Two dual core CPUs in desktop, 4x4 computing (quad cpu cores, quad graphics cores). There will be two banks of memory, two CPUs connect via ccHT gluelessly as in a 2P Opteron server, but at much lower system cost. 25.6GB/s memory bandwidth + 16GB/s I/O bandwidth.
I hope it can mixed CPUs, say one dual core and one quad-core, or a dual-core and an FPGA co-processor. Or, you can have one 4GHZ single core CPU for single threaded games, and one dual core for multithreaded ones. I also wonder about the rumored inverse threading.
4x4 is a long term strategic ccHT solution to pin down Intel permanently at 50% of AMD's performance. As Intel moves to quadcore, so does AMD, 4x4 will have 8 cores. AMD can keep this 2x desktop performance advantage until Intel develops something similar to ccHT and IMC to reduce system cost. Right now, Intel needs a Woodcrest server to compete against 4x4.
AMD is so smart.
I can hear Intel folks crying about AMD changing the rules, "unfair" they complain.
Intel's thinking is outdated. While the whole computing industry is looking to increase throughput, Intel is trying to increase complexity and squeeze last bit of single thread performance -- just like they did for GHZ. The AMD 4x4 technology will give AMD 80% higher performance on 80% of the benchmarks.
Do you want to buy an Intel Extreme processor for $999, or two 35 watt Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2s for $600? Do you want 100% performance improvment or alleged 20%? I think the choice is clear.
AMD should introduce a "4x4 capable" label for its boxed AM2 CPUs, much like the "HDTV capable" sticker on TVs. When people see the sticker, they know the 4x4 potential of the processor. The rest is all low end.
I hope it can mixed CPUs, say one dual core and one quad-core, or a dual-core and an FPGA co-processor. Or, you can have one 4GHZ single core CPU for single threaded games, and one dual core for multithreaded ones. I also wonder about the rumored inverse threading.
4x4 is a long term strategic ccHT solution to pin down Intel permanently at 50% of AMD's performance. As Intel moves to quadcore, so does AMD, 4x4 will have 8 cores. AMD can keep this 2x desktop performance advantage until Intel develops something similar to ccHT and IMC to reduce system cost. Right now, Intel needs a Woodcrest server to compete against 4x4.
AMD is so smart.
I can hear Intel folks crying about AMD changing the rules, "unfair" they complain.
Intel's thinking is outdated. While the whole computing industry is looking to increase throughput, Intel is trying to increase complexity and squeeze last bit of single thread performance -- just like they did for GHZ. The AMD 4x4 technology will give AMD 80% higher performance on 80% of the benchmarks.
Do you want to buy an Intel Extreme processor for $999, or two 35 watt Athlon 64 X2 3800+ AM2s for $600? Do you want 100% performance improvment or alleged 20%? I think the choice is clear.
AMD should introduce a "4x4 capable" label for its boxed AM2 CPUs, much like the "HDTV capable" sticker on TVs. When people see the sticker, they know the 4x4 potential of the processor. The rest is all low end.