• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Socket F (4x4) is out....

Status
Not open for further replies.
yup, we know :D

Sad that I had high expectations for 4x4,
but it didn't even come close :(

Still gets owned by Intel's counterparts in
performance and energy efficiency...
 
topaimz said:
yup, we know :D

Sad that I had high expectations for 4x4,
but it didn't even come close :(

Still gets owned by Intel's counterparts in
performance and energy efficiency...
Click to expand...

No joke. 4x4 isn't appealing at all when I can drop a better performing QX6700 in my existing machine that uses less power.
 
Yeah this is pretty bad. If you have a 1 kilowatt PSU then it's fine but... Actually, if you have two dual core 3ghz AMD's and that motherboard, than your probably rich enough to buy the best PSU possible.
 
The motherboard in question is an E-ATX motherboard. Leaving you with fewer case choices. You can't just throw that in any Lian-Li or Antec case and expect it to fit.
 
Alot hotter, uses more energy, less efficient, and a hell of a lot more expensive...

Good deal.
 
Arcygenical said:
hell of a lot more expensive...

Good deal.
Click to expand...

Not really. The CPUs and motherboard amount to around $1000. Same as the QX6700. The QX6700 runs cooler and uses less energy while being faster the majority of the time.
 
Dan_D said:
Not really. The CPUs and motherboard amount to around $1000. Same as the QX6700. The QX6700 runs cooler and uses less energy while being faster the majority of the time.
Click to expand...

Umm the FX-74 is $550 a piece so you're looking at $1100 for the CPU's, then the motherboard is $400, so that brings it up to $1600. Then you have to buy two sets of RAM.

The QX6700 is $1000 and a decent high end board is $200-$250, so you're looking at $1250 plus you only have to buy a single set of RAM.
 
Socket L cpu... Socket F mobo? Ok, I must have missed some new compatibility chart from AMD.



 
ryan_975 said:
Umm the FX-74 is $550 a piece so you're looking at $1100 for the CPU's, then the motherboard is $400, so that brings it up to $1600. Then you have to buy two sets of RAM.

The QX6700 is $1000 and a decent high end board is $200-$250, so you're looking at $1250 plus you only have to buy a single set of RAM.
Click to expand...

I thought the CPUs were sold as matching pairs. Not individually.
 
Dan_D said:
I thought the CPUs were sold as matching pairs. Not individually.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, but several members here pointed me in the right direction. Plus one the reviews on Newegg's product page says that he only got one in the box.
 
Dark Prodigy said:
Socket L cpu... Socket F mobo? Ok, I must have missed some new compatibility chart from AMD.



Click to expand...

I don't know what the hell socket L is. Socket F is a 1207 pin socket for newer Opteron CPUs. Typically they are used in high end workstations and some server systems. They compete against Intel's Xeon series CPUs.
 
I think a lot of people are missing a potentially important step with this board. Now that AMD owns ATI it only makes sense that they are going to work on cpu integrated graphics. So for the future, what if amd was to develop a drop in GPU into that socket. Think about the architecture of this board. There is a direct connection between the two cpus, which would increase the communication speed, not to mention the cooling options, as well as being able to use the ram slots for the cpu. In essence this could be the end of video cards as we know them and be the first step into a new gpu architecture.

Of course if this never catches on, and for the price and performance it probably won't, then it might all be wasted. All I'm asking is to think about the possibilities.
 
bigbadgreen said:
I think a lot of people are missing a potentially important step with this board. Now that AMD owns ATI it only makes sense that they are going to work on cpu integrated graphics. So for the future, what if amd was to develop a drop in GPU into that socket. Think about the architecture of this board. There is a direct connection between the two cpus, which would increase the communication speed, not to mention the cooling options, as well as being able to use the ram slots for the cpu. In essence this could be the end of video cards as we know them and be the first step into a new gpu architecture.

Of course if this never catches on, and for the price and performance it probably won't, then it might all be wasted. All I'm asking is to think about the possibilities.
Click to expand...

Gpu on the cpu is more for the low end solution. Discrete solutions will be way faster for quite some time.
 
god, i wish i had made bets with all those people who said 4x4 was gonna blow Intel straight out of the water.
 
rayman2k2 said:
god, i wish i had made bets with all those people who said 4x4 was gonna blow Intel straight out of the water.
Click to expand...

were you going to make the bets when the conroe was already out? If it was before the conroe was out, the 4x4 would have blown everything out of the water
 
{NcsO}ReichstaG said:
Wasn't Arcygenical being sarcastic?
Click to expand...

Dan_D said:
I thought the CPUs were sold as matching pairs. Not individually.
Click to expand...


I wasn't being sarcastic... Lol

And I'm GLAD I was correct that the CPU's were sold 1/box, or else I'd have definitely eaten my own foot XD.

So yeah... 1100 for the CPU, 350 for the Board, at LEAST 300$ for 2 sets of 1GB ram... 1750 for the 4x4... Then you need a bigger case, at least a 400W PSU (for the Board/CPUs only, not including any GPUs).

Compared to the QX6700 @ about 950$ + a board that can be had for about 150$ (P5B-e) and you're at 1100 for the Combo, a standard case and a 200W PSU.

Course, those PSU values are a bit exaggerated... But yknow ;).
 
bigbadgreen said:
I think a lot of people are missing a potentially important step with this board. Now that AMD owns ATI it only makes sense that they are going to work on cpu integrated graphics. So for the future, what if amd was to develop a drop in GPU into that socket. Think about the architecture of this board. There is a direct connection between the two cpus, which would increase the communication speed, not to mention the cooling options, as well as being able to use the ram slots for the cpu. In essence this could be the end of video cards as we know them and be the first step into a new gpu architecture.

Of course if this never catches on, and for the price and performance it probably won't, then it might all be wasted. All I'm asking is to think about the possibilities.
Click to expand...


GPU on CPU?

Dual Core CPU + A midrange GPU would be such a high powered device, with a huge TDP...

While it's eventually coming, I see a few hurdles to get through before these make high-end parts...

Fusion is doomed to be low/mid end for at least a decade or so.
 
I think I will hold onto my 89W opteron 285's (89W < 125W), pci-x & sli motherboard before I'd go 4x4 :)
 
Why is everyone comparing 4x4 with Intel's QX chips? That's like comparing a motherboard with a CPU. It doesn't really make any sense to do so. 4x4 is a platform that one puts CPUs in.

If you want to compare 4x4 to an Intel product, compare it to Inte's version of the platform: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622
Intel's "V8" system will require FB-DIMMs while Quad FX will work with regular unbuffered memory. The AMD Quad FX platform can also support multiple GeForce video cards in SLI configuration, while the "V8" is currently limited to a single graphics card.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you guys just keep bashing AMD and 4x4, the whole time defending and hyping Intel. The truth is in the products, and the truth is that 4x4 has potential, esspecially because it will support two K8L chips. Oh the other hand, Intel's direct competitor, the V8, is a total heap of junk on the desktop, as no one wants a single PCIe slot, and no desktop user wants to buy slow, hot, and expensive FBDIMM.

Bash what you want, but some of you look REALLY silly doing it.
 
I'm loving the new 4x4 setup. I will be skipping AM2 and going 4x4 in the next year...mostly because I hate intel. I agree the power and heat are a bit much, but I am hoping for some really cool aftermarket stuff (and not just server type 1u low profile passive copper sinks with blowers) to help out with cooling. The power isn't an issue. Thermaltake ToughPower 750w + 250W 5.25" drive bay GPU PSU.
 
sabregen said:
I'm loving the new 4x4 setup. I will be skipping AM2 and going 4x4 in the next year...mostly because I hate intel. I agree the power and heat are a bit much, but I am hoping for some really cool aftermarket stuff (and not just server type 1u low profile passive copper sinks with blowers) to help out with cooling. The power isn't an issue. Thermaltake ToughPower 750w + 250W 5.25" drive bay GPU PSU.
Click to expand...

Depending on your video card setup, you might need more than that PSU.

The !!!!!!ism always strikes me as unfounded and completely illogical. Brand loyalty serves no one at all. All it does is force you to buy a much more expensive product that is slower and costs more to operate. This makes NO sense.

If you stick with brand loyalty you are telling the manufacturer of the inferior product that their approach is ok. The Netburst architecture sucked. The Pentium 4 sucked compared to the Athlon 64. Enough people finally voted with their wallets and Intel made a change. Now we have Core 2 Duo. If AMD wants our business, they'll need to come out with a real competitor to the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. If not they will and should suffer the consequences of not continuing to innovate. By always purchasing the better product (especially when it costs less) you help set the tone for how things should be. Manufacturers will see this, and then create products to try and gain more customers.

AMD doesn't deserve your business because their product isn't as good as the Core 2 Extreme QX6700.

If you really need more convincing, here is the cost breakdown:

AMD

2x$550 CPUs=$1100
4x4 Motherboard=400
PC Power & Cooling 1kw SR=$450 (The only PSU you should be running with this pig of a machine.)
4x1024MB DDR 2 modules=$460-$1000+ (Depends on the modules you chose) (4 modules needed if you want to take advantage of NUMA)

Intel

Core 2 QX6700=$999
P965/i975x mtoherboard=$150-400
2x1024MB DDR 2 Modules=$230-$600
Quality PSU=$120-450


Intel QX6700 Pros

Overall faster than AMD's 4x4.
Cheaper than AMD's 4x4.
Great motherboard selection.
Low power requirements.
Uses standard chassis.

Intel QX6700 Cons

Not worth it over Core 2 Duo CPUs at this time.

AMD 4x4 Pros

*?&#191;?&#191;?

AMD 4x4 Cons

More expensive than QX6700.
Only one motherboard choice.
Insane power requirements.
Generations more heat.
Requires E-ATX compatible chassis.
4 memory modules needed to enable NUMA. (If you care about this.)

*NOTE: ?&#191;?&#191;?=JACK SQUAT!

I don't know what else to say.

Buying the AMD 4x4 platform makes as much sense as paying $10,000 for a shit brown Ford Pinto.
 
visaris said:
Why is everyone comparing 4x4 with Intel's QX chips? That's like comparing a motherboard with a CPU. It doesn't really make any sense to do so. 4x4 is a platform that one puts CPUs in.

If you want to compare 4x4 to an Intel product, compare it to Inte's version of the platform: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622


Yeah, you guys just keep bashing AMD and 4x4, the whole time defending and hyping Intel. The truth is in the products, and the truth is that 4x4 has potential, esspecially because it will support two K8L chips. Oh the other hand, Intel's direct competitor, the V8, is a total heap of junk on the desktop, as no one wants a single PCIe slot, and no desktop user wants to buy slow, hot, and expensive FBDIMM.

Bash what you want, but some of you look REALLY silly doing it.
Click to expand...

We're comparing AMD's high end enthusiast desktop solution to Intel's high end enthusiast desktop solutions (4x4 is not a server platform). It's AMD's answer to Core 2, and it failed on more than one count.
 
visaris said:
Why is everyone comparing 4x4 with Intel's QX chips? That's like comparing a motherboard with a CPU. It doesn't really make any sense to do so. 4x4 is a platform that one puts CPUs in.

If you want to compare 4x4 to an Intel product, compare it to Inte's version of the platform: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622


Yeah, you guys just keep bashing AMD and 4x4, the whole time defending and hyping Intel. The truth is in the products, and the truth is that 4x4 has potential, esspecially because it will support two K8L chips. Oh the other hand, Intel's direct competitor, the V8, is a total heap of junk on the desktop, as no one wants a single PCIe slot, and no desktop user wants to buy slow, hot, and expensive FBDIMM.

Bash what you want, but some of you look REALLY silly doing it.
Click to expand...

Because AMD markets the 4x4 as a enthusiast desktop computer part. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is also an enthusiast part. It is totally valid and fair to compare the two. As mentioned by the above poster, 4x4 FAILS in many ways to compete.

V8 is a server platform and NOT marketed as a desktop solution.
 
Dan_D said:
Because AMD markets the 4x4 as a enthusiast desktop computer part. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is also an enthusiast part. It is totally valid and fair to compare the two. As mentioned by the above poster, 4x4 FAILS in many ways to compete.

V8 is a server platform and NOT marketed as a desktop solution.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head.
 
Dan_D said:
Because AMD markets the 4x4 as a enthusiast desktop computer part. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is also an enthusiast part. It is totally valid and fair to compare the two. As mentioned by the above poster, 4x4 FAILS in many ways to compete.

V8 is a server platform and NOT marketed as a desktop solution.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


Now someone close this thread. Thanks!
 
however the fx-74 is a dual core chip not the quad core chip (which is supposed to be the same socket? correct me if im wrong) that is due out sometime, whenever that is , soooooo what we are talking about here is 2X2 not an 8 core platform which is the ultimate goal of "4" X "4" from what i've read. i dont believe anyone is wrong here, just some misconception and there is no real basis for comparison because 2 dual core does not = 4X4. i think this fx-74 is only really out to put something on the market "for now". i dont believe AMD is trying to answer anything with it. i belive they are just developing/experimenting in their own direction. in conclusion "4x4" is not out, just the base. just an observation, im not saying the performance will "blow anything out of the water", we'll see what happens is all anyone can really say. now let's get back to what's really important. whatever that is.
 
syndr0me said:
however the fx-74 is a dual core chip not the quad core chip (which is supposed to be the same socket? correct me if im wrong) that is due out sometime, whenever that is , soooooo what we are talking about here is 2X2 not an 8 core platform which is the ultimate goal of "4" X "4" from what i've read. i dont believe anyone is wrong here, just some misconception and there is no real basis for comparison because 2 dual core does not = 4X4. i think this fx-74 is only really out to put something on the market "for now". i dont believe AMD is trying to answer anything with it. i belive they are just developing/experimenting in their own direction. in conclusion "4x4" is not out, just the base. just an observation, im not saying the performance will "blow anything out of the water", we'll see what happens is all anyone can really say. now let's get back to what's really important. whatever that is.
Click to expand...

I thought 4x4 meant 4 GPUs and 4 Cores (2 dual core cpus).
 
syndr0me said:
however the fx-74 is a dual core chip not the quad core chip (which is supposed to be the same socket? correct me if im wrong) that is due out sometime, whenever that is , soooooo what we are talking about here is 2X2 not an 8 core platform which is the ultimate goal of "4" X "4" from what i've read. i dont believe anyone is wrong here, just some misconception and there is no real basis for comparison because 2 dual core does not = 4X4. i think this fx-74 is only really out to put something on the market "for now". i dont believe AMD is trying to answer anything with it. i belive they are just developing/experimenting in their own direction. in conclusion "4x4" is not out, just the base. just an observation, im not saying the performance will "blow anything out of the water", we'll see what happens is all anyone can really say. now let's get back to what's really important. whatever that is.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but the 4x4 platform isn't a dual quad core solution TODAY. Right now, it is supposed to compete with the QX6700 and fails to do so. It's more expensive, runs hotter, uses more power, and requires a much larger chassis. AMD has promised to bring out quad core CPUs that will drop into the 4x4 motherboard, but how does that help us today? It doesn't.

AMD's 4x4 platform for the desktop is nothing special.
 
visaris said:
Why is everyone comparing 4x4 with Intel's QX chips? That's like comparing a motherboard with a CPU. It doesn't really make any sense to do so. 4x4 is a platform that one puts CPUs in.

If you want to compare 4x4 to an Intel product, compare it to Inte's version of the platform: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622


Yeah, you guys just keep bashing AMD and 4x4, the whole time defending and hyping Intel. The truth is in the products, and the truth is that 4x4 has potential, esspecially because it will support two K8L chips. Oh the other hand, Intel's direct competitor, the V8, is a total heap of junk on the desktop, as no one wants a single PCIe slot, and no desktop user wants to buy slow, hot, and expensive FBDIMM.

Bash what you want, but some of you look REALLY silly doing it.
Click to expand...
If V8 were marketed to desktop consumers, I'd bash it for the same reasons I bash 4x4.

And actually guys, according to the DailyTech article, V8 is Intel's answer to 4x4. That doesn't make 4x4 a good product, it just makes both bad products.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
If V8 were marketed to desktop consumers, I'd bash it for the same reasons I bash 4x4.

And actually guys, according to the DailyTech article, V8 is Intel's answer to 4x4. That doesn't make 4x4 a good product, it just makes both bad products.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is. If anything, it's a dog and pony show to give the world a glimpse of what Intel can do and what they will do in the future.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
If V8 were marketed to desktop consumers, I'd bash it for the same reasons I bash 4x4.

And actually guys, according to the DailyTech article, V8 is Intel's answer to 4x4. That doesn't make 4x4 a good product, it just makes both bad products.
Click to expand...

At least that is fair. If you're going to bash one, you need to bash both, and one needs to be bashed way harder than the other. V8 (on the desktop) is total shit compared to 4x4.

----

And to all the other posters: V8 is being marketed as a desktop part. Hell, it was shown at CES, the Consumer Electronics Show. It is not marketed as a server part, and was not shown at a server (or similar) convention.

Read the link I posted a while back:
At CES 2007 today, Intel reaveled a proof-of-concept PC designed specifically to counter AMD's 4x4 platform for gamers. Dubbed the "V8" system, Intel demonstrated a system running on a pair of quad-core Kentsfield Xeon processors for a total of eight physical cores.
Click to expand...

Further, it does not make sense to compare 4x4 with QX parts. This will not change no matter how many times you say it does make sense. If you want to compare AMD parts to Intel parts, at least do it right: compare two FX74 to QX whatever. Comparing what is essentially a motherboard to a CPU is just stupid.

I can see it now: all the posts that claim there is no difference between saying "4x4" or "two FX chips". All these posts will be incorrect. Want an example? Here: Intel's QX chips rock, and their V8 platform sucks. How would all you fans like me to say "QX sucks", and then back it up by saying "V8, QX, same platform, same thing!" Not one of you, that's how many. I refer to Intel's CPUs and platforms correctly; show some respect and do the same for AMD. I'm simply amazed that so many people are fighting this issue.

Now, I'll leave the thread (never to return) and let the Intellers continue to bash 4x4 while they (conviniently) forget to talk about V8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top