Or you can just get one good killowatt psu for the price after all your little power supplies.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Socket F (4x4) is out....
- Thread starter Atherton213
- Start date
- Status
Or you can just get one good killowatt psu for the price after all your little power supplies.
I don't see any "bashing" that you so speak of, majority of the people are either posting their oppinion or are backing their "bashing" up with facts and sources.
Also 15 years? Please tell me you are joking.
I don't follow your logic here. Seems like you're saying that, if someone has a certain amount of money, they also have more. Then, by induction, if someone has a certain amount of money, they have more; and if they have more, the have even more, right? Then, you seem to be asserting that anyone with a little bit of money is ininitely wealthy.If you can afford $1100 in CPUs, $2400 in video cards (quad-SLI, right) and a $430 motherboard, you can afford registered RAM.
After all, what if I only had $3930?
This logic seems to be prevalent, and I just don't get it. Does it scale? I mean, if I can afford 10 systems so configured, can I also afford all their registered memmory? A 100 systems, and the more expensive for memory for all of them? Again, it seems like the assumption is based on anyone with a little bit of money being infinitely rich.Dan_D said:
Now I'm feeling like an outsider. Or is it just an inside joke that I don't get, where everyone likes to repeatedly use bad logic to get a laugh?
Can you help me understand this one, too? How much space is "that much space"? How can you conclude people needing a certain amount of space will be using a dedicated RAID controller? You do know that many low-end dedicated RAID controllers still do RAID in the hosts software, right?
The logic used is an exaggeration meant to portray the idiocy of the purchase, nothing more. It is no different than someone telling me they are going to base jump off a building and me replying, "Why don't you just jump off a bridge and get it over with?" I am not actually suggesting they do so or that they could or would want to do so. It's simply a technique to highlight the idiocy of the original action. In this case, the argument is a non sequitur, but it was only meant to illustrate a point, not construct a debate.
The point being, in this case, that 4x4 technology, in its nearly complete form, has been available for some time using server boards and Santa Rosas. If someone wasn't willing to pay the cash then, why are they so willing to pay it now? What benefit does 4x4 really have over the old server solutions besides the possibility of Quad SLI and unregistered RAM? As far as I know, quad SLI doesn't have great driver support and quad 8800gtxs won't work with 4x4 unless you water cool. Furthermore, I believe it is implied that many users here only need 4x4 to do traditional "server" type activities. Four cores won't help you with gaming right now and will really only help with tasks such as encoding and rendering and other such programs that are highly parallel. It is then taken as a premise, that those purchasing a 4x4 system need fast and reliable hardware to do the tasks that would normally be done by a server machine. Of course, part of the task of a server, especially one working with large data sets, is to preserve the integrity of the data. This would mean that registered RAM would actually be the RAM of choice to those of us planning on using our machines in the tasks where quad core would actually shine.
Whether or not it follows that someone who's willing to shell out money for such a machine (quad SLI which is nearly meaningless at this point), power supplies to support the video hardware, etc, would be willing to pay a few extra dollars for registered RAM is certainly in question (non sequitur). However, spending so much money on largely meaningless hardware at this point, and then not going the extra step to ensure the integrity of data which your machine was pretty much designed to manipulate is largely foolish. Therefore, it is my contention, that the original argument was not so much about proving the importance of purchasing registered RAM as it was about the foolishness of such a purchase in the first place.
The RAID argument is nearly identical but follows the same explanation that I have already outlined. If this machine excels at server activities but gains nearly nothing with Quad SLI, why not spend extra money and drastically increase the performance of the server functions? Better yet, why not reduce the amount spent on video cards and invest that money in something that would really benefit the overall performance of the system. Once again, the argument was made not to promote the purchase of dedicated RAID hardware but to highlight the foolishness of the traditional QuadFX mindset.
What he described is AKA FUD
As opposed to this rebuttal?
You state opinions that you claim to be fact.... I simply made an observation.
I'd be happy to hear your explanation of all this flawed logic. I don't really care about the 4x4 vs QX argument. The "if you can afford" argument has come up at least three times in this thread, and is very popular on this forum as a whole. And I just don't get it.
If you'd like to present your own explanation of the argument, I'd be interested to hear it.
Start here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=8
End here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=13
The fastest 4x4 system wins one benchmark and loses to FX-62 in gaming. It's load power is 456W compared to 263W for the Core 2 Quad.
Start here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx_7.html
End here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx_13.html
The 4x4 system only bests the Core 2 Quad when looking at FPS while having 4 or more instances of WinRAR running in the background. WinRAR is one of those programs that the 4x4 actually compares with the Core 2 Quad. However, it consumed 501W at full load. Not exactly efficient. The reviewer also complained about all the noise from the fans needed to remove all that heat.
Start here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page8.html
End here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page12.html
FX lost everything except for Cinebench and some synthetic memory latency test. 520W for CPU at load compared to 317 for the Core 2 Quad.
Start here:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=6&articleid=911&cid=1
End here:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=14&articleid=911&cid=1
Here, the QuadFX couldn't even best the Core 2 Quad even in Cinebench. It also consumed more power although this test is somewhat skewed as they had many extra fans in the FX system to keep it cool.
Start here:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
End here:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxMSwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=
The FX system manages to win THREE tests here but does so while consuming 510W compared to the Core's 262.
duby229 said:
How many more of these do you need? I stated that the Core 2 Quad is faster in most benchmarks, costs less, produces less heat, and uses less power. I have now provided evidence. You can either provide evidence to the contrary or try to refute pretty much every review site on the internet. I await your real rebuttal.
I cant speak for them. I dont know why they think that.
As is right now, I could afford 4x4, but I dont think the platform has matured enough yet. I'd wait for new boards to come out, and for at least one chipset refresh... I'd also suggest buying into the entry level, same as any other platform. These guys take the worst case scenario, and then tell you that is the only one, and then proceed to tell you it will always be this way.
I cant say why, I dont know.
Then I'm lostwhy is it that you think that BigDH01's explanation of the argument is FUD if you admit that you don't understand the argument yourself?
You keep talking about architecture.... We all know Core2 is faster.... This thread isnt about Core2. If you want to hawk Core2, then do so in the Intel forum, you'll find more people interested there.
I'm talking about platform. I'm talking about 4x4.
So if you are admitting what I said is fact, then why do you accuse me of stating opinions?
Maybe you should read what you wrote.... It's quite clear.
Dont twist. I said I cant talk for them. I'm not them. I dont know why they say what they say. And frankly it doesnt effect me in any way.
Lets look at the definition of FUD..... Negative spin on something your BIASED against..... I think everyone can agree that rant qualifies as FUD.
You are presupposing bias. Show bias and your argument might have merit.
As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who believes my post was FUD. Nor have you actually shown me what you consider to be slanderous in my post.
You can either show these things or continue to look foolish to nearly everyone that reads these boards (not that it matters anyway). You cannot simply go around and accuse people of "FUD" because you do not agree with them. Please, contribute.
I can't. Perhaps it's becasue I'm not interested in the AMD vs. Intel thing.
sabregen
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 19,501
Psssh...where's the fun in that? that only nets me 1000w, not the 1350w that I am looking for (if the R600 predictions of power consumption hold true). Besides...you know who puts 3 PSUs in their machine, 1 for each GPU?..."me, that's who!" (name that movie).
greyt_Autumn
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Messages
- 572
Most of us are still bound by single threaded performance Dual buys us a little bump due to Affinity, quad less, and 8 even less. Good 'ol diminishing returns.
I have one title that I rally care about and it's crippling on my PC- Flight Sim X. 5 FPS in cities, and no real threading (very light texture loading threads) so single thread performance is what matters to me right now. Maybe in 6 months after the DX10 parts really arrive along with Vista and a DX10 update for FSX (along with a price drop or two) and I'll upgrade. For now I'll just suffer
However I have a mail server that could use the 8 cores! The Queue bogs down from time to time due to message volume but the engine is multi threaded.. I feel a Pair of Xeon 7100's coming on for the replacement box...
I have one title that I rally care about and it's crippling on my PC- Flight Sim X. 5 FPS in cities, and no real threading (very light texture loading threads) so single thread performance is what matters to me right now. Maybe in 6 months after the DX10 parts really arrive along with Vista and a DX10 update for FSX (along with a price drop or two) and I'll upgrade. For now I'll just suffer
However I have a mail server that could use the 8 cores! The Queue bogs down from time to time due to message volume but the engine is multi threaded.. I feel a Pair of Xeon 7100's coming on for the replacement box...
I'm not supposing anything. I read your post, and it is clearly biased and pushes FUD. Thats what it is. You certainly dont have to agree, but it is what it is whether you acknowledge it or not.
A definition is a definition, whether you like that definition or not. It's not about you, or what you think, or what you want to be true. It is what it is.
If a tree falls in the woods, but you didnt see it fall, does that mean it didnt fall?
This is a funny way to argue. At question isn't what it is, independently; it's what you say it is. It isn't FUD just becasue you say it is, no matter how much you posture around it.
If you're the one telling me it's fallen, I have my doubts -- particularly since you aren't interested in exploring falling trees, talking about trees, or talking about falling -- and are instead interesting in telling everone how you're uinversally right.duby229 said:
Looks like this is another example of how phanbois can't get anywhere.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,677
He gave you facts, Duby, are you saying that the facts are biased?
Where did I say I was right? It's not about what you me or anybody else thinks. A definition is a definition. That rant by definition is FUD.
A platform includes the CPU, memory and the rest of the hardware needed to make it work. We aren't debating the merits of the 4x4 motherboard, or the QX6700 test motherboards. We are talking about the platform as a whole. Architecture of the CPUs used on each platform is indeed at the heart of the matter when comparing the highest end Intel platform, vs. the highest end AMD platform, the AMD platform loses most of the time.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the facts?
This is probably the most ridiculous post I have ever read. You are arguing that bringing facts into a debate is biased. You know, you throw that term around quite a bit but I'm not entirely sure you know what it means. If you did, you certainly would not make such an absurd claim. Are you actually saying that I am showing bias by introducing data that has been confirmed by several different independent sources? Are you ACTUALLY making that claim?
Furthermore, a "platform" can only be as fast as the weakest component. If the FX-7x CPUs are the weakest part of the 4x4 platform then it is perfectly reasonable and understandable that we would argue its merits. As is, a comparable Core 2 Quad platform will be faster while using less juice. You can use the evidence I've already provided. Those Core 2s were all run on motherboards that contained video cards and RAM. They were all platforms. The 4x4 platform lost to all of them. In fact, if everything must be about platform, and every CPU/motherboard combination is a different platform, then AMD doesn't even come in 2nd place. They would probably end up around 20th (assuming there are 19 motherboards that support Core 2 Quad).
You clearly have no clue what your talking about. Platform and architecture are two very different topics that should rarely be mingled except for very specific reasons, and this aint one of the,m.
Yes we can discuss Intel's high end platform vs AMD's, but that is not what this is about either,. and it aint about Architecture either....
CPU's do not make a platform trust me. It's not even the most important part. Not close. I refuse to talk to you any further based on your clear lack of knowledge.
The system as a whole is called a "PC" or Personal Computer.... The platform consists of what that computer is capable of doing... Can it support HDD, What kind. Can it support Memory? What kind? Can it support GPU's What kind? What expansion slots does it have. And so on...
In order to compare platforms, all components, or as many as possible must be the same in order to eliminate components as a bottleneck... Some platforms are simply not comparable.
In this case the CPU is a component We all know that Core2 is faster. It is not part of the platform.... It is part of the PC, a component. It has no bearing what so ever on the merits of the platform.
See you also clearly have no clue what your talking about.... You cant call it a "Core 2 Quad" Platform.... That aint what it is. That suggests the platform is architecture dependant, and that is bull, and you know it full well.
I'm saying that you rant was biased becouse your evidence is completely worthless in this debate becouse it has no bearing what so ever on platform.
Explain to me how "platform" and "architecture" are two different things? I especially want to know how can justify the statement that they are very different.
Furthermore, if I were to accept the conclusion that platform and architecture (I'm assuming you mean CPU by this but not entirely sure) are so separate, then consequently I would be forced to conclude that altering one would have little to no effect on the other. Is this conlusion supported by evidence? AMD integrated an IMC onto their K7 and eliminated the memory controller that had been in every K7 platform up until that point. Here's a case where a CPU drastically affected the platform configuration. On the low end, AMD's GPU in a CPU project will once again drastically alter what a platform looks like. So, we must conclude that CPU changes can affect the platform rendering the consequence of your conclusion incorrect. If your conclusion is incorrect, then we must examine the premises you use to make that conclusion. So please, explain to the community how you came to conclude that the "architecture" and "platform" have nothing to do with each other.
Your next paragraph makes no sense on any level.
Calling an editor of this website clueless is not a way to make friends. However, your statement does beg the question so I shall ask it. What is the most important part of the platform?
I guess I must have missed the part of those reviews where they discussed how they ran the benchmarks without a motherboard or hard drive. In fact, all of those review units had a motherboard, hard drives, video cards, memory, etc. THEY WERE ALL PLATFORMS USING YOUR OWN DEFINITION. Furthermore, the 4x4 platform performed generally worse, consumed more power, and created more heat than any Core 2 Quad platform it competed against.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are still arguing this. Everyone reading this forum has a platform according to your very own definition. You speak as if the only "platform" is the 4x4.
You do realize that the further you go with this the more foolish you look, correct? Is your pride really that important to you?
Wow, I'm just amazed..... And still after spelling it out so that my grandma, who has never used a computer before, could understand it, you still dont get it....
They tested PC, against PC..... The tests were NOT platform agnostic. Why? Becouse that was NOT the purpose.
Core2 is faster.... That much is clear and plain as day. Your links prove that much, there is no question about it, and I never argued against it...
However, they have NO bearing on the platform.
Wow. Your statements say it all.
Aside from the personal attacks, this statement here says it all and CONFIRMS what I was saying. "In order to compare platforms, all components, or as many as possible must be the same in order to eliminate components as a bottleneck... Some platforms are simply not comparable. "
A platform includes all components does it? Well you have just contradicted yourself and agreed with my earlier post despite your best efforts. A platform consists of a CPU, memory, hard drive, motherboard and so on.
Would you not agree that the PC is computing platform? Would you not also agree that the Macintosh is a platform? Those platforms would also by definition include all devices and components needed to make those platforms complete and functional. This is the definition the industry has come to accept. That means that the AMD FX-74 and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (and required parts for each) are both competing products to be used by consumers in a Windows, Unix, or whatever x86 compatible computer. They both represent the current available pinnacle of technology offered by the two manufacturers.
No matter how you want to break it down, any intelligent consumer shopping for a high end computer will look at all available options and the FX-74 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700 are the top offerings made for desktop use by AMD and Intel. Any comparisons of system components and their advantages and subsequently their disadvantages are valid when buying a whole system or component parts for an upgrade.
Argue the definition of platform all you want to. No one seems to be buying into the argument you are making. Additionally, if you can admit and recognize that the Core 2 Duo is faster, just what the hell are you arguing about?
I get it... you try to play semantics to make a point that doesn't exist. The only definition you've given of platform is as follows:
duby229 said:
Although you seem to define a motherboard more than anything else so let's take a different definition.
Wikipedia said:
Hmm... much better. The 4x4 platform basically includes the motherboard and a set of FX-7x CPUs. Is this correct? From there, you are free to pick whatever other components you'd like. Therefore, it is only logical to compare this MB/CPU combo to the competitor. The competitor makes CPU and chipsets. However, many different MB manufacturers produce motherboards that support Core 2 Quad. Plugging a Core 2 Quad into one of those motherboards makes that system a Core 2 Quad platform per your definition. This MB/CPU combo can now be compared to the 4x4 using identical memory, video card, hard drives, etc. When we compare platforms as such we discover that the Core 2 Quad platform outperforms the QuadFX platform in a majority of benchmarks while producing less heat and using less power.
I also want to know how you differentiate PC and platform. Apparently, a system with an Intel CPU has ports for different hard drives, slots for different cards and memory, it is a PC but when FX-7x CPUs are in an Asus motherboard that has ports for hard drives, slots for different cards and memory it is a platform. That appears to be your working definition.
I concur.
Additionally, no one has said anything bad about the ASUS 4x4 motherboard. In fact I think it's great, I just wish AMD had some quad core CPUs that actually out performed or were more comparable to Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme Edition CPUs to put on it.
In post #96, post #101, post #105, and again within post #106 itself.
As I Lay Dying
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 975
if I may throw my two cents in, first off I *like the idea* of 4x4 and V8 (I like the idea that I have more choice when I decide to build a dual quad core system, that is geared toward enthusiasts, so hopefully better overclocking, on multi socket boards.
The current implementation of 4x4 is aweful, why AMD only allows Asus to build the motherboards is beyond me. I like the motherboard, its a great motherboard to build my self a killer pc, I don't need the 4 video cards but the (possibility of 8 cores) and 12 sata ports not to mention the multiple GB ethernet ports, meaning I have a great desktop, and double as media/file server on my home network, which essentially what my main computer does on my network currently.
Put simply put the AMD K8L (core 2 duos the real opponent, any one believing Intel made core 2 duo to to beat K8 is mistaken, Intel knew c2d would hand AMD thier ass, its the next gen AMD chips that should HOPEFULLY make things interesting again), wont be out for a while, so we dont have any single socket quad core chip from AMD. We do not know if the K8L chips will even work in the current 4x4 boards. I think Asus's price is high, really high because honestly who else is allowed to make 4x4 boards???
Also on a bit of a side note on power usage, has anyone compared the power usage of 2 dual core c2d chips vs 2 amd dual core chips, I imagine depending, the single socket usage the wattage would scale similarly. And I honestly think this is why intel slapping two cores on one die is good, because it allows them to have a better temporary quad core solution then AMD. I honestly think that the reason why AMD has not done the same is because they are too proud to the same thing they were slamming intel of doing with the p4d and now the current qx chips.
The current implementation of 4x4 is aweful, why AMD only allows Asus to build the motherboards is beyond me. I like the motherboard, its a great motherboard to build my self a killer pc, I don't need the 4 video cards but the (possibility of 8 cores) and 12 sata ports not to mention the multiple GB ethernet ports, meaning I have a great desktop, and double as media/file server on my home network, which essentially what my main computer does on my network currently.
Put simply put the AMD K8L (core 2 duos the real opponent, any one believing Intel made core 2 duo to to beat K8 is mistaken, Intel knew c2d would hand AMD thier ass, its the next gen AMD chips that should HOPEFULLY make things interesting again), wont be out for a while, so we dont have any single socket quad core chip from AMD. We do not know if the K8L chips will even work in the current 4x4 boards. I think Asus's price is high, really high because honestly who else is allowed to make 4x4 boards???
Also on a bit of a side note on power usage, has anyone compared the power usage of 2 dual core c2d chips vs 2 amd dual core chips, I imagine depending, the single socket usage the wattage would scale similarly. And I honestly think this is why intel slapping two cores on one die is good, because it allows them to have a better temporary quad core solution then AMD. I honestly think that the reason why AMD has not done the same is because they are too proud to the same thing they were slamming intel of doing with the p4d and now the current qx chips.
Dan_D and BigDH01,
I want to ask you two something. And specifically you Dan
/quote
I concur.
Additionally, no one has said anything bad about the ASUS 4x4 motherboard. In fact I think it's great, I just wish AMD had some quad core CPUs that actually out performed or were more comparable to Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme Edition CPUs to put on it.
/quote
Now by saying this you say that the archeticture is good...warrented...a possibility. Correct?
Then ill ask this....WHY has intel brought out V8. If quad core is so damn good there should be no reason for it. I await your response's. BTW this is the AMD forum and im specifically talking about 4 x 4.
I want to ask you two something. And specifically you Dan
/quote
I concur.
Additionally, no one has said anything bad about the ASUS 4x4 motherboard. In fact I think it's great, I just wish AMD had some quad core CPUs that actually out performed or were more comparable to Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme Edition CPUs to put on it.
/quote
Now by saying this you say that the archeticture is good...warrented...a possibility. Correct?
Then ill ask this....WHY has intel brought out V8. If quad core is so damn good there should be no reason for it. I await your response's. BTW this is the AMD forum and im specifically talking about 4 x 4.
- Status