Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why AMDs 4x4 plan is doomed

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 17, 2006 2:50:14 PM

For the same price you can get a dual Woodcrest system (i.e. server version of Conroe, i.e. 4 "conroe" cores) ... but the Woodcrest system will be twice as fast as the AMD 4x4 system and use much less power.

Further 4x4 isnt viable for the following additional reasons:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).
-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.

The only way 4x4 could have any appeal beyond a few amd fanboi / performance nuts would be if:
-Non-FX class procs were useable i.e. cheap CPUS.
-<$250 mobos ... not going to happen.

Even then, you are going to be ass raped by the high power costs.

I'm in the UK and, believe me, running my quad Opteron box 24x7 is DAMN expensive.

AMD are going to market this stupid idea by finding a couple of well threaded benchmarks e.g. lame MT and then compare 4 FX cores to 2 Conroe cores. The 4 FX cores will win and that will sucker in your average AMD fanboi ... who will subsequently experiance SLOWER than Conroe real world speeds when they try to use their single/dual threaded apps. AMD profits. AMD fanbois get ass raped (perhaps not a bad thing, all things considered.)

PS: I run advanced scientific simulations which scale nearly linearly to thousands of cores ... which is why I built this 4 core box in the first place.

PPS: AMD stock has tanked 50% in the last 6 months.

More about : amds 4x4 plan doomed

July 17, 2006 2:55:39 PM

Hey didn't you just post this in the 4X4 80% performance increase thread? Oh wait, where did that thread go? Looks like that BS thread got owned. Cool!
July 17, 2006 2:57:01 PM

W-O-R-D-!
Related resources
July 17, 2006 2:58:54 PM

Yes it seems Toms slammed the hammer down... I hope they temp banned or at least PM'd some stern warnings along with this cleanup...
July 17, 2006 3:04:55 PM

Quote:
For the same price you can get a dual Woodcrest system (i.e. server version of Conroe, i.e. 4 "conroe" cores) ... but the Woodcrest system will be twice as fast as the AMD 4x4 system and use much less power.

Further 4x4 isnt viable for the following additional reasons:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).
-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.

The only way 4x4 could have any appeal beyond a few amd fanboi / performance nuts would be if:
-Non-FX class procs were useable i.e. cheap CPUS.
-<$250 mobos ... not going to happen.

Even then, you are going to be ass raped by the high power costs.

I'm in the UK and, believe me, running my quad Opteron box 24x7 is DAMN expensive.

AMD are going to market this stupid idea by finding a couple of well threaded benchmarks e.g. lame MT and then compare 4 FX cores to 2 Conroe cores. The 4 FX cores will win and that will sucker in your average AMD fanboi ... who will subsequently experiance SLOWER than Conroe real world speeds when they try to use their single/dual threaded apps. AMD profits. AMD fanbois get ass raped (perhaps not a bad thing, all things considered.)

PS: I run advanced scientific simulations which scale nearly linearly to thousands of cores ... which is why I built this 4 core box in the first place.

PPS: AMD stock has tanked 50% in the last 6 months.


You should look at this more carefully. First 2xx servers use ECC, this won't. Second, this will have standard 32x SLI. 2xx needs TWO nForce chips for that. 2xx usually has PCIX, this won't.


Also as I stated i the other post - positive though it was - FX has only one HT link just like X2. So it can't be limited to FX. This is only possible because of Direct Connect and HyperTransport.

For me I would love it as a dev box. it shoudl have 8 DDR2 DIMMS which would give 16GB RAM. I could model a small office with virtual server and that much RAM.

It's a good idea though Does anyone remember dual Celerons? they were VERY POPULAR and didn't dent sales of servers.
July 17, 2006 3:08:39 PM

Quote:
Hey didn't you just post this in the 4X4 80% performance increase thread? Oh wait, where did that thread go? Looks like that BS thread got owned. Cool!



Lordpope saw he was getting owned so he killed his own thread. I dont hold with paid-for-forum-marketing-moles running the show here so I reposted my response.
July 17, 2006 3:09:37 PM

It depends. Although I agree with you on some points, there is no actual 4x4 system-based cpu out there yet, so we can't claim that a Woodcrest system will be better. I know this is your personal opinion, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. After all, the AMD 4x4 system could be a woodcrest/c2d killer or just plain-suck like the p4 line actually is. Further, AMD might come up with something we haven't heard of since they have become such a secretive society lately. Get my point, we need more data to corraborate who'll be best between AMD/Intel cpu battle. Nonetheless, we'll benefit from such a slaughterfest! 8)
July 17, 2006 3:13:51 PM

i didnt kill my own thread...the mods killed it

i just posted the article for discussion

and look like some good discussion was going on... but it got deleted


but i bet the AMD IS DOOMED thread wont be deleted
July 17, 2006 3:13:52 PM

Quote:

First 2xx servers use ECC, this won't.


Marginal price difference for a system twice as fast as any AMD 4x4 system.

Quote:

Second, this will have standard 32x SLI. 2xx needs TWO nForce chips for that. 2xx usually has PCIX, this won't.


Intel are releasing a 32X channel SLI workstation chipset for Woodcrest. It will be out before the 4x4 is :lol: 
July 17, 2006 3:14:24 PM

Quote:
Hey didn't you just post this in the 4X4 80% performance increase thread? Oh wait, where did that thread go? Looks like that BS thread got owned. Cool!



Lordpope saw he was getting owned so he killed his own thread. I dont hold with paid-for-forum-marketing-moles running the show here so I reposted my response.

LOLOLOLOL...jeees!, I guess someone saw my post of how early monday morning people were already posting BS threads around here and either deleted the post (kudos to the THG moderators) or LP, realizing how pwned he had got, closed it; that should be done more often.
July 17, 2006 3:16:07 PM

In regards to your post, I agree on all of your points. 4X4 will only find itself at home in a very small niche market.

If 4X4 doesnt get to market before Kentsfield, then at that point, I dont see it being a viable platform at all. It will just be something very expensive that the AMD fanboys can brag about to each other.
July 17, 2006 3:16:48 PM

I posted this question on the 4x4 80% thread, but since that thread is gone I never got an answer...

Do you think AMD may release a 4x4 option for 939 or is 939 pretty much dead to AMD now?
July 17, 2006 3:17:16 PM

Quote:

First 2xx servers use ECC, this won't.


Marginal price difference for a system twice as fast as any AMD 4x4 system.

Quote:

Second, this will have standard 32x SLI. 2xx needs TWO nForce chips for that. 2xx usually has PCIX, this won't.


Intel are releasing a 32X channel SLI workstation chipset for Woodcrest. It will be out before the 4x4 is :lol: 

Where are you guys getting this data from? No offense to none of you guys, is just that I probably have not read enough about this point...I'll google just a bit about this but where are you guys coming up with this type of info from.
July 17, 2006 3:18:02 PM

Quote:
AMD fanbois get ass raped (perhaps not a bad thing, all things considered.)


Yeah damn those 'AMD fanbois' and their abusive attitude.....

Anyone who can this excited pro or anti a company and its products and so called fans needs to wander outside more often or play a DM instead of trying to have one verbally.

Some people on both sides of this very fanatical debate make it an actual embarrassment to enjoy mucking about with technology.
July 17, 2006 3:18:04 PM

Quote:
It depends. Although I agree with you on some points, there is no actual 4x4 system-based cpu out there yet, so we can't claim that a Woodcrest system will be better. I know this is your personal opinion, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. After all, the AMD 4x4 system could be a woodcrest/c2d killer or just plain-suck like the p4 line actually is. Further, AMD might come up with something we haven't heard of since they have become such a secretive society lately. Get my point, we need more data to corraborate who'll be best between AMD/Intel cpu battle. Nonetheless, we'll benefit from such a slaughterfest! 8)


God how stupid are you?! :roll:

Woodcrest and Conroe use the SAME CORE. If a 3GHz Conroe whups a FX62 then two 3 GHz Woodcrests will whip two FX62's.

Woocrests are actually faster than an equivalent Conroe at stock speeds due to its 1333 Mhz bus and quad channel memory bandwidth etc.
July 17, 2006 3:21:12 PM

Quote:
I posted this question on the 4x4 80% thread, but since that thread is gone I never got an answer...

Do you think AMD may release a 4x4 option for 939 or is 939 pretty much dead to AMD now?


From what I've heard so far, 939 is a dead end as of August '06. Further, 4x4 will support either A64 X2 or FXs but this point in particular has been the epic center of debate as many, including AMD, says that it will only support one cpu platform while other forum members say otherwise. So, all in all, we'll have to wait and see what definitely mature and happens!
July 17, 2006 3:23:13 PM

Quote:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).


True, but 4x4 boards are supposed to be significantly cheaper than dual socket Opteron boards.

Quote:

-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.


Not true. Quake 4 for instance benefits greatly. And so does encoding.

Quote:
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.


You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.

Quote:
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.


Again, you're making assumptions based on today's prices. AMD is going to lower the price of all their processors very soon. How much? Don't know... but yes, generally speaking, 2 FX's will be expensive. But I bet they won't be as expensive as 2 Woodcrest's.

Quote:
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.


That's true of anything. And I bet that after a few weeks they'll be much cheaper than current dual socket Opteron boards.

In the end, performance wise, it appears that 2 Woodcrests would be the best solution. But I'm willing to bet that 2 woodcrests (plus board) is going to be way more expensive than 2 FX's. And you also forget that SLI dual socket xeon boards do not exist. Not even in Crossfire Xeon boards exist.
July 17, 2006 3:23:34 PM

Quote:
God how stupid are you?! :roll:


No shit, really? Thaks for letting me know, I guess I have to continue educating myself. Tutty frutty! :wink:
July 17, 2006 3:23:41 PM

Quote:
I posted this question on the 4x4 80% thread, but since that thread is gone I never got an answer...

Do you think AMD may release a 4x4 option for 939 or is 939 pretty much dead to AMD now?


That's a good question. It should work for 939 too. It's just an extra socket connected the chipset HT ports. Whether mobos will be released is another thing.
July 17, 2006 3:25:26 PM

Quote:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).


True, but 4x4 boards are supposed to be significantly cheaper than dual socket Opteron boards.

Quote:

-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.


Not true. Quake 4 for instance benefits greatly. And so does encoding.

Quote:
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.


You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.

Quote:
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.


Again, you're making assumptions based on today's prices. AMD is going to lower the price of all their processors very soon. How much? Don't know... but yes, generally speaking, 2 FX's will be expensive. But I bet they won't be as expensive as 2 Woodcrest's.

Quote:
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.


That's true of anything. And I bet that after a few weeks they'll be much cheaper than current dual socket Opteron boards.

In the end, performance wise, it appears that 2 Woodcrests would be the best solution. But I'm willing to bet that 2 woodcrests (plus board) is going to be way more expensive than 2 FX's. And you also forget that SLI dual socket xeon boards do not exist. Not even in Crossfire Xeon boards exist.

Totty -- this is what I called an educated response, perhaps both you and I have a long way to go!
July 17, 2006 3:27:19 PM

Quote:
It depends. Although I agree with you on some points, there is no actual 4x4 system-based cpu out there yet, so we can't claim that a Woodcrest system will be better. I know this is your personal opinion, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. After all, the AMD 4x4 system could be a woodcrest/c2d killer or just plain-suck like the p4 line actually is. Further, AMD might come up with something we haven't heard of since they have become such a secretive society lately. Get my point, we need more data to corraborate who'll be best between AMD/Intel cpu battle. Nonetheless, we'll benefit from such a slaughterfest! 8)




God how stupid are you?! :roll:

Woodcrest and Conroe use the SAME CORE. If a 3GHz Conroe whups a FX62 then two 3 GHz Woodcrests will whip two FX62's.

Woocrests are actually faster than an equivalent Conroe at stock speeds due to its 1333 Mhz bus and quad channel memory bandwidth etc.


Can the Intel crowd ever go more than one post without name calling?

it's a good idea period. It may be a niche product but I don't think so. I think this was wel-thought out plan to move to 2 sockets. Intel would have to change chispets again to do this.

With each chip conected to it own RAM, 80% doesnt seem too far-fetched.
July 17, 2006 3:30:48 PM

Quote:
You should look at this more carefully. First 2xx servers use ECC, this won't. Second, this will have standard 32x SLI. 2xx needs TWO nForce chips for that. 2xx usually has PCIX, this won't.


Take a look at Tyan's website. Most of the dual socket Opteron boards are true 2x16x SLI certified, not PCI-X. Some even have both. And the boards don't have 2 chipsets...
July 17, 2006 3:30:59 PM

Isn't it the case that because of the lack of IMC, Intel suffer scalability problems past dual cores? Isn't this why AMD have the 4P and 8P server market sewn up currently? Does Woodcrest change that? I got the impression from THG that AMD would still have an advantage in these areas.

From that, wouldn't the 4x4 solution possibly have an edge of dual Woodcrest? I am only guessing here from what I have read, and am infact asking more than telling.
July 17, 2006 3:32:51 PM

Quote:
It depends. Although I agree with you on some points, there is no actual 4x4 system-based cpu out there yet, so we can't claim that a Woodcrest system will be better. I know this is your personal opinion, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. After all, the AMD 4x4 system could be a woodcrest/c2d killer or just plain-suck like the p4 line actually is. Further, AMD might come up with something we haven't heard of since they have become such a secretive society lately. Get my point, we need more data to corraborate who'll be best between AMD/Intel cpu battle. Nonetheless, we'll benefit from such a slaughterfest! 8)




God how stupid are you?! :roll:

Woodcrest and Conroe use the SAME CORE. If a 3GHz Conroe whups a FX62 then two 3 GHz Woodcrests will whip two FX62's.

Woocrests are actually faster than an equivalent Conroe at stock speeds due to its 1333 Mhz bus and quad channel memory bandwidth etc.


Can the Intel crowd ever go more than one post without name calling?

it's a good idea period. It may be a niche product but I don't think so. I think this was wel-thought out plan to move to 2 sockets. Intel would have to change chispets again to do this.

With each chip conected to it own RAM, 80% doesnt seem too far-fetched.

I'm not even sure what he's talking about. Nowhere in that post does the guy say Woodcrest isn't' Conroe. I think he quoted the wrong person...
July 17, 2006 3:39:51 PM

Quote:

True, but 4x4 boards are supposed to be significantly cheaper than dual socket Opteron boards.


haha. Dual socket Opteron boards are $220 now: http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=ASUS+K8N-DL&btnG=Se...
What will 4X4 mobos go for? $100 :roll:

Quote:

Not true. Quake 4 for instance benefits greatly. And so does encoding.

Quake4 and encoding ... wow you just described 99.9% of the consumer CPU market :roll:
Quote:

You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.

By the time AMD has 65 nm FXs, Intel will have released single-cpu-package quad-core Kentsfield Conroes :roll:
Quote:

Again, you're making assumptions based on today's prices. AMD is going to lower the price of all their processors very soon. How much? Don't know... but yes, generally speaking, 2 FX's will be expensive. But I bet they won't be as expensive as 2 Woodcrest's.

haha. What assumptions you tit? You can buy Woodcrests right NOW equivalent to Conroe E6600's for $500.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=xeon+5140&btnG=Sear...
In case you missed it, Conroe E6600s are equivalent to an FX62.
Quote:

That's true of anything. And I bet that after a few weeks they'll be much cheaper than current dual socket Opteron boards.

Cheaper than $220? :roll:
Quote:

But I'm willing to bet that 2 woodcrests (plus board) is going to be way more expensive than 2 FX's.


Dont go to Vegas any time soon :lol: 
July 17, 2006 3:40:43 PM

Quote:
I posted this question on the 4x4 80% thread, but since that thread is gone I never got an answer...

Do you think AMD may release a 4x4 option for 939 or is 939 pretty much dead to AMD now?


From what I've heard so far, 939 is a dead end as of August '06. Further, 4x4 will support either A64 X2 or FXs but this point in particular has beenthe epic center of debate as many, including AMD, says that it will only support one cpu platform while other forum members say otherwise. So, all in all, we'll have to wait and see what definitely mature and happens!


http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10086

"Dubbed 4x4, the platform will allow users to run two dual-core Socket AM2 Athlon 64 FX processors on a single motherboard"

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10091

"Phil Hester announced the creation of a new enthusiast-oriented platform for the Athlon 64 FX dubbed "4x4."

"4x4 will involve dual-socket, enthusiast-class motherboards and dual-core Athlon 64 FX processors, which should add up to a tweakable, overclockable, quad-core PC"

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060626004842...

"AMD plans to offer enthusiast capability of utilizing two dual-core or even quad-core AMD Athlon 64 FX processors on a single mainboard, which is likely to boost performance in certain situations. The cost of such system will be very high, as AMD Athlon 64 FX-series processors cost around $1000 each, however, the 4x4 represents “performance at any cost” approach, which should dethrone the Intel Core 2 Duo and Extreme processors, which are likely to outstrip AMD’s offerings, according to some analysts".

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,...

"AMD’s upcoming four-core, multi-socket platform is based on AMD’s Direct Connect Architecture, which is the next iteration of the enthusiast platform for AMD Athlon™ 64 FX dual-core processors".
July 17, 2006 3:44:08 PM

Quote:
Isn't it the case that because of the lack of IMC, Intel suffer scalability problems past dual cores? Isn't this why AMD have the 4P and 8P server market sewn up currently? Does Woodcrest change that? I got the impression from THG that AMD would still have an advantage in these areas.



Thats ancient history. 2 CPU Woodcrest systems smoke 2 CPU AMD systems: http://www.tecchannel.de/index.cfm?pid=575&pk=439566&p=...

AMD now only has an advantage in 4 socket+ systems ... a tiny market segment.
July 17, 2006 3:44:43 PM

Quote:
[

You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.



According to AMD's latest roadmap FX series cpus are going to stay at 90nm all the way through at least 3Q '07
July 17, 2006 3:50:32 PM

Alright. You wanna play ignorant, name calling fanboy? Go ahead. You'll just disappear from this place anyways. So I don't really care.

Quote:

haha. Dual socket Opteron boards are $220 now: http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=ASUS+K8N-DL&btnG=Se...
What will 4X4 mobos go for? $100 :roll:


LOL. Take a look at that link again genious. It isn't SLI. 4x4 is SLI. Now go find a SLI certified (2x16x) dual socket and report the price back.

Quote:
Quake4 and encoding ... wow you just described 99.9% of the consumer CPU market :roll:


Funny. I could have SWORN 4x4 was for the enthusiast market. Gee... I guess enthusiasts no longer play Quake 4 or encode video. Yeah, cause I know about 5 families in my neighborhood who need 4x4 for the CONSUMER end.

Quote:
By the time AMD has 65 nm FXs, Intel will have released single-cpu-package quad-core Kentsfield Conroes


Funny how you didn't respond to the power consumption part. I guess it's just easier for you to quote a roadmap to make urself look good.

Quote:
haha. What assumptions you tit? You can buy Woodcrests right NOW equivalent to Conroe E6600's for $500.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=xeon+5140&btnG=Sear...
In case you missed it, Conroe E6600s are equivalent to an FX62.
Uh huh... and that for a 1P Xeon, not 2P. Go find a 2P Woodcrest and bring me back the price. Jackass.

Quote:
Cheaper than $220? :roll:


That's it... keep quoting that $220 price for a non-SLI dual socket board. It just keeps making you look more ignorant.

Now get lost noob. Better yet, go play with your daddy's loaded .357. be sure to point it at your face. thanks.
July 17, 2006 3:52:20 PM

Quote:
[

You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.



According to AMD's latest roadmap FX series cpus are going to stay at 90nm all the way through at least 3Q '07

I think that roadmap is old. There's no date on it so... Do you have the link to the article?
July 17, 2006 3:55:20 PM

Quote:
Isn't it the case that because of the lack of IMC, Intel suffer scalability problems past dual cores? Isn't this why AMD have the 4P and 8P server market sewn up currently? Does Woodcrest change that? I got the impression from THG that AMD would still have an advantage in these areas.



Thats ancient history. 2 CPU Woodcrest systems smoke 2 CPU AMD systems: http://www.tecchannel.de/index.cfm?pid=575&pk=439566&p=...

AMD now only has an advantage in 4 socket+ systems ... a tiny market segment.

Those are really impressive numbers. I wonder what the chances of getting that CPU with a desktop/home motherboard. AMD is going to need to make 4x4 something special to compete with that, guess I was wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Edit: not trying to say 4x4 is supposed to compete with Woodcrest for the server market, sorry, it's really hot here and Im all burned up from being in the sun. *nearly fients*
July 17, 2006 3:55:22 PM

4 and 8 way systems are a "tiny" segment?!?!? No, no they are not.

Regardless of everything else about 4x4, if AMD does not allow other x2 and athlons to run on it, it will not make any difference what-so-ever. I think it would be an excellent idea with 2 35 watt 3800 x2's and so do many others. Beyond that, though, not sure at all.
July 17, 2006 3:57:22 PM

One more thing. At what point in my original reply did I ever get personal or call you names? You post and opinion and the minute someone disagrees or points out flaws in your thinking, you resort to name calling. Real mature mate.

I knew there was a reason I was trying to stay out of this forum for a while. It was because of ignorant little trolls like you.

*added to ignore list
July 17, 2006 3:57:34 PM

Quote:
[

You are forgetting that 4x4 will be based on 65nm FX's. Until you know what the TDP is, I wouldn't make such a statement. Additionally, enthusiasts don't give a rats ass about how much power their systems consume.



According to AMD's latest roadmap FX series cpus are going to stay at 90nm all the way through at least 3Q '07

I think that roadmap is old. There's no date on it so... Do you have the link to the article?

It was published on dailytech less than 2 weeks ago

AMD roadmap on dailytech
July 17, 2006 3:57:59 PM

Quote:
I posted this question on the 4x4 80% thread, but since that thread is gone I never got an answer...

Do you think AMD may release a 4x4 option for 939 or is 939 pretty much dead to AMD now?


From what I've heard so far, 939 is a dead end as of August '06. Further, 4x4 will support either A64 X2 or FXs but this point in particular has been the epic center of debate as many, including AMD, says that it will only support one cpu platform while other forum members say otherwise. So, all in all, we'll have to wait and see what definitely mature and happens!

939's dead?
People are still buying 32 bit cpu's by both companys so I doubt any pin type will be "dead".

And what is 4 X 4.....not the same thing as a quad-core cpu due out in early 2007 is it? That cpu will have four cores and still use the same power as AMD X2 core does now,a full 50% power saveings.

Full blown server chips on this concept will have as many as 32 cores with a 16 core cpu saleing in late in 2008.

Google is your friend.
July 17, 2006 3:58:06 PM

Ummm...interesting. So a 4x4 system will only support A64 FXs only? What about the X2s? I think that will be a ridiculously, expensive move by AMD unless they really, really, and I mean really drop the FXs prices.

Thanks for shedding some light on this point though. :roll:
July 17, 2006 3:59:18 PM

X2's won't be able to run in 2P boards. Never have... never will. If they did, what would the point of buying an Opteron? ;-)
July 17, 2006 4:02:07 PM

Quote:
Ummm...interesting. So a 4x4 system will only support A64 FXs only? What about the X2s? I think that will be a ridiculously, expensive move by AMD unless they really, really, and I mean really drop the FXs prices.

Thanks for shedding some light on this point though. :roll:
Just ask MrsD. She says FX-62 will drop to $350. :roll:
July 17, 2006 4:02:15 PM

Quote:
For the same price you can get a dual Woodcrest system (i.e. server version of Conroe, i.e. 4 "conroe" cores) ... but the Woodcrest system will be twice as fast as the AMD 4x4 system and use much less power.

Further 4x4 isnt viable for the following additional reasons:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).
-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.

The only way 4x4 could have any appeal beyond a few amd fanboi / performance nuts would be if:
-Non-FX class procs were useable i.e. cheap CPUS.
-<$250 mobos ... not going to happen.

Even then, you are going to be ass raped by the high power costs.

I'm in the UK and, believe me, running my quad Opteron box 24x7 is DAMN expensive.

AMD are going to market this stupid idea by finding a couple of well threaded benchmarks e.g. lame MT and then compare 4 FX cores to 2 Conroe cores. The 4 FX cores will win and that will sucker in your average AMD fanboi ... who will subsequently experiance SLOWER than Conroe real world speeds when they try to use their single/dual threaded apps. AMD profits. AMD fanbois get ass raped (perhaps not a bad thing, all things considered.)

PS: I run advanced scientific simulations which scale nearly linearly to thousands of cores ... which is why I built this 4 core box in the first place.

PPS: AMD stock has tanked 50% in the last 6 months.


You should look at this more carefully. First 2xx servers use ECC, this won't. Second, this will have standard 32x SLI. 2xx needs TWO nForce chips for that. 2xx usually has PCIX, this won't.


Also as I stated i the other post - positive though it was - FX has only one HT link just like X2. So it can't be limited to FX. This is only possible because of Direct Connect and HyperTransport.

For me I would love it as a dev box. it shoudl have 8 DDR2 DIMMS which would give 16GB RAM. I could model a small office with virtual server and that much RAM.

It's a good idea though Does anyone remember dual Celerons? they were VERY POPULAR and didn't dent sales of servers.

I belive you are confused regarding Ht links. The fx have 3 HT links 1 coherent and 2 non coherent. which is very different from the 512kb x2's that have one (enabled) Ht link.
July 17, 2006 4:03:41 PM

think logically for a second


AMD did not say 4x4 WILL NOT RUN with X2's

Why would they SAY that now....they would prefer people buy the more expensive fx line

look no further than 939 opterons...runs on any 939 board...

i would like someone to explain to me how the 4z4 will lock of the use of x2's
July 17, 2006 4:04:56 PM

Quote:
think logically for a second


AMD did not say 4x4 WILL NOT RUN with X2's

Why would they SAY that now....they would prefer people buy the more expensive fx line

look no further than 939 opterons...runs on any 939 board...

i would like someone to explain to me how the 4z4 will lock of the use of x2's


See my post above
July 17, 2006 4:06:34 PM

Yep, it makes sense; I was not considering the Opteron models in this ball game. Thanks for clarifying, both MP and T1.
July 17, 2006 4:06:47 PM

Quote:
For the same price you can get a dual Woodcrest system (i.e. server version of Conroe, i.e. 4 "conroe" cores) ... but the Woodcrest system will be twice as fast as the AMD 4x4 system and use much less power.

Further 4x4 isnt viable for the following additional reasons:

-It's already available as a 2 socket Opteron system. (I'm typing this on a dual 275 Opteron system ... i.e. 4 cores).
-Very few consumer apps would benefit from 4 cores ... 2 cores are just starting to make inroads now.
-Running two FX class processors would consume much more power than a single Conroe i.e. 2x the power bill.
-Two FX class procs would be EXREMELY expensive.
-The mobos dont exist yet and will thus be expensive on launch ... probably as expensive as dual socket Opeteron mobos.

The only way 4x4 could have any appeal beyond a few amd fanboi / performance nuts would be if:
-Non-FX class procs were useable i.e. cheap CPUS.
-<$250 mobos ... not going to happen.

Even then, you are going to be ass raped by the high power costs.

I'm in the UK and, believe me, running my quad Opteron box 24x7 is DAMN expensive.

AMD are going to market this stupid idea by finding a couple of well threaded benchmarks e.g. lame MT and then compare 4 FX cores to 2 Conroe cores. The 4 FX cores will win and that will sucker in your average AMD fanboi ... who will subsequently experiance SLOWER than Conroe real world speeds when they try to use their single/dual threaded apps. AMD profits. AMD fanbois get ass raped (perhaps not a bad thing, all things considered.)

PS: I run advanced scientific simulations which scale nearly linearly to thousands of cores ... which is why I built this 4 core box in the first place.

PPS: AMD stock has tanked 50% in the last 6 months.


Very well stated. I agree.
July 17, 2006 4:08:05 PM

Quote:

LOL. Take a look at that link again genious. It isn't SLI. 4x4 is SLI. Now go find a SLI certified (2x16x) dual socket and report the price back.


http://www.gigabyte-usa.com/Server/Products/Products_Se...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
$300 bux fatty you lose :lol: 

Quote:

Funny how you didn't respond to the power consumption part. I guess it's just easier for you to quote a roadmap to make urself look good.

Read the AMD roadmap limpdick ... no 65 nm FXs till Q3 07. :lol:  Talk about self ownage ...

Quote:

Uh huh... and that for a 1P Xeon, not 2P. Go find a 2P Woodcrest and bring me back the price. Jackass.

Those ARE 2P Woodcrest Xeons you chump :lol: 
July 17, 2006 4:09:54 PM

Quote:
Ummm...interesting. So a 4x4 system will only support A64 FXs only? What about the X2s? I think that will be a ridiculously, expensive move by AMD unless they really, really, and I mean really drop the FXs prices.

Thanks for shedding some light on this point though. :roll:
Just ask MrsD. She says FX-62 will drop to $350. :roll:

lol...I guess she still is not around today, but I'll double check with her though!
July 17, 2006 4:10:31 PM

Quote:

Those are really impressive numbers. I wonder what the chances of getting that CPU with a desktop/home motherboard.


You can ... just buy a Conroe 8)
July 17, 2006 4:11:35 PM

90% of that post is based on sticking current the processor architecture in a new socket setup, AMD is not stupid enough to do that and claim %80 benefits in all cases.
July 17, 2006 4:12:39 PM

I know Totty, I am getting an E6600 as soon as I can, was just dreaming of having two dual core's with SLi etc. Which of course I can't afford, but still :D 
July 17, 2006 4:18:24 PM

Quote:
$300 bux fatty you lose :lol: 


Quote:
Read the AMD roadmap limpdick ... no 65 nm FXs till Q3 07. :lol:  Talk about self ownage


Quote:
Those ARE 2P Woodcrest Xeons you chump :lol: 


Quote:
PS: Judging by your pic you obviously need to lose some weight fatso. Get some exersize ...


Hey Tutty Frutty, if you keep it up like this you'll end up like the rest of rotten fruits here...with the trash out there! Why you have to be name calling to sr forum residents for nothing? Argue but keep it friendly, man.
July 17, 2006 4:19:03 PM

Quote:
lol...I guess she still is not around today, but I'll double check with her though!
She seems to be making herself scarce since Conroe NDA is up. :wink:
!