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

[Dan_D]

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:


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.

This thread is about 4x4. Not the V8. Tell me why the V8 platform sucks? There is nothing that says the V8 platform has to be stuck with only one graphics card. I am sure companies like ASUS will create SLI compatible motherboards for it. Additionally, the only real disadvantage I see is the use of FB-DIMMs. While not my favorite, that doesn't mean that the V8 doesn't out perform the 4x4 in terms CPU performance.

Why is a comparison between 4x4 and the QX6700 invalid? Why? Because it beats the 4x4? Both can be evalutated as total platforms. The Intel QX6700 uses a standard desktop motherboard, and the 4x4 (FX-74x2) uses a dual socket E-ATX style motherboard? How is this not valid?

Go ahead and compare the V8 vs. the 4x4 as well. The V8 should use less power than the 4x4 and probably generates less heat. So I fail to see why it sucks. Also consider that the V8 is still pre-production hardware shown as a proof of concept. Final motherboard design would seem to be incomplete at this time.

The QX6700 and 4x4 (2xFX-74) are here NOW and are both available NOW. If you want to consider the 4x4 vs. QX6700 invalid, then I suppose you'd have to consider AMD vs. Intel platforms invalid because of motherboard differences. Or are we just splitting hairs over sockets?

No one said that 4x4 and V8 weren't comparable platforms. No one said that the QX6700 and 4x4 were the same thing. BOTH products are currerntly the highest end products for the consumer/enthusiast markets. They simply use different strategies to respond to market demands. That is what this comparison is about. The two TOP solutions from AMD and Intel that are available NOW. Out of those two, the more conventional single CPU Kentsfield CPU is clearly the better product for the price and it offers superior performance than the 4x4 most of the time.

 

[visaris]

This thread is about 4x4. Not the V8.

Fair enough. I'll stop talking about V8. Still, it amazes me that no one bashes V8 with the same passion they bash 4x4.

Why is a comparison between 4x4 and the QX6700 invalid? Why? Because it beats the 4x4? Both can be evalutated as total platforms. The Intel QX6700 uses a standard desktop motherboard, and the 4x4 (FX-74x2) uses a dual socket E-ATX style motherboard? How is this not valid?

If you want to compare something with FX that "something" must be a CPU, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. If you want to compare something with 4x4, that "something" must be a platform/MB/socket, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. Simple fact.

If one cannot be bothered to say what one means (e.g. one uses "4x4" when they mean "FX", or one uses "QX6700" when they mean "s755"), then one should not be surprised to find that one's posts don't make sense, are simply incorrect, or are unintentional flame bait. One should say what they mean. It really isn't all that hard.

Anyways, I need to keep my promise, so I'm leaving the thread: flame on.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Fair enough. I'll stop talking about V8. Still, it amazes me that no one bashes V8 with the same passion they bash 4x4.



If you want to compare something with FX that "something" must be a CPU, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. If you want to compare something with 4x4, that "something" must be a platform/MB/socket, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. Simple fact.

If one cannot be bothered to say what one means (e.g. one uses "4x4" when they mean "FX", or one uses "QX6700" when they mean "s755"), then one should not be surprised to find that one's posts don't make sense, are simply incorrect, or are unintentional flame bait. One should say what they mean. It really isn't all that hard.

Anyways, I need to keep my promise, so I'm leaving the thread: flame on.

We're talking about the entire platform (which entail the CPU(s) and the motherboards it or they work in). How many CPU' models can work in a (well the only) 4x4 motherboard? Three. the FX-70, the FX-72, and the FX-74. So when we say 4x4 it is inherenly clear what we're talking about since the motherboard won't work without a CPU and the CPU won't work without a motherboard.

The QX6700, while not a platform in of itself, isn't going to work without a socket 775 motherboard with a compatible chipset. So when we say QX5700 we mean the CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and the best performing motherboard that the CPU will work in.

QuadFX processors are (like it or not) what 4x4 is all about. It's what defines the 4x4 platform. If it wasn't two highend CPU's on one motherboard in the desktop market, it'd be nothing more than FX-62 with a socket change. It was AMD's attempt to gain some ground back from Intel until they have a real quad core single socket CPU.

 

[Dan_D]

Fair enough. I'll stop talking about V8. Still, it amazes me that no one bashes V8 with the same passion they bash 4x4.

Well, there is a large difference. There is certainly much to dislike about V8 right now. First and foremost is the FB-Dimm requirement. You might as well buy yourself a pair of Xeon's and save yourself the bs. Plus you'd have a greater motherboard selection. Additionally, the limitation of one graphics card right now on the V8 is an ignorant move. Obviously the only people interested in V8 or 4x4 for that matter are going to be of the wealthier type who place more emphasis on performance than the cost of the platform. Additionally, four cores aren't being utilized currently, and there is ZERO compelling reasons for 8 cores on the desktop at this time. 4 cores is a hard enough sell for the desktop.

If you want to compare something with FX that "something" must be a CPU, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. If you want to compare something with 4x4, that "something" must be a platform/MB/socket, or the comparison doesn't make any sense. Simple fact.

If one cannot be bothered to say what one means (e.g. one uses "4x4" when they mean "FX", or one uses "QX6700" when they mean "s755"), then one should not be surprised to find that one's posts don't make sense, are simply incorrect, or are unintentional flame bait. One should say what they mean. It really isn't all that hard.

Anyways, I need to keep my promise, so I'm leaving the thread: flame on.

It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, it's that due to the fact that both are marketed to the same type of customer, and both represent the top end of performance for Intel and AMD, I think the 4x4 platform, combined with the FX-74's are an indeed valid comparison against the QX6700.

In my mind, both platforms, (V8 and 4x4) are virtually identical to their server/workstation counterparts and are a dumb idea. The cost of both platforms as well as their market appeal is too limited right now and are unecessary at this time.

 

[duby229]

That is why I didnt bother posting.... !!!!!!s cant understand the difference between platform and architecture....

As a platform 4x4 is simply the best desktop platform ever created in the history of computing... Right now the architecture that utilizes it is a bit dated, but it does not in any way remove the awesome benefits of the platform.

I dare anyone to name one other desktop platform that offers the functionality that 4x4 offers... Go ahead I dare you. You guys can go ahead and bash the architecture, but dont make the mistake of bashing the platform... The simple fact is that Intel doesnt have a platform that even gets close.

Lets also consider that in my personal opinion Asus SUCKS..... They have always released beta products on the market that I swear was never tested in a lab before production. So at best the board that is currently on the market is nothing more then a test bed. When other makers get on the boat the price will go down, and it will stabilize.

I think you guys are making a mistake by bashing 4x4. Dont you know that AMD watches these forums, and others like a hawk? What you say here, they hear... If they get the perception that enthusiasts are not interested in a dual socket enthusiast board they will drop it like a rock. Then our chances with a dual socket enthusiast board is shot for ever. Dont do it please.

Shut the fuck up and please dont ruin this for the rest of us. I beg you. I think a dual socket enthusiast board is an awsome Idea, and when the prices drop, and alternatives become available, I will buy into it. No doubt about it. Just becouse you dont like it, doesnt give you the right to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[InorganicMatter]

As a platform 4x4 is simply the best desktop platform ever created in the history of computing... Right now the architecture that utilizes it is a bit dated, but it does not in any way remove the awesome benefits of the platform.

What, pray tell, makes 4x4 any better than any other dual CPU board? People have been building dual-CPU for years; lots of people have dual Opteron or Xeon boards. There's nothing new or revolutionary about 4x4; it's a server board that can take 4 video cards. Big deal.

 

[duby229]

What, pray tell, makes 4x4 any better than any other dual CPU board? People have been building dual-CPU for years; lots of people have dual Opteron or Xeon boards. There's nothing new or revolutionary about 4x4; it's a server board that can take 4 video cards. Big deal.

Non registered RAM, quad sli. Bios options designed for my needs, as many hard drives as I will ever need. And the list goes on and on.... I could keep going if you like.

The point is it was designed for me... Not a rack.

 

[Dan_D]

Non registered RAM, quad sli. Bios options designed for my needs, as many hard drives as I will ever need. And the list goes on and on.... I could keep going if you like.

The point is it was designed for me... Not a rack.

The only things that make the 4x4 better is not having to use registered/ecc ram and having a more enthusiast oriented BIOS. Otherwise, it has ZERO advantages over a standard Opteron system.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Non registered RAM

If you can afford $1100 in CPUs, $2400 in video cards (quad-SLI, right ) and a $430 motherboard, you can afford registered RAM.

quad sli

And no driver support.

Bios options designed for my needs

No one "needs" to overclock, and many Opteron boards support this.

as many hard drives as I will ever need

Everyone knows software RAID sucks. Anyone needing that much space will be using a dedicated RAID controller.

And the list goes on and on

No really, it doesn't.

I could keep going if you like.

Please do.

The only things that make the 4x4 better is not having to use registered/ecc ram and having a more enthusiast oriented BIOS. Otherwise, it has ZERO advantages over a standard Opteron system.

Dan got it right.

 

[duby229]

Listen you guys can delude yourself as much as you want.. But realize that all your doing now is stating your opinions, and trying to pass them off as fact.....

Doing in in a negative way, as your doing now is FUD.

I've stated my opinion clearly, and you've stated your opinions clearly..... But realize that is what it is... Opinions

 

[BigDH01]

That is why I didnt bother posting.... !!!!!!s cant understand the difference between platform and architecture....

As a platform 4x4 is simply the best desktop platform ever created in the history of computing... Right now the architecture that utilizes it is a bit dated, but it does not in any way remove the awesome benefits of the platform.

I dare anyone to name one other desktop platform that offers the functionality that 4x4 offers... Go ahead I dare you. You guys can go ahead and bash the architecture, but dont make the mistake of bashing the platform... The simple fact is that Intel doesnt have a platform that even gets close.

Lets also consider that in my personal opinion Asus SUCKS..... They have always released beta products on the market that I swear was never tested in a lab before production. So at best the board that is currently on the market is nothing more then a test bed. When other makers get on the boat the price will go down, and it will stabilize.

I think you guys are making a mistake by bashing 4x4. Dont you know that AMD watches these forums, and others like a hawk? What you say here, they hear... If they get the perception that enthusiasts are not interested in a dual socket enthusiast board they will drop it like a rock. Then our chances with a dual socket enthusiast board is shot for ever. Dont do it please.

Shut the fuck up and please dont ruin this for the rest of us. I beg you. I think a dual socket enthusiast board is an awsome Idea, and when the prices drop, and alternatives become available, I will buy into it. No doubt about it. Just becouse you dont like it, doesnt give you the right to ruin it for the rest of us.

Dear AMD,

Your platform produces too much heat, uses too much electricity, and underperforms. Furthermore, I cannot power your solution with my present power supply nor will it fit in my current case. Your response to the quad core Core is obviously hurried and inadequate.

Please, in the future, take your time and innovate to the degree that you have in the past. Don't hurry server parts to the desktop market in an attempt to compete with a niche product. Take the Athlon back to the drawing board and show the consumer something creative. I want to see more from the parts I already have while using less power and creating less heat. I've seen you deliver revolutionary products in the past and the current QuadFX architecture has left me sorely disappointed.

In conclusion, neither my colleagues nor my friends will be purchasing the QuadFX system as it presently exists. The competition simply overwhelms your offering. Bring me a dual socket system when your next generation processor is ready, but until then, my green is going to the blue.

Sincerely,
BigDH01

 

[duby229]

Perfectly adequate. I applaud you.

 

[Dan_D]

If you can afford $1100 in CPUs, $2400 in video cards (quad-SLI, right ) and a $430 motherboard, you can afford registered RAM.

And no driver support.

No one "needs" to overclock, and many Opteron boards support this.

Everyone knows software RAID sucks. Anyone needing that much space will be using a dedicated RAID controller.

No really, it doesn't.

Please do.

Dan got it right.

Well it helps that I've actually worked with dual Opteron/Xeon setups, and I've actually owned two dual Opteron systems personally.

I agree on your other points too. Software RAID does indeed suck and if you can afford a dual processor, dual core system, with 4 8800GTX's, you probably can afford a SAS RAID controller and some FB-DIMMs or Registered ECC memory.

 

[BigDH01]

Listen you guys can delude yourself as much as you want.. But realize that all your doing now is stating your opinions, and trying to pass them off as fact.....

Doing in in a negative way, as your doing now is FUD.

I've stated my opinion clearly, and you've stated your opinions clearly..... But realize that is what it is... Opinions

All opinion except that an equivalent Core 2 Quad system will produce less heat, consume less power, perform the majority of tasks quicker, and costs less. What's the opinion in that statement?

 

[Viper87227]

You know, I like the E-ATX board. It would fill out my case nicely

 

[duby229]

Well it helps that I've actually worked with dual Opteron/Xeon setups, and I've actually owned two dual Opteron systems personally.

I agree on your other points too. Software RAID does indeed suck and if you can afford a dual processor, dual core system, with 4 8800GTX's, you probably can afford a SAS RAID controller and some FB-DIMMs or Registered ECC memory.

I'm a desktop user, and I'm not interested in RAID..... If anything I'll use the kernels software RAID which gives me much more control and freedom then a purely hardware solution could anyway.

Besides now your talking server.... I'm a desktop user.... I want a desktop system That is what 4x4 is. When alternative boards get released, and the prices drop, I'll buy the entry level chips for that platform as I always have. Then I'll buy the rest of the hardware that the platform needs. At that time...

 

[duby229]

All opinion except that an equivalent Core 2 Quad system will produce less heat, consume less power, perform the majority of tasks quicker, and costs less. What's the opinion in that statement?

Now your talking architecture, not platform.... Intel currently has the better architecture... No doubt about it.

 

[Dan_D]

All opinion except that an equivalent Core 2 Quad system will produce less heat, consume less power, perform the majority of tasks quicker, and costs less. What's the opinion in that statement?

Agreed. A QX6700 will require less power, produce less heat, doesn't require an E-ATX chassis, and will perform the majority of tasks faster as well as being priced cheaper (Motherboard, CPU, ram included.) is all FACT. If you would look at the reviews and data with an unbiased eye, you should be able to draw the same conclusion.

If someone just said, "I'm buying the 4x4 because I hate Intel, and that's that." I think we'd be more accepting. But trying to defend it on a technical level, with out hard data is just ignorant.

Compare two systems with identical hardware aside from motherboard, CPU(s) and you will find that the QX6700 based machine is the superior platform. The 4x4 is cool in it's own way, and when it gets dual quad core CPUs, it will be worth another look.

Right now, the FX-74 CPU is slower per clock cycle than the Core 2 Duo, or Kentsfield. Motherboards do not make that much of a performance difference compared to one another, especially when the memory controllers are the same or are integrated into the CPU. 4x4 doesn't change the fact that the Core 2 architecture is faster right now.

I'm a desktop user, and I'm not interested in RAID..... If anything I'll use the kernels software RAID which gives me much more control and freedom then a purely hardware solution could anyway.

Besides now your talking server.... I'm a desktop user.... I want a desktop system That is what 4x4 is. When alternative boards get released, and the prices drop, I'll buy the entry level chips for that platform as I always have. Then I'll buy the rest of the hardware that the platform needs. At that time...

So you would rather buy something more expensive, that produces more heat, and requires more power to operate? Well, good luck to you.

Software RAID sucks. I fail to see how much more control you'd get with soft RAID vs. Hardware RAID. Besides, you can move a hardware RAID to another PC with greater ease. Lets also not forget that a dedicated IO processor on the RAID controller reduces the overhead placed on the CPU. This is fact. It is also why such controllers are $500+.

 

[duby229]

Now your talking architecture, not platform.... Intel currently has the better architecture... No doubt about it.

As I already said....

 

[dook43]

Dual socket motherboards have never succeeded outside of the server market... ever. The Abit BP6, while interesting (I owned one) came the closest

 

[Dan_D]

As I already said....

Yeah, I saw that. It doesn't dismiss the importance of that difference, and it also doesn't excuse the 4x4's lack of performance (which is a desktop platform that competes in the same market as any 680i or i975x motherboard) when compared to the QX6700.

 

[dook43]

As I already said....

That isn't even a salient point. If the arch is crap, what good is the platform?

I could not possibly recommend that anyone purchase something more expensive, slower and hotter simply because I love the idea of dual sockets. The BP6 was great because it allowed me to pair my cheap Celerons and have a dual system that would outperform a P3 at equivalent cost.

 

[duby229]

So you would rather buy something more expensive, that produces more heat, and requires more power to operate? Well, good luck to you.

Software RAID sucks. I fail to see how much more control you'd get with soft RAID vs. Hardware RAID. Besides, you can move a hardware RAID to another PC with greater ease. Lets also not forget that a dedicated IO processor on the RAID controller reduces the overhead placed on the CPU. This is fact. It is also why such controllers are $500+.

No I'm saying That I'm a Desktop user, and I dont need that functionality.... I dont NEED a 500 dollar RAID controller.... For the very limited use I might need Softare RAID would be adequate.

If I wanted a server, I'd buy a server.

 

[duby229]

That isn't even a salient point. If the arch is crap, what good is the platform?

I could not possibly recommend that anyone purchase something more expensive, slower and hotter simply because I love the idea of dual sockets. The BP6 was great because it allowed me to pair my cheap Celerons and have a dual system that would outperform a P3 at equivalent cost.

I agree.... But dont think that for one minute AMD is sitting on there hands. They will have a new architecture out this year, summer/fall time frame, and at that point the platform should be well established and stable... The prices should drop, and the chipset should have at least one refresh.... Also AMD's ATi branded 4x4 chipset should be available by then as a further alternative.

Like I said, I'll wait for alternative boards to come out, and for them to stabilize, and for the prices to drop, then I'll buy the entry level at that time. I really dont suggest anyone buy into right now,,, It's just too unstable....

 

[BinarySynapse]

I agree.... But dont think that for one minute AMD is sitting on there hands. They will have a new architecture out this year, summer/fall time frame, and at that point the platform should be well established and stable... The prices should drop, and the chipset should have at least one refresh.... Also AMD's ATi branded 4x4 chipset should be available by then as a further alternative.

Like I said, I'll wait for alternative boards to come out, and for them to stabilize, and for the prices to drop, then I'll buy the entry level at that time. I really dont suggest anyone buy into right now,,, It's just too unstable....

At the same time don't think that Intel is sitting on their hands either.

And if what you said earlier is true (about the lack of interest in a platform) then 4x4 may be dead by the time AMD's new architecture is launched. All because AMD wanted to try and close the gap and jumped the gun.

 

[duby229]

At the same time don't think that Intel is sitting on their hands either.

And if what you said earlier is true (about the lack of interest in a platform) then 4x4 may be dead by the time AMD's new architecture is launched. All because AMD wanted to try and close the gap and jumped the gun.

Absolutely.. Intel has been kickin ass lately. I hear that the new refresh they are working on should kick ass. At least on paper. I believe it is a new Conroe revision, but I dont know what if anything they added to it.

 

[Scali2]

I agree.... But dont think that for one minute AMD is sitting on there hands. They will have a new architecture out this year, summer/fall time frame, and at that point the platform should be well established and stable... The prices should drop, and the chipset should have at least one refresh.... Also AMD's ATi branded 4x4 chipset should be available by then as a further alternative.

Thing is, Intel isn't exactly waiting for AMD to catch up either.
They've already managed to run Windows on their 45 nm engineering samples a while ago.
There are plenty of rumours on this 45 nm about.
One of them is that they will reach 4 GHz.
Another is that they will create a single-die quadcore processor.
A third is that they will create a two-die octacore processor.

If these rumours turn out to be true (and they don't seem all that unlikely... although I assume if they do hit 4 GHz, it will probably be at a later stage, not at introduction... even so, their 65 nm chips already run 3 GHz and easily overclock to 3.5 on stock air cooling... I think we'll see 3.2 and possibly 3.4 GHz models even before 45 nm arrives) then AMD will still be nowhere when their quadcore arrives.
Sure, you can run two quadcores in a single system... But if Intel has a single octacore processor, it will probably be cheaper again, and use less power, while giving similar performance.
And, there will still be the option of using multiple octacores on a Xeon board with multiple sockets. Intel has already demonstrated 4-way quadcore. AMD should just be careful not to tempt Intel to bring that sort of stuff to the desktop aswell.

 

[Dan_D]

Thing is, Intel isn't exactly waiting for AMD to catch up either.
They've already managed to run Windows on their 45 nm engineering samples a while ago.
There are plenty of rumours on this 45 nm about.
One of them is that they will reach 4 GHz.
Another is that they will create a single-die quadcore processor.
A third is that they will create a two-die octacore processor.

If these rumours turn out to be true (and they don't seem all that unlikely... although I assume if they do hit 4 GHz, it will probably be at a later stage, not at introduction... even so, their 65 nm chips already run 3 GHz and easily overclock to 3.5 on stock air cooling... I think we'll see 3.2 and possibly 3.4 GHz models even before 45 nm arrives) then AMD will still be nowhere when their quadcore arrives.
Sure, you can run two quadcores in a single system... But if Intel has a single octacore processor, it will probably be cheaper again, and use less power, while giving similar performance.
And, there will still be the option of using multiple octacores on a Xeon board with multiple sockets. Intel has already demonstrated 4-way quadcore. AMD should just be careful not to tempt Intel to bring that sort of stuff to the desktop aswell.

You bring up some interesting points. The main thing to think about is the fact that AMD awoke a sleeping dragon when they whooped Intel's ass with the Athlon 64. It took Intel awhile to respond, but they've proven what they can do when aroused.

Intel has very deep pockets, and I seriously doubt that they'll get caught with their pants down again.

The interesting thing about this business is, that players can and do change all the time. So we really don't know how things will go, but Intel obviously has a tremendous financial advantage when dealing with AMD.

That was slightly off topic.

Back to the topic at hand. 4x4 is out, and no one should care until new CPUs are released that work on that motherboard platform.

 

[duby229]

The name of the game is competition.

I really hope that AMD does tempt them. I cant wait for 8 cores on a desktop system.... Of course software support is another issue entirely that I'll leave for another debate.

But I would love to see both companies sitting on equal technology footing.. Unfortunately (or fortunatly depending on your view) Intel has a lead in fabrication, and architecture. Which is huge... It's significant, and AMD prolly wont be able to catch up on fabrication until it gets FAB30 transition over to FAB38... That is at least 2 years out. Architecture On the other hand I believe AMD will catch up with K8L., and will surpass Intel with Fusion, in combination with CTM

With that said it should be an interesting race over the next few years, but I withdraw, becouse now we are getting way off topic.

 

[Scali2]

You bring up some interesting points. The main thing to think about is the fact that AMD awoke a sleeping dragon when they whooped Intel's ass with the Athlon 64. It took Intel awhile to respond, but they've proven what they can do when aroused.

I think this is the stinger.
Intel knew that it could rely on its reputation and big OEM contracts to sit it out with the Pentium for the entire ride. The P4 still ran for about 5 years, which is probably about the window they originally set for the P4. So they didn't just go out and rush the new CPU... Instead, they took their losses, and took their time to make sure their next architecture would be all it could be.
I think a lot of companies would panic, and try to bring out a new product as soon as possible. In fact, I think 4x4 is exactly such a product. It was supposed to hold AMD over until their quadcore arrives... but I think it did them more bad than good in the end.
Ofcourse, Intel probably did the same in the past, with their Extreme Editions... but they now turned it around, and made the Extreme Edition brand into a real enthusiast item. Admit it, we all want them now!

 

[BinarySynapse]

I think this is the stinger.
Intel knew that it could rely on its reputation and big OEM contracts to sit it out with the Pentium for the entire ride. The P4 still ran for about 5 years, which is probably about the window they originally set for the P4. So they didn't just go out and rush the new CPU... Instead, they took their losses, and took their time to make sure their next architecture would be all it could be.
I think a lot of companies would panic, and try to bring out a new product as soon as possible. In fact, I think 4x4 is exactly such a product. It was supposed to hold AMD over until their quadcore arrives... but I think it did them more bad than good in the end.
Ofcourse, Intel probably did the same in the past, with their Extreme Editions... but they now turned it around, and made the Extreme Edition brand into a real enthusiast item. Admit it, we all want them now!

Although Intel didn't lose money on Netburst. They made it through those 5 years well within the black. A lot of it had to do with Pentium brand recognition and OEM loyalty (and a lot of that goes back to Pentium brand recognition). Besides the Pentium 4 line wasn't a complete disaster, it did have some decent performnance under it's hood (or lid ). And it didn't hurt that AMD set their sites on profit margin rather than market infiltration with the X2 line

 

[sumofatguy]

Its funny how an informative thread about the AMD 4x4 turned into intel enthusiasts bashing amd... I guess since intel has the speed advantage for the first time in 15 years, we should be excited...

 

[Scali2]

First time in 15 years, rofl

 

[DejaWiz]

My opinion:
Who realistically needs a quad core solution right now for a home/gaming system? No one. There is nothing out that will fully take advantage of it. I just upgraded to an Opteron 170 and it does everything without strain and fault (just like my RevE 3000+ before it, although multitasking and music ripping/encoding has quite the noticeable difference).

I think 4x4 is a good step for AMD, especially when a pair of quad cores can be plopped on the mobo.


My advice:
Wait until the software and games that can take advantage of such a platform are released and then buy the hardware. You'll likely then be getting a platform with much better next-gen offerings than what's currently available now. Wait for K8L and possibly Yorkfield then make a decision.

 

[bigbadgreen]

I think some people got my point and other didn't and some chose to ignore it because it's pure specualtion. I'll reitterate.
The FX-74 is based off the opteron as well as the 4x4 socket. While you can't just drop an opteron however the boars still supports the amd Torrenza technology which allows for the development of coprocessors to aid the main cpu. This is already being utilized in dual socket boards. My previous point was that nothing is stopping amd from developing a gpu using Torrenza via ATI. Not only do the sockets share a HT bus, it could technicly support up to 8GB or ram, and be easily upgradable. I'm not talking gpu on cpu, rather a seperate gpu. A second bios could be utilized to control the graphics.
I think this is the way amd is headed. they have to start somewhere. I juast love the possibilities this could provide. It certainly would catch intel off guard. I've wondered for a while why nobody has done this, gpu companies would save money via ram chips and pcb's needing only to make the gpu and a cooler.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I think some people got my point and other didn't and some chose to ignore it because it's pure specualtion. I'll reitterate.
The FX-74 is based off the opteron as well as the 4x4 socket. While you can't just drop an opteron however the boars still supports the amd Torrenza technology which allows for the development of coprocessors to aid the main cpu. This is already being utilized in dual socket boards. My previous point was that nothing is stopping amd from developing a gpu using Torrenza via ATI. Not only do the sockets share a HT bus, it could technicly support up to 8GB or ram, and be easily upgradable. I'm not talking gpu on cpu, rather a seperate gpu. A second bios could be utilized to control the graphics.
I think this is the way amd is headed. they have to start somewhere. I juast love the possibilities this could provide. It certainly would catch intel off guard. I've wondered for a while why nobody has done this, gpu companies would save money via ram chips and pcb's needing only to make the gpu and a cooler.

There are just way to many problem to be able to do that for a highend solution. One of which being that modular components don't scale in speed as easily fixed ones. Another bing that the GPU would be limited to 64 or 128bit memory access instead of todays 256 and 384bit or tomorrow's 512bit interfaces.

 

[kirbyrj]

As I understand it, GPU's are some of the most complex processors you can buy. I don't see replacing that with CPU-only unless it's on the very low end. The speed advantage you'd gain by not going out on the PCIe bus would be negated by the slower and less specialized graphics processing.

 

[duby229]

As I understand it, GPU's are some of the most complex processors you can buy. I don't see replacing that with CPU-only unless it's on the very low end. The speed advantage you'd gain by not going out on the PCIe bus would be negated by the slower and less specialized graphics processing.

I think you've missed the point though. You'll still be able to use the discreet graphics of your choice.... The benefit comes from CTM... being able to offload SIMD operations to an on die streaming processor that was designed specifically for processing SIMD operations..... It also has the added benefit of being dual use as a GPU on the low end..... We already know that GPU's can process SIMD code about 40 times faster then SSE.... Literally.... Imagine having that kind of power on die, at full speed.

 

[omegatotal]

There are just way to many problem to be able to do that for a highend solution. One of which being that modular components don't scale in speed as easily fixed ones. Another bing that the GPU would be limited to 64 or 128bit memory access instead of todays 256 and 384bit or tomorrow's 512bit interfaces.

i would really think so since the "socket" has a dirrect path to the "memory" .. you just have to design a separate spec ram chip using the same pin-out's .. im sure the data paths could be made to work both ways..

... the graphics companies could sell strictly the gpu variants in a socket form. u could use any standard heatsink you choose for the socket. then you can choose your ram and put in 4 modules and get that "512bit" memory interface .... 4x128=512 yes ?

 

[sabregen]

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

From what I have seen of the 4x4 platform, we're talking about a system that pushes 500w @ idle, and over 700 under load, correct? Yeah, I don't expect that I will be able to run more than my board, CPUs and RAM on my Toughpower 750w quad rail. The GPUs will be fine on the TT PurePower 250w GPU PSU (and I can grab another for 1 unit per video card, if need be). I figure the 4x4, loaded to the teeth with ram, and drives, and fans, will probably run me around 650w @idle, about 750-800w under load (GFX cards not included in that, since they are being supported by separate power supplies).

If the power requirements are really as the [H] predicted, I plan on going with this PSU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817153043

And I already own one of these, but could add another:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817153037

You guys think that should fit the bill? And FTR, I know brand loyalty gets us no where...tell it to the people that jumped all over P4's that required RIMMs because they loved their OCd P3's so much.