then I'm happy to hear it. Besides, the K8L and the 1207-pin Opteron boards are going to have lots of things to offer that a dual-socket AM2 board cannot.
Click to expand...


Yes but you can purchase a conroe setup thats much faster and efficient than even one amd... so why would you pay for two amd's that costs each more than the conroe just to be able to match the conroe level of performance (assuming for basic functionality)?
 
Robstar said:
4 cores in 2 sockets has been around for ages. I wonder why this is "news" ?
Click to expand...


It's news because people can take their FX62's and pair them up to match the conroes performance and still be beaten by speed.
 
Ockie said:
Yes but you can purchase a conroe setup thats much faster and efficient than even one amd... so why would you pay for two amd's that costs each more than the conroe just to be able to match the conroe level of performance (assuming for basic functionality)?
Click to expand...
There are a good 5 or so assumptions in that post. Care to make a post that doesn't contain so much speculation?
 
Ockie said:
Yes but you can purchase a conroe setup thats much faster and efficient than even one amd... so why would you pay for two amd's that costs each more than the conroe just to be able to match the conroe level of performance (assuming for basic functionality)?
Click to expand...

you can purchase a conroe setup? where?

cause I can get a Dual-Dual Core setup right at this moment.
 
pffft... it'd be more interesting when the quad core processors come out.... :D :p ::shifty eyes::
 
Tetrahedron said:
you can purchase a conroe setup? where?

cause I can get a Dual-Dual Core setup right at this moment.
Click to expand...


Some reviewers have the conroe, I'm not going to say anymore as I am a reviewer... so I guess I'll go with "Nuff Said!". Anyways, their release is expected soon and it's a realiity, it's not a paper launch.

I have a dual core dual setup here so the argument of having a dual amd to beat the conroe is a moot point.
 
visaris said:
There are a good 5 or so assumptions in that post. Care to make a post that doesn't contain so much speculation?
Click to expand...



I don't see any assumptions there as the price listings has been made official, the release date is official, the conroe is past the paper launch, it's actually a reality, the reviewers and benchmarks argues in the same direction.


So what am I speculating about?


If you think more cores = more speed... then you are in for a major suprise. More speed when you run multiple threads yes, but each of those threads can only run as fast as the core itself. Don't think your going to get on a dual or quad core dual or quad the performance in games or single threaded (including non-enchanced multi threaded aps). Most of our games today are either single or limited multi threading (such as moving the voice processing over to the other core)... so adding 100 cores to the mix isn't going to solve the problem of speeding anything up unless if you are using a intensive program such as converting, decoding, graphic design applications, etc... but if you are looking at any of those, then you should be looking at the opteron solution series.



If you think more cores or cpus = more speed then somone please explain why my 8 way xeon p3 plays games crappily when it's combined power is greater than that of todays most advanced processors.
 
Ockie said:
I don't see any assumptions there as the price listings has been made official, the release date is official, the conroe is past the paper launch, it's actually a reality, the reviewers and benchmarks argues in the same direction.


So what am I speculating about?


If you think more cores = more speed... then you are in for a major suprise. More speed when you run multiple threads yes, but each of those threads can only run as fast as the core itself. Don't think your going to get on a dual or quad core dual or quad the performance in games or single threaded (including non-enchanced multi threaded aps). Most of our games today are either single or limited multi threading (such as moving the voice processing over to the other core)... so adding 100 cores to the mix isn't going to solve the problem of speeding anything up unless if you are using a intensive program such as converting, decoding, graphic design applications, etc... but if you are looking at any of those, then you should be looking at the opteron solution series.
Click to expand...

of course its NOT a paper launch.. but you can NOT buy one at this exact moment nevertheless.

and yes I believe WE all have a bit a speculation occuring.. especially since the Conroe proc isnt out in retail form yet.. what happens if there is a major glitch in a bunch of these procs that goes unnoticed and there is a recall? how would that affect Intel? so how is that for speculation eh?

also adding more cores DOES help... not all of us care about just gaming performance.. some of us actually do use our computers for intensive purposes such as converting, decoding, graphic design apps, etc.... so i guess the conroe cant compete then with the opteron for those purposes is what i hearing from you? i doubt that. the conroe looks to be an awesome chip... but i would still rather have more cores overall at this point.
 
Tetrahedron said:
of course its NOT a paper launch.. but you can NOT buy one at this exact moment nevertheless.

and yes I believe WE all have a bit a speculation occuring.. especially since the Conroe proc isnt out in retail form yet.. what happens if there is a major glitch in a bunch of these procs that goes unnoticed and there is a recall? how would that affect Intel? so how is that for speculation eh?

also adding more cores DOES help... not all of us care about just gaming performance.. some of us actually do use our computers for intensive purposes such as converting, decoding, graphic design apps, etc.... so i guess the conroe cant compete then with the opteron for those purposes is what i hearing from you? i doubt that. the conroe looks to be an awesome chip... but i would still rather have more cores overall at this point.
Click to expand...



Since the quad amd is rumored at this point... I don't see your point as it's simply a moot point and carries no weight in your disaccredidation of my views. So maybe you don't want to bash my points when my points are actually confirmed and validated whereas your points are complete speculation.

I'm saying the conroe can't compete to a multi core platform that was designed for intensive and critical applications... hence the main purpose of the opteron/xeon lineup. The conreo and the am2's are enthusiast lineups in their own respective rights. The conroe is cheaper than the am2 platforms and thats been confirmed, it's also faster and that has been also confirmed, so I do not understand why you are dissagreeing with my points as they are proven facts.


This is why I hate brand loyalty, people are blindly favoring one thing over another. And incase you are wondering I'm a diehard AMD fan since the K6 era but I'm not a blind AMD Fan. I keep up to the facts and I keep my options open.
 
You gotta buy DDR2 ram then only knowing DDR3 is just around the corner. Then you have to buy an new motherboard plus two processors seems an expensive upgrade anyway you cut it. I am happy with my opty 180 for now...not ready to slap $3000-$4000 on another computer. Top it off DX10 video cards to boot.

I'll wait.
 
Sounds like a bloody daft idea. It'll take Intel all of 4 seconds to come up with a competing solution of "Hey, we can rebadge a 'server/workstation like board' (more that one socket) and have dual socket as well."

At the moment we've got pretty much squat (games-wise) using dual core, why the feck would we need 4 cores?

Smells like marketting and a stopgap till that can get some 65nm processors and the K8L out the door.
 
Sable said:
Sounds like a bloody daft idea. It'll take Intel all of 4 seconds to come up with a competing solution of "Hey, we can rebadge a 'server/workstation like board' (more that one socket) and have dual socket as well."

At the moment we've got pretty much squat (games-wise) using dual core, why the feck would we need 4 cores?

Smells like marketting and a stopgap till that can get some 65nm processors and the K8L out the door.
Click to expand...



If AMD proves sucessful, I'm sure Intel will follow very quick after. I do not see intel sitting on the bench, intel has seemed to be really on the offensive latley and they wont let this slide.

I'm thinking Intel has already considered AMD's rumor of a dual socket enthusiast solution and are probably drafting up their own designs.


Dual conroes... haha... I have a feeling that enthusiast computing is about to get very expensive.
 
The new 4x4 platform will feature two dual-core chips coupled with a dual-socket capable motherboard. AMD will also be releasing a new enthusiast focused chipset for the market, which is designed to take non-ECC unbuffered DDR memory. The new motherboards will be AM2 based, and take new AM2 FX-62 and higher -- all AM2 Athlon FX processors will have at least two cores.

taken off dailytech

Cheap workstation HAHAHAHA. I was hoping they would not do that... They just eliminated alot of people.

AMD says that 4x4 is not simply workstation and server technology reduced down to consumer level, but is in fact, a whole new design. The company indicated that the new 4x4 chipset will be able to allow each processor core to have direct access to memory, and to have direct access to each other. The technology is called Direct Connect, and according to AMD, will be able to give huge boost to performance over traditional multi-socket platforms.

Huge improvements? If amd processors are scaling well, how much more of an improvment could there be?

link
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2638
 
Depending on the price of the boards and the requirements of them, couldn't this also be seen as an answer to products like the P-D 805? Two Semprons or two A64 3000+ would be close to or under $200 and would give you performance close to an X2 3800+.

*edit*
Nevermind, their announcment seems to exclude single core parts from being used in the motherboards, too bad.
*edit*
 
NulloModo said:
They've shown minor to moderate performance superiority, 10fps in some games is hardly overwhelming. But, this is off topic, so I will end it there.
Click to expand...

And what exactly are you smoking???

 
I was so hoping to be able to plug in a pair of $75 Semprons and get a dual CPU machine.
(Visions of dual celerons on my VP6 dancing in my head and all that).
Doesn't look like it though does it.
 
Tetrahedron said:
of course its NOT a paper launch.. but you can NOT buy one at this exact moment nevertheless.

and yes I believe WE all have a bit a speculation occuring.. especially since the Conroe proc isnt out in retail form yet.. what happens if there is a major glitch in a bunch of these procs that goes unnoticed and there is a recall? how would that affect Intel? so how is that for speculation eh?

also adding more cores DOES help... not all of us care about just gaming performance.. some of us actually do use our computers for intensive purposes such as converting, decoding, graphic design apps, etc.... so i guess the conroe cant compete then with the opteron for those purposes is what i hearing from you? i doubt that. the conroe looks to be an awesome chip... but i would still rather have more cores overall at this point.
Click to expand...

After I picked myself up off the floor from laughing my a$$ off. Even when AMD desperate they're constantly looking and finding suckers. As many folks already said, you can get this *NEW* thing with Dual Opterons right now :D

Adding more core aren't bad but: "

AMD's Barry said that machines with the new sockets will be to run multithreaded games at better performance levels than Intel-based machines. He said that more game companies have begun to adapt their games to exploit multiple threads in a PC, allowing them to handle more tasks at the same time and thereby run much games faster and prettier for gamers. "
Click to expand...

THis is an AMD person talking about an AMD product. Not some Intel Fan misquoting or spreading FUD. There are no $-Threaded games and very few that are Dual Threaded. Even those Run great on current Dual Core from Intel and AMD, woooowhoooo! Conroe has been tested and it runs games faster than anything out now, yes being tested now. Goes on sale in about one month.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/10086

Now in defense of AMD. If they've already did something like reverse Hylperthreading then now you have each half of one Thread being worked on by two cores, you're rockin'. Even if that were a Dual thread that has two cores working one part each, you're still kicking butt!

Intel will have to have not only do Dual Sc-771 Xeons, but also have means for Dual 16X PCI-E with Quad SLI support. SO what if there are Ding-Bats who don't know that its Quad GPU SLI providing most of the boost instead Quad Core processors? Anybody seen Quad Crossfire or SLI on Bensley?

Intel has already Demoed Quad Core Kentfield.
 
Ockie said:
Thats what I said about 3dfx before they slapped 4 cores on their video card pcb's instead of making them faster.
Click to expand...

/comes out of the closet

the reason why 3dfx failed was because they had all of their efforts put into advertising and selling/spending instead of their virtually non-existant R&D department. Insiders told that even in their last days, just 30,000$ were spent on lunch alone, and that was for a day.

/back to the closet
 
I am really confused...

is this just dual socket marketed towards regular-type-people?

I use a dual socket dual core opteron machine here at work... I am trying to figure out what, if anything, is new about this.

dual socket 940 pin motherboards have been around for years now. my work box even has PCIe and all the other "new" shit already.


ok I am thinking about this... ok you remove the restriction to only registered memory, and you get asus and DFI to put alot of tweaky overclocking options on there... it would be more fun then a dual socket opteron system, but without ability to go above 4gb of ram.
 
Why did this become ANOTHER !!!!ing argument with Intel and AMD zealots battling each other over products that aren't even out yet? This is for SPECULATION about a product, not anything that anyone knows 100% about so fucking stop declaring victory for either side.
 
IIRC The Dual socket for gamers has been planned since the early K7 days. At the time it didn't really make sense since there were virtually no apps, much less games which used more than one thread.

Having a "quad" core platform does make sense now, it gives a nice upgrade path for enthusiasts, you can get a dual-core processor and a single video card and then upgrade to the ultimate gaming rig, twin dual core cpus and SLI or X-fire.
 
I like the idea of consumer dual socket boards. I'd get some nice use out of it, but 4x4 is going to do little or nothing for gaming over a single dual core X2/FX.

If the price of the boards is reasonable (and overclockable), i'll definitely consider 2 x 35W X2 3800s over a planned Core 2 Duo E6600 upgrade. But I have a feeling 4x4 is going to be twice as expensive, and only offer modest performance gains when both (4x4 and Core 2) systems are overclocked.
 
Ockie said:
If you think more cores = more speed... then you are in for a major suprise.
Click to expand...

As a multi-threaded software developer, I know what the additional cores will offer and I'm in for no surprise.

Ockie said:
More speed when you run multiple threads yes, but each of those threads can only run as fast as the core itself. Don't think your going to get on a dual or quad core dual or quad the performance in games or single threaded (including non-enchanced multi threaded aps). Most of our games today are either single or limited multi threading (such as moving the voice processing over to the other core)... so adding 100 cores to the mix isn't going to solve the problem of speeding anything up unless if you are using a intensive program such as converting, decoding, graphic design applications, etc... but if you are looking at any of those, then you should be looking at the opteron solution series.
Click to expand...

Don't lecture me on multi-threaded software. I write multi-threaded software for a living, and from reading your post it is clear I am much more familiar with its intricacies than you are. Adding a second AM2 socket and an additional two cores is not going to double the performance. No one is claiming that it will.

AMD's 4x4 move is simply a way to bring the cost down on dual-socket machines. If you ask almost any enthusiast why they went with single socket vs. dual socket, they will tell you one word: "price". I don't see how you think AMD lowering the price on dual-socket is a bad thing, and I certainly can't understand why you would want to come in here on a bash-fest.

First people started bashing AM2 because it didn't double performance, and now the trolls are going off about how 4x4 sucks because it will not double performance either. Nevermind the fact that both 4x4 and AM2 are an improvement and bring a performance increase. :rolleyes:

For the longest time Intel fans have been holding up ecoding benchmarks as a defense for netburst chips. Now that AMD has plans to offer a superior encoding station at a much lower price than what they currently offer, you want to turn the tables around and say that a 4-core desktop encoding powerhouse doesn't matter? :rolleyes:
 
AMD's 4x4 move is simply a way to bring the cost down on dual-socket machines. If you ask almost any enthusiast why they went with single socket vs. dual socket, they will tell you one word: "price"
Click to expand...

How about: Registered DDR!

First people started bashing AM2 because it didn't double performance, and now the trolls are going off about how 4x4 sucks because it will not double performance either. Nevermind the fact that both 4x4 and AM2 are an improvement and bring a performance increase.
Click to expand...

AMD will need to double the performance of single threaded apps to compete, as Conroe is just that much faster. Sad day for AMD :(
 
fhpchris said:
How about: Registered DDR!
Click to expand...
4x4 uses normal unbuffered DDR2. I don't know what you are trying to imply here, but I suspect you are just trying to spread FUD.

fhpchris said:
AMD will need to double the performance of single threaded apps to compete, as Conroe is just that much faster. Sad day for AMD :(
Click to expand...
Are you really going on record with a claim that on average, across most enthusiast workloads (these are enthusiast CPUs we are talking about here) that two Conroe cores at 2.93GHz are going to outperform four K8 cores at 3.0GHz? I think you are going to find yourself pretty embarrassed if you do so... Conroe is a great chip, but it's not that great.
 
visaris said:
4x4 uses normal unbuffered DDR2. I don't know what you are trying to imply here, but I suspect you are just trying to spread FUD.

Everyone knows the 2XX Opterons use Registered DDR, and that is why GAMERS do not use them -- not price.

Are you really going on record with a claim that on average, across most enthusiast workloads (these are enthusiast CPUs we are talking about here) that two Conroe cores at 2.93GHz are going to outperform four K8 cores at 3.0GHz? I think you are going to find yourself pretty embarrassed if you do so... Conroe is a great chip, but it's not that great.
Click to expand...

2.93 is what the X6800 runs stock.
3GHZ A64s are overclockes ones.

Go look @ XS -- Team Japan is benching PI @ 4.99 GHZ on Conroe. 4GHZ is capable on AIR

Team Japan is running 1m Pi in less than half the record time on A64. So yes, overclocked to overclocked -- it is a HUGE Performance increase. Dual Core conroe is not going to run this over in encoding or the like, but Woodcrest will...
Click to expand...
 
fhpchris said:
2.93 is what the X6800 runs stock.
3GHZ A64s are overclockes ones.

Go look @ XS -- Team Japan is benching PI @ 4.99 GHZ on Conroe. 4GHZ is capable on AIR

Team Japan is running 1m Pi in less than half the record time on A64. So yes, overclocked to overclocked -- it is a HUGE Performance increase. Dual Core conroe is not going to run this over in encoding or the like, but Woodcrest will...
Click to expand...

Instead of reading the article to check whether his claim was true or not, you chose not to and continued on to trolling Opterons, which I might ask you, what does it have to do with anything?

Here it is:

DailyTech said:
The new 4x4 platform will feature two dual-core chips coupled with a dual-socket capable motherboard. AMD will also be releasing a new enthusiast focused chipset for the market, which is designed to take non-ECC unbuffered DDR memory.
Click to expand...
 
fhpchris said:
Everyone knows the 2XX Opterons use Registered DDR, and that is why GAMERS do not use them -- not price.
Click to expand...
The added latency of buffered memory is more than offset by the doubled memory bandwidth (two memory controllers) and the doubled CPU cores. You are drawing blanks here. Esspecially considering that with with 4x4, the buffered memory excuse no longer applies as 4x4 uses faster, cheaper unbuffered DDR2 modules.

Let me say it again. 4x4 is a step up. It means cheaper, faster parts for all of us. I still don't understand why you want to bash it.

fhpchris said:
Go look @ XS -- Team Japan is benching PI @ 4.99 GHZ on Conroe. 4GHZ is capable on AIR

Team Japan is running 1m Pi in less than half the record time on A64. So yes, overclocked to overclocked -- it is a HUGE Performance increase. Dual Core conroe is not going to run this over in encoding or the like, but Woodcrest will...
Click to expand...

I asked you if you wanted to make a claim about average speed, across most enthusiast workloads. Last I heard, SuperPi is not an enthusiast workload. In fact, it is a toy and not work at all.

So, will you make the claim? Let's here it: tell me right now that you think the Conroe XE at the planned 2.93GHz (max speed until years end) will ouperform an AMD 4x4 system with two FX-64s at 3.0GHz (fastest FX AMD will sell this year) on average across most enthusiast workloads (games, encoding, encryption, compression, photoshop, CAD, backups, etc.).

If you can't make that claim, then at least stop bashing 4x4 for no reason. Some people just like to be mean I guess...
 
some people are missing that 4x4x is only amd athlon fx 62 or BETTER.

yhe new 4x4 platform will feature two dual-core chips coupled with a dual-socket capable motherboard. AMD will also be releasing a new enthusiast focused chipset for the market, which is designed to take non-ECC unbuffered DDR memory. The new motherboards will be AM2 based, and take new AM2 FX-62 and higher -- all AM2 Athlon FX processors will have at least two cores.


I am bashing the platform if this is true!
 
I think this whole speculative argument on whether this is a smart move by AMD can be summed up simply.

If AMD has figured out how to make all four cores work as one to the operating system (anti-hyperthreading) than AMD had created something truly spectacular.
 
thecoldanddarkone said:
some people are missing that 4x4x is only amd athlon fx 62 or BETTER.
Click to expand...
I hope not. The extremetech article mentions using lower processors.

I really don't like these types of product introductions. If AMD is announcing 4x4, they should at least give details if not demonstrate it or seed it to review sites. I won't call it vaporware, but if Intel did the exact same thing fans here would be screaming vapor.
 
Tetrahedron said:
you can purchase a conroe setup? where?

cause I can get a Dual-Dual Core setup right at this moment.
Click to expand...


which is precisely why i think what AMD is doing here is stupid.
 
pxc said:
I hope not. The extremetech article mentions using lower processors.

I really don't like these types of product introductions. If AMD is announcing 4x4, they should at least give details if not demonstrate it or seed it to review sites. I won't call it vaporware, but if Intel did the exact same thing fans here would be screaming vapor.
Click to expand...


I don't care which company it is, if intel was doing this I would call them crack heads as well. I don't think its a very good idea to base a platform on a 1k processor on the ethusiast market. If however it takes reg am2 processors then I think this was a pretty good idea.
 
wow targetting gamers with a system which takes 2 dualcore FX cpu's at ~$1000 each sounds like a good deal...not :rolleyes:
 
pxc said:
I hope not. The extremetech article mentions using lower processors.

I really don't like these types of product introductions. If AMD is announcing 4x4, they should at least give details if not demonstrate it or seed it to review sites. I won't call it vaporware, but if Intel did the exact same thing fans here would be screaming vapor.
Click to expand...

And you know it! The other bad part is there are some folks who'll never admit that anything AMD ever does is wrong, rushed, a gimmick or etc.....
 
Karan said:
wow targetting gamers with a system which takes 2 dualcore FX cpu's at ~$1000 each sounds like a good deal...not :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Shhhhhh don't bring up costs! ;)

Two $1000 processors
Dual Socket dual 16X PCI-E motherboard
Dual DCGPUs Video cards
At least a 600W PSU by PC Power & Cooling might need a 1000W one made by others.
Being able to afford this, "Priceless".
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top