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

[Dan_D]

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.

No, I said the motherboard was good. The design of the motherboard and chipset are good. The design of the processor is good as well. The architecture of the K8 has essentially seen few changes since the original Athlon 64 outside of some improvements to the on-die memory controller. The Athlon FX-74 CPU SPECIFICALLY is still based on that architecture that the Athlon 64/FX/X2 all use. This means that on a clock for clock basis, the FX-74 almost always loses to the Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Quad/Extreme series processors in most tests. That doesn't make the 4x4 and FX-74 crap, it just means that as it stands right now, I wouldn't recommend them to ANYONE.

The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 does almost everything better for less money, using less power. With that said I think it is important to discuss the possible future of the 4x4 platform.

This isn't official information, and is speculative on my part.

I suspect that one of two things is going to happen. Possibly both.

1.) AMD will eventually (They've already said they would) release quad core CPUs that drop into the existing 4x4 motherboard. This means that a 4x4 motherboard can be equipped with eight cores and essentially, it will be and already is a dual socket Opteron system that uses standard memory modules and not those of the registered or ECC variety. When and IF AMD does this, the platform will be worth another look. I suspect that compared to anything Intel has at the time, AMD might be slightly slower than V8 from a pure processor standpoint, but the platform doesn't require FB-DIMMs and also can use multiple video cards. As such the 4x4 platform might take on a whole new level of appeal. Even so, they would need to release a new architecture or at least some kind of low power variant of a quad core CPU to truly make 4x4 competitive. Remember that the name of the game these days is performance per watt. As it stands now, 4x4 and the FX-74 suck in regard to this.

2.) AMD will release a drop in version of K8L for the 4x4 motherboard, or may commission a new variant of the 4x4 board if required. If they do this, or when they do this, 4x4 will be worth another look.

END SPECULATION

I never said 4x4 was a dumb idea or that the platform didn't have it's merrits. Certainly the motherboard is as feature packed as anything else on the market, and frankly exceeds most solutions. What I am saying is that Core 2 Quad/Extreme processors with four cores are a SUPERIOR alternative to 4x4 at this time. They are faster, use less power, generate less heat and use standard ATX size motherboards.

You don't need an E-ATX capable chassis, or 4 sticks of ram to get the most out of a Core 2 Duo/Quad/Extreme compatible motherboard, with 4x4 you do. I think that right now, 4x4 is a poor choice for a high end system, and until AMD releases new CPUs that work on that motherboard, it isn't worth the price of admission.

 

[DejaWiz]

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'll help answer this.....

intel brought out the V8 platform to flex it's muscles while AMD is still pushing out "new" innovations using existing and aging technology. It's a pissing contest, nothing more. Not saying this is a bad thing....pissing contests between hardware developers usually = a big win for the consumers.

 

[Scali2]

The current implementation of 4x4 is aweful, why AMD only allows Asus to build the motherboards is beyond me.

I suspect that AMD does this to ensure reliability and compatibility. Since the motherboard has so much more components than a regular board, and these components require a lot of power, it's a very complex task to build a stable motherboard for this platform.
So I think that AMD chose Asus as their only partner, so that they have more control over the quality of motherboards. At least they can't blame the 4x4 platform for being unreliable now... it has enough problems already.

 

[Dan_D]

I'll help answer this.....

intel brought out the V8 platform to flex it's muscles while AMD is still pushing out "new" innovations using existing and aging technology. It's a pissing contest, nothing more. Not saying this is a bad thing....pissing contests between hardware developers usually = a big win for the consumers.

I agree. It's just a stunt to steal the thunder of the 4x4. As little of it as there is anyway.

 

[BigDH01]

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?

This sentence makes no sense. Clarify.

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.

Intel didn't "bring out" V8. It was a technology demonstrator and nothing more. Why do you think Intel used FBDIMMs and only one video card? Because they simply went and picked off-the-shelf server parts, nothing more. It was a marketing move and a poke at AMD. AMD marketing has been touting 8 core compatibility as a benefit of 4x4. Intel was simply proving that if you want 8 cores in 2 sockets you could do so right now using Intel parts. Nothing more than posturing.

Yeah, my K7-600 was pretty damn good when it was released, why did they ever release anything better? My Northwood 2.8 was pretty damn good, why were the A64s released? My X2 was pretty damn good, why was the Core 2 released? Your logic is faulty. In certain programs, 8 cores will be better than 4, that's why. However, Core 2 Quad is certainly pretty damn good when compared to the analogous part from the competitor.

BTW this is the AMD forum and im specifically talking about 4 x 4.

Then why are you asking about V8?

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Duby, to me, a platform is only as good as what you can put on it. I really don't care if 4x4 uses Intel's new laser tech to interconnect the CPUs, if it only works with Prescotts, it has no value to me.

I'll grant you that 4x4 as a platform probably incorporates several technologies that are superior to Intel's FSB and whatnot. If you could run dual Core 2 Duos on 4x4, and you compared that performance with a single Core 2 Quad on any LGA775 board, the Core 2 + 4x4 solution would probably win.

However, right now, to us as consumers, 4x4 holds little to no value because there's nothing worthwhile to put on that platform. It's like people who say Linux sucks because of a lack of software, or that Vista sucks because of a lack of proper drivers. Both are stellar platforms in their own right, but mitigating circumstances can destroy the value these platforms have to the consumer.

As it stands, 4x4 has little to no value to the consumer because only thing that can run on it is K8. If you made a full 4x4 system right now, it would be more expensive, slower, and consume more power than Intel's offering. I realize K8L is relatively around the corner, but buying a platform now because future performance may be good is foolhardy.

Look, I get what you're trying to say, even if I don't entirely agree. I'm advising you to cool down. This isn't something you should get that worked up about.

 

[duby229]

I'll help answer this.....

intel brought out the V8 platform to flex it's muscles while AMD is still pushing out "new" innovations using existing and aging technology. It's a pissing contest, nothing more. Not saying this is a bad thing....pissing contests between hardware developers usually = a big win for the consumers.

It's "flexing muscles" when Intel does it, "aging technology" when AMD does it aye?

 

[DejaWiz]

It's "flexing muscles" when Intel does it, "aging technology" when AMD does it aye?

No. It's whichever manufacturer has the proven stronger architecture at the time and decides to throw their weight around. AMD did this to intel with their "challenge" a while back. Like I said, it's nothing more than a pissing contest.

I only use the term "aging technology" when talking about AMD right now because these current 4x4 capable processors are still based on the Rev E A64 X2 architecture. AMD will be undoubtedly be attempting to "flex their muscles" when the K8L comes out. That's when I'll be excited to find out what 4x4 can do against the competition. But as of right now, it's a fairly weak showing in my opinion.

 

[Dan_D]

It's "flexing muscles" when Intel does it, "aging technology" when AMD does it aye?

Correct. The post you quoted was correct. Intel is flexing it's muscles by showing a two socket quad core system based on the Core 2 architecture. AMD is using the aging K8 architecture on a new motherboard that uses regular ram. The AMD 4x4 rig has a pair of dual core K8's which are not that new.

 

[duby229]

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.

I'll just repeat what I said in the beginning...

LstOfTheBrunnenG, I agree with you for the most part. But it all boils down to platform, Not architecture. When 4x4 matures, it will be a better alternative then it is currently.

 

[duby229]

No. It's whichever manufacturer has the proven stronger architecture at the time and decides to throw their weight around. AMD did this to intel with their "challenge" a while back. Like I said, it's nothing more than a pissing contest.

I only use the term "aging technology" when talking about AMD right now because these current 4x4 capable processors are still based on the Rev E architecture. AMD will be undoubtedly be attempting to "flex their muscles" when the K8L comes out. That's when I'll be excited to see what 4x4 can do.

Correct. The post you quoted was correct. Intel is flexing it's muscles by showing a two socket quad core system based on the Core 2 architecture. AMD is using the aging K8 architecture on a new motherboard that uses regular ram. The AMD 4x4 rig has a pair of dual core K8's which are not that new.

4x4 is NOT about achitecture

 

[DejaWiz]

4x4 is NOT about achitecture

And I'm talking about the only processor architecture currently available that can work on the only currently available 4x4 platform.

Socket F FX-70, FX-72, and FX-74 = 90nm Rev E A64 X2 architecture.

The evidence tells us that the intel C2Q/C2X 65nm Kentsfield architecture is capable of being part of a superior platform in comparison, in both performance and cost.

But you know what? I don't care either way or give two shits which manufacturer has the bigger stream of piss. Both platforms are way overkill for what I need right now. I'll hold on to my freshly upgraded "aging technology" S939 platform until it no longer fits my needs and the needs of the software I run.

...And I know I'm not the only one who has this viewpoint. Hit up the members still using Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 370, or Socket 478 platforms on this forum.

 

[Scali2]

I'll grant you that 4x4 as a platform probably incorporates several technologies that are superior to Intel's FSB and whatnot. If you could run dual Core 2 Duos on 4x4, and you compared that performance with a single Core 2 Quad on any LGA775 board, the Core 2 + 4x4 solution would probably win.

Depends on what kind of software you run. Having separate memory controllers means you must use NUMA, which is actually a disadvantage when you want to use all cores in the same application, and hence with the same memory space.
This is what makes 4x4 ridiculous as a desktop platform imho... since desktop applications are generally the ones that want to use all cores at the same time... such as audio/video encoding, 3d rendering, games etc.
We can also see that exactly in those kind of multithreaded applications, the gap between QX6700 and 4x4 is the largest.
Only in situations where you run multiple heavy applications at the same time, where you limit each to its own core, does the 4x4 platform really reach the kind of performance you'd expect (and if you don't limit them, it's still very slow... some reviewers already pointed out this problem with various Opteron systems in server environments, nothing changes for 4x4).

So I wouldn't claim that the NUMA/HTT architecture is an advantage over Intels FSB... In many cases, especially on the desktop, it's a disadvantage. It's mainly an overhyped and misunderstood technology. Intel's FSB is actually more efficient in sharing memory between 4 cores, because the sharing is arbitrated in a centralized way. So it is far more forgiving. AMD's NUMA/HTT may have better peak performance, but that doesn't mean much if the average case is worse, and the peak performance can't be reached with regular daily use.

 

[Scali2]

It's "flexing muscles" when Intel does it, "aging technology" when AMD does it aye?

One doesn't exclude the other, does it?
Flexing muscles because it's the best they currently have on offer...
Aging technology because the trend in recent years has been to put more cores onto a single socket, rather than putting more sockets onto the mainboard.
Difference being that Intel's solution combined new technology with the old, to give us 8 cores... where AMD uses this old technology together with its aging dualcore technology to try and match Intel's newer quadcore processors.

 

[BigDH01]

4x4 is NOT about achitecture

Yes, surely the platform has nothing to do with the CPU it is using. I see you've conveniently ignored my previous posts. I actually addressed this point.

 

[Dan_D]

One doesn't exclude the other, does it?
Flexing muscles because it's the best they currently have on offer...
Aging technology because the trend in recent years has been to put more cores onto a single socket, rather than putting more sockets onto the mainboard.
Difference being that Intel's solution combined new technology with the old, to give us 8 cores... where AMD uses this old technology together with its aging dualcore technology to try and match Intel's newer quadcore processors.

This post really expands on the earlier comment about 4x4 being an aged platform, and Intel's being a newer platform.

I agree completely. Intel took a newer processor architecture and combined it with an old idea for more cores. AMD took a newer motherboard design, and coupled it with aging processor technology. At this time, the Intel platform is the superior one in most respects.

I think Duby229 is missing the point we are trying to make here. At present the CPUs that the 4x4 platform must use are indeed at the heart of the matter, and why almost no one would recommend a 4x4 system at this time.

He seems to have also missed what I was saying concerning 4x4 improving when newer CPUs become available. It is my prediction that until K8L is available as a drop in for existing 4x4 motherboards, the platform will still always be behind the Intel platform in terms of performance. The feature set of the 4x4 board is fantastic, and what I would expect out of an E-ATX motherboard.

One could argue that the 4x4 is worth it for the features of the board alone. I suggest that anyone needing 12 SATA devices and 4 PCIe slots look into to some kind of Xeon or Opteron platform and appropriate controller card. I think Scali really hit the nail on the head in stating that 4x4 is worthless as a desktop platform because the advantages that NUMA has will not be realized in a desktop usage scenario.

Right now the QX6700 makes alot more sense for high end desktop applications and usage than the 4x4 and dual FX-74 CPUs for reasons stated 20 times in this thread. It seems to me were are beating a dead horse here. All the information someone needs to make an informed decision about purchasing the 4x4 and appropriate CPUs past present and speculatively in the future is here in this thread and is available in a search of forum topics. Duby229 is not likely to come around and suddenly understand what we've been trying to tell him. .

This thread should be locked as I doubt anything worth while will come out of it going forward.

 

[Scali2]

I think Scali really hit the nail on the head in stating that 4x4 is worthless as a desktop platform because the advantages that NUMA has will not be realized in a desktop usage scenario.

Perhaps it wasn't too clear, but NUMA is specifically a *disadvantage*, because you have to communicate via the HTT-link, to 'borrow' the memory controller of the other CPU, which means that you have much higher latency with memory accesses, and at the same time, you are locking the cores on the other CPU out of using the memory controller.. so while one CPU is using the memory controller of the other, the bandwidth of that other CPU is effectively 0. First of all, because it cannot use its own controller, and secondly because the HTT-link is not even fast enough to sustain the full bandwidth of one controller, so it's already completely saturated... even using the other CPU's now idle controller is not an option.
This is why multi-CPU Opteron and 4x4 systems are actually much SLOWER than a single CPU system in a lot of benchmarks.
Your application needs to specifically be NUMA-aware in order to try and avoid these bottlenecks... But since there has never been a NUMA desktop-platform before, the number of NUMA-aware applications on the desktop is virtually 0.

 

[Dan_D]

Perhaps it wasn't too clear, but NUMA is specifically a *disadvantage*, because you have to communicate via the HTT-link, to 'borrow' the memory controller of the other CPU, which means that you have much higher latency with memory accesses, and at the same time, you are locking the cores on the other CPU out of using the memory controller.. so while one CPU is using the memory controller of the other, the bandwidth of that other CPU is effectively 0. First of all, because it cannot use its own controller, and secondly because the HTT-link is not even fast enough to sustain the full bandwidth of one controller, so it's already completely saturated... even using the other CPU's now idle controller is not an option.
This is why multi-CPU Opteron and 4x4 systems are actually much SLOWER than a single CPU system in a lot of benchmarks.
Your application needs to specifically be NUMA-aware in order to try and avoid these bottlenecks... But since there has never been a NUMA desktop-platform before, the number of NUMA-aware applications on the desktop is virtually 0.

I realize this. We've had that discussion in a number of threads in the SMP section.

I just didn't get into any of that in my follow up post because I didn't feel the need to cover information you already did.

 

[duby229]

The only time NUMA becomes a disadvantage is when a core has to access remote memory, with an OS with a properly written memory manager that will rarely happen.... In all other scenarios it gains over SMP.

 

[duby229]

Right now the QX6700 makes alot more sense for high end desktop applications and usage than the 4x4 and dual FX-74 CPUs for reasons stated 20 times in this thread. It seems to me were are beating a dead horse here. All the information someone needs to make an informed decision about purchasing the 4x4 and appropriate CPUs past present and speculatively in the future is here in this thread and is available in a search of forum topics. Duby229 is not likely to come around and suddenly understand what we've been trying to tell him. .

Your teying to say that architecture is what matters, and that is not the case at all. 4x4 is not architecture dependant. Yes there is only one architecture available for the platform at this time, but that is entirely beyond the point. You claim that I dont understand the arguement, but I understand it fully.

I do agree that we are beating a dead horse however....

 

[Dan_D]

Your teying to say that architecture is what matters, and that is not the case at all. 4x4 is not architecture dependant. Yes there is only one architecture available for the platform at this time, but that is entirely beyond the point. You claim that I dont understand the arguement, but I understand it fully.

I do agree that we are beating a dead horse however....

You are talking about a motherboard. The definition of a platform as clarified in some of the above posts states that a platform is more than that.

No one here bashed the 4x4 motherboard I think it's feature rich, and a good solution. It's just not worth having right now because there are no CPUs worth using with it right now.

 

[duby229]

You are talking about a motherboard. The definition of a platform as clarified in some of the above posts states that a platform is more than that.

No one here bashed the 4x4 motherboard I think it's feature rich, and a good solution. It's just not worth having right now because there are no CPUs worth using with it right now.

No I'm talking about a platform, and platforms are not architecture dependent.

 

[BigDH01]

No I'm talking about a platform, and platforms are not architecture dependent.

Then what other CPU can I toss into a 4x4 motherboard? I would say that the whole platform pretty much rests on the FX-7x series CPU (at least for now).

 

[duby229]

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.

And I'll repeat myself again.

 

[BigDH01]

I don't even know what statement that was directed at. Are you planning on making a coherent point anywhere in this thread?

 

[duby229]

The point is perfectly clear.... the 4x4 platform has nothing to do with architecture.... As is is also true for just about every other platform in existence...

 

[BigDH01]

The point is perfectly clear.... the 4x4 platform has nothing to do with architecture.... As is is also true for just about every other platform in existence...

I think there's definitely a clear point here... but it's not what you think.

How you can say that a platform has nothing to do with the CPU is beyond me. It is clear at this point that your pride is more important to you than being right or wrong. I've given analogies, examples, arguments, etc. You've given me "It is because I say it is and it isn't because I say it isn't."

"A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts." - Herbert Prochnow

 

[enumae]

duby229 could you please explain what your definition of a platform is, or direct me to one of your post I may have misread?

 

[duby229]

If you guys dont know what a platform is, I'm sorry but I cant help you...

Platform in the sense of computer technology is more or less what a computer is capable of doing.... What CPU, What memory, What Expansion slots, What Drive controller, What Peripheral controller and so on....

The things that plug into them are components..... The platform with all components plugged in a system, A PC as we call it....

A CPU is a component, Or the architecture as we call it.
A HDD is a componet
A GPU is a component
A Sound Card is a component


When comparing components, Like CPU's for example, then the platforms should be as close as possible, and the other components should be identical.

When comparing platforms, ALL components must be identical, if they are not identical, for example, an AMD CPU vs an Intel CPU, then those benches MUST be left out, becouse they have NO bearing on the platform.

 

[BinarySynapse]

If you guys dont know what a platform is, I'm sorry but I cant help you...

Platform in the sense of computer technology is more or less what a computer is capable of doing.... What CPU, What memory, What Expansion slots, What Drive controller, What Peripheral controller and so on....

The things that plug into them are components..... The platform with all components plugged in a system, A PC as we call it....

A CPU is a component, Or the architecture as we call it.
A HDD is a componet
A GPU is a component
A Sound Card is a component


When comparing components, Like CPU's for example, then the platforms should be as close as possible, and the other components should be identical.

When comparing platforms, ALL components must be identical, if they are not identical, for example, an AMD CPU vs an Intel CPU, then those benches MUST be left out, becouse they have NO bearing on the platform.

And the motherboard is a component. All of them put together is a platform. What is the point of comparing two platforms if all parts are identical? They would in fact be the same platform.

By your description above we shouldn't compare anything at all (and not just computers).

So let's make it even simpler. Both Intel and AMD are part of the x86 platform. So there's your basis for comparison. They both execute the same instructions. Both will give the same results of the before mentioned instructions. Therefore the comparison that needs to be made is "Which platform is going to perform what I need it to do in the best most effiecient manner?"

 

[BigDH01]

If you guys dont know what a platform is, I'm sorry but I cant help you...

Platform in the sense of computer technology is more or less what a computer is capable of doing.... What CPU, What memory, What Expansion slots, What Drive controller, What Peripheral controller and so on....

The things that plug into them are components..... The platform with all components plugged in a system, A PC as we call it....

A CPU is a component, Or the architecture as we call it.
A HDD is a componet
A GPU is a component
A Sound Card is a component


When comparing components, Like CPU's for example, then the platforms should be as close as possible, and the other components should be identical.

When comparing platforms, ALL components must be identical, if they are not identical, for example, an AMD CPU vs an Intel CPU, then those benches MUST be left out, becouse they have NO bearing on the platform.

Wrong. What you describe is a motherboard. The platform is the hardware in a computer that is accessed by the software. The platform is comprised of all those parts that you listed. Without RAM, MB, CPU the platform is worthless as it isn't capable of running software.

Here

Here

Here

Here

Funny, Merriam-Webster actually uses the term "architecture" when defining a platform.

Here

This is Intel's own definition. Intel describes 5 major ingredients of a platform. Number 1 on the list? Hardware. According to Intel hardware includes the processor. That's right, a multi-billion dollar semiconductor company says that the CPU IS part of the platform. But I guess Intel is wrong too. You obviously know more than they do.

Here

Press release of 4x4. Notice how they emphasize how multiple cores allows the machine to excel at multithreaded applications. I like this quote:

With AMD64 technology and Dual Socket Direct Connect Architecture, the new AMD Quad FX Platform offers scaleable performance enhancements on a personal workstation powered by AMD Athlon 64 FX processors. In addition, this consumer powerhouse platform is designed with next-generation platform innovations such as high-performance, low-latency unbuffered DDR2 memory and for Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) support with compatible operating systems.

AMD64 = CPU
Hypertransport (DCA, there's that architecture word) = CPU
DDR2 memory connected to the IMC = CPU
NUMA = CPU

Hmm.. there's 4 technologies that AMD is touting in their 4x4 platform that is made available by the CPU, something which you say has no effect on the platform.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare platforms with different components. When I'm looking for a car (platform), I compare cars from different manufacturers with different parts. That's how I decide what gives the best performance and what is the best value.

When will you just admit you are wrong?

 

[LstBrunnenG]

4x4 is a platform upon which you can put CPUs. CPUs are platforms upon which you can put OSes. OSes are platforms upon which you can put software APIs. Software APIs are platforms upon which you can run applications. They're all platforms. Granted different kinds of platforms, but platforms nonetheless.

Each platform also includes the components under it. If you call the CPU a platform, you're including 4x4.

 

[Dan_D]

If you guys dont know what a platform is, I'm sorry but I cant help you...

Platform in the sense of computer technology is more or less what a computer is capable of doing.... What CPU, What memory, What Expansion slots, What Drive controller, What Peripheral controller and so on....

The things that plug into them are components..... The platform with all components plugged in a system, A PC as we call it....

A CPU is a component, Or the architecture as we call it.
A HDD is a componet
A GPU is a component
A Sound Card is a component


When comparing components, Like CPU's for example, then the platforms should be as close as possible, and the other components should be identical.

When comparing platforms, ALL components must be identical, if they are not identical, for example, an AMD CPU vs an Intel CPU, then those benches MUST be left out, becouse they have NO bearing on the platform.

You are describing a motherboard.

Are you telling us that Intel vs. AMD benchmarks aren't valid because they aren't identical platforms? Bwhahahahahah!

I'm going to stop trying to help you understand. Obviously, there are some very basic concepts that you aren't grasping here.

4x4 is a platform upon which you can put CPUs. CPUs are platforms upon which you can put OSes. OSes are platforms upon which you can put software APIs. Software APIs are platforms upon which you can run applications. They're all platforms. Granted different kinds of platforms, but platforms nonetheless.

Each platform also includes the components under it. If you call the CPU a platform, you're including 4x4.

I understand what you are saying, and that first part is all Duby229 wants to look at. As BigDH01 points out in his post, a platform is more than just a motherboard, though I understand what you are saying.

Wrong. What you describe is a motherboard. The platform is the hardware in a computer that is accessed by the software. The platform is comprised of all those parts that you listed. Without RAM, MB, CPU the platform is worthless as it isn't capable of running software.

Here

Here

Here

Here

Funny, Merriam-Webster actually uses the term "architecture" when defining a platform.

Here

This is Intel's own definition. Intel describes 5 major ingredients of a platform. Number 1 on the list? Hardware. According to Intel hardware includes the processor. That's right, a multi-billion dollar semiconductor company says that the CPU IS part of the platform. But I guess Intel is wrong too. You obviously know more than they do.

Here

Press release of 4x4. Notice how they emphasize how multiple cores allows the machine to excel at multithreaded applications. I like this quote:

With AMD64 technology and Dual Socket Direct Connect Architecture, the new AMD Quad FX Platform offers scaleable performance enhancements on a personal workstation powered by AMD Athlon 64 FX processors. In addition, this consumer powerhouse platform is designed with next-generation platform innovations such as high-performance, low-latency unbuffered DDR2 memory and for Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) support with compatible operating systems.

AMD64 = CPU
Hypertransport (DCA, there's that architecture word) = CPU
DDR2 memory connected to the IMC = CPU
NUMA = CPU

Hmm.. there's 4 technologies that AMD is touting in their 4x4 platform that is made available by the CPU, something which you say has no effect on the platform.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare platforms with different components. When I'm looking for a car (platform), I compare cars from different manufacturers with different parts. That's how I decide what gives the best performance and what is the best value.

When will you just admit you are wrong?

Intel's and AMD only create this stuff, what the hell do they know?

Duby229, your response?

 

[Deleted member 133315]

This thread is just full of, I will put it as nicely as I can, shit.

wait til quad core amd cpu's come out and then start comparing 4x4 against intels latest, until then their is too much !!!!!!'s spewing shizzat for this thread to be taken seriously.

 

[Dan_D]

This thread is just full of, I will put it as nicely as I can, shit.

wait til quad core amd cpu's come out and then start comparing 4x4 against intels latest, until then their is too much !!!!!!'s spewing shizzat for this thread to be taken seriously.

You compare the best each company has to offer when it's available. When AMD releases new CPUs that are 4x4 motherboard compatible, then yes, those CPUs should be compared to QX6700 or whatever Intel has to offer at the time.

By no means are comparisons between the two less valid just because AMD can't compete in terms of performance and price.

 

[duby229]

And the motherboard is a component. All of them put together is a platform. What is the point of comparing two platforms if all parts are identical? They would in fact be the same platform.

By your description above we shouldn't compare anything at all (and not just computers).

So let's make it even simpler. Both Intel and AMD are part of the x86 platform. So there's your basis for comparison. They both execute the same instructions. Both will give the same results of the before mentioned instructions. Therefore the comparison that needs to be made is "Which platform is going to perform what I need it to do in the best most effiecient manner?"

x86 is not a platform it's an architecture....

 

[duby229]

You are describing a motherboard.

Are you telling us that Intel vs. AMD benchmarks aren't valid because they aren't identical platforms? Bwhahahahahah!

I'm going to stop trying to help you understand. Obviously, there are some very basic concepts that you aren't grasping here.



I understand what you are saying, and that first part is all Duby229 wants to look at. As BigDH01 points out in his post, a platform is more than just a motherboard, though I understand what you are saying.



Intel's and AMD only create this stuff, what the hell do they know?

Duby229, your response?

As I I said above, twhen comparing Architecture, it must be acknowledged that that it is a component and becouse the platform cant be exactly the same there is a certain level of inaccuraccy in any result you get.

When comparing platforms the exact same is true.... Some platforms are so different they cant be compared at all. In this case they can be compared...

 

[duby229]

You compare the best each company has to offer when it's available. When AMD releases new CPUs that are 4x4 motherboard compatible, then yes, those CPUs should be compared to QX6700 or whatever Intel has to offer at the time.

By no means are comparisons between the two less valid just because AMD can't compete in terms of performance and price.

Your talking about comparing architecture again. There is no point in this... We already know Core2 is faster... You can stop hawking it now. We know.... But this thread is not about Core 2.... It really is that simple whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[duby229]

Wrong. What you describe is a motherboard. The platform is the hardware in a computer that is accessed by the software. The platform is comprised of all those parts that you listed. Without RAM, MB, CPU the platform is worthless as it isn't capable of running software.

Here

Here

Here

Here

Funny, Merriam-Webster actually uses the term "architecture" when defining a platform.

Here

This is Intel's own definition. Intel describes 5 major ingredients of a platform. Number 1 on the list? Hardware. According to Intel hardware includes the processor. That's right, a multi-billion dollar semiconductor company says that the CPU IS part of the platform. But I guess Intel is wrong too. You obviously know more than they do.

Here

Press release of 4x4. Notice how they emphasize how multiple cores allows the machine to excel at multithreaded applications. I like this quote:

With AMD64 technology and Dual Socket Direct Connect Architecture, the new AMD Quad FX Platform offers scaleable performance enhancements on a personal workstation powered by AMD Athlon 64 FX processors. In addition, this consumer powerhouse platform is designed with next-generation platform innovations such as high-performance, low-latency unbuffered DDR2 memory and for Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) support with compatible operating systems.

AMD64 = CPU
Hypertransport (DCA, there's that architecture word) = CPU
DDR2 memory connected to the IMC = CPU
NUMA = CPU

Hmm.. there's 4 technologies that AMD is touting in their 4x4 platform that is made available by the CPU, something which you say has no effect on the platform.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare platforms with different components. When I'm looking for a car (platform), I compare cars from different manufacturers with different parts. That's how I decide what gives the best performance and what is the best value.

When will you just admit you are wrong?

Lets go ahead and look at these definitions you've looked up....

This one is pretty vague, but it works in the strictest sense.

A computing Platform is a type of hardware and/or software where application programs may run

This one here is wrong 1: is describing architecture 2 is correct. and 3 is correct

The term platform as used in a computer context can refer to (1) the type of processor and/or other hardware on which a given operating system or application program runs, (2) the type of operating system on a computer or (3) the combination of the type of hardware and the type of operating system running on it.

This one.... Vague, but correct.

In computers, a platform is an underlying computer system on which application programs can run.

If you dont mind me asking what the hell does this mean? An integrated set of iingrediants? Is this cake baking? Then the sum of its parts? What the hell?

Intel® Platforms › What is a Platform?
What is a Platform?
Intel defines a platform as an integrated set of ingredients that enables targeted usage models, grows existing markets and creates new markets, and which delivers greater end-user benefits than the sum of its parts.

None of the other links you provided offer a definition, and are in no way related. You can call me a liar, but all but one of your own links agree with me. Sorry...

When I buy a car, I llok at the car.... When I buy an engine, I look at the engine..... When I buy 4x4 I will look at the platform.... When K8L gets released I will look at the architecture.... When I buy a PC... I look at all components as a whole, and look at the PC....

The problem I believe is that you guys dont know the difference between a system, and a platform... You guys might want to look up what an "agency" is... It'll really help you grasp the bigger picture.

 

[Scali2]

The only time NUMA becomes a disadvantage is when a core has to access remote memory, with an OS with a properly written memory manager that will rarely happen.... In all other scenarios it gains over SMP.

That's nonsense.
The OS has no control over this... Or shouldn't have anyway.
Think about it... if all cores want to use the same memory in a single application (which is a common situation), the OS can't do anything about it with the memory manager. The only thing the OS can do to prevent remote memory access is to run such an application only on one CPU... which is obviously not a good solution.

The application has to take care of it, the OS has no control at this level.
You're probably confused with single-threaded applications. In that case the OS and memory manager can make sure that a single application can run only on one CPU, and allocate only its memory. But when a single application uses both CPUs (which is what desktop-applications do, when optimized for multithreading), there's no way the OS can do anything about... you either use less cores, or you access remote memory. There's no way to avoid the NUMA problems without sacrificing performance one way or the other.