Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Woodcrest, 4x4, Socket F pricing & Mac DP

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 23, 2006 4:14:05 AM

The 2P desktop/workstation space is suddenly getting busy. Woodcrest seems to have S940 beat on performance, price and power consumption. It’s nowhere near as decisive as with C2D versus AM2 90nm, but it’s still a turnaround. Assuming that Socket F is as incremental as the initial AM2 chips, I’m wondering how much pressure AMD will be under to cut pricing for Socket F parts?
Currently, a 2.6 GHz Opteron 285 = $1051 versus $470 for a Woodcrest 2.33 GHz 5140; I think that’s a reasonable match performance wise.
That’s a $1,160 difference for two CPUs, although the higher cost of FB-DIMMs and Woodcrest motherboards will offset this to varying degrees, depending on how much RAM is used. As the cost of FB-DIMMs drops, this will just put more pressure on AMD pricing! Has socket F pricing been released yet?

Is there a way that AMD can allow non FX chips on 4x4, without bastardising their Socket F sales!
I’m wondering if this would work: If they disable EEC support for the 4x4 platform either at the chipset or CPU level, then no serious Server or Workstation systems would use them.
Then they can allow standard AM2 chips on 4x4 and all of a sudden enthusiasts will be rushing to buy two cheap AM2 chips rather than one AM2 or one C2D. Once they start knocking them out at 65nm, they’ll still be able to make good money from them.
I think this would knock the wind out of Conroe’s sails, and even sales for that matter. :) 

Without this, 4x4 just seems like a rich boy’s toy. Who is seriously going to buy two FX CPUs? Most people are going to drop no more than $300 - $500 on Conroe, so for AMD to compete with that, they need to offer 4x4 compatible chips for a small enough premium to make it attractive to Conroe buyers. If you could get two 4x4 chips for $500 - $700, then it starts to look much more compelling.
Another way that AMD could expand support for 4x4 is to release a range of slower and cheaper FX chips. That way they can still set a fairly high entry point and not open up 4x4 to entry level X2s. It would dilute the FX brand in some way, but it’s already looking jaded against X6800, so this would actually be a way of re-branding it in a positive way.

Isn’t Apple likely to use Woodcrest for its top desktop systems (G5 replacements)? Current top of the range G5s are DP system, so this seems likely. This is on top of using them in servers. So who is going to provide the chipset for Woodcrest to be used in Mac Servers & Workstations? Will they be stuck with the current Intel chipsets that use FB-DIMMS only or is there something else in the pipeline? If 4x4 really takes off big time, then Intel could really do with a low end desktop DP chipset if they want to tackle AMD head-on. Something that supports DDR2 for starters.
July 23, 2006 4:35:27 AM

SO you're saying that Intel is right to charge so much less for something so much faster THAN THEIR OWN XEONS?

FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+. There are NO ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES in FX and X2.

Workstations will continue to use Opteron for high end work because of ECC and a more stringent qualification process.

The whole point of 4x4 is to allow two dual core Am2 procs to work. WIth a price drop to $282 two 5000+ chips would be under $600. If they get 50% efficiency(1:1 increase over 1 proc) that means 150% faster than current benches. IF they really get the 80% reported on non game benches, this will be close to twice as fast.


Looking at Anands COre 2 Extreme article, that would give 5000+

5.526 : 3DS Max
1335 : Cinebench(SMP)


WIth a $150 mobo that would make a real enthusiast powerhouse, especially by just clocking to 210 x 13 = 2730MHz.

It wouldn't be what Content creators would mainly use because they buy the best and best is Opteron/51xx with a SCSI based board, but it would be my next dev box.

I can only imagine how fast my VMs would run. Especially with an nVidia chipset not tainted by an AMD/ATi merger.
July 23, 2006 5:00:08 AM

Quote:
FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+. There are NO ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES in FX and X2..
I was under the impression that 4x4 was being restricted to FX chips, but if this isn’t the case, then that’s all I can say is a big WOW. That’s excellent news.

In theory, AMD could restrict 4x4 to only supporting FX chips if they wanted to, at the chipset or BIOS level!

Quote:
SO you're saying that Intel is right to charge so much less for something so much faster THAN THEIR OWN XEONS?.
Would you rephrase that please, as I can’t understand what you mean? The sun is coming up, so it’s the time of day when I need things spelled out to me :) 
Related resources
July 23, 2006 5:13:24 AM

I think what he was trying to say was do you think it's right for Intel to sell a superior product at a lower price than their current inferior products?
July 23, 2006 11:10:00 AM

Quote:
FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+. There are NO ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES in FX and X2.
The whole point of 4x4 is to allow two dual core Am2 procs to work.
Now that I’ve had some sleep I can see that there’s a problem here. Opteron 2xx CPUs have multiple HT links, as without them the platform wouldn’t scale anywhere near as well as it does. So unless AM2 chips already have a second HT link, this platform isn’t going to perform well. If you look at this Official AMD slide you will see that the CPUs are labeled ‘dual core FX’ and they have multiple HT links. This doesn’t sound promising for X2 support on 4x4 unless ALL X2s on AM2 already have multiple HT links. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if this is a turkey or this bird will fly high.
July 23, 2006 12:32:55 PM

Quote:
This is a double standard, first they charge too much, now your complain they charge too little?


There is NO SUCH THING as charging too little, especially for something as good as the Core 2.
July 23, 2006 2:50:29 PM

Quote:
This is a double standard, first they charge too much, now your complain they charge too little?


There is NO SUCH THING as charging too little, especially for something as good as the Core 2.

Word.
July 23, 2006 2:52:45 PM

Stop wasting oxygen BaronBS
July 23, 2006 4:06:54 PM

Quote:
Stop wasting oxygen BaronBS
Matter Can't be Created nor Destroyed. So what you mean to say is stop converting Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide for the plants, The American SUV's are already doing that very efficiently.
July 23, 2006 4:12:59 PM

Quote:
Matter Can't be Created nor Destroyed. So what you mean to say is stop converting Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide for the plants, The American SUV's are already doing that very efficiently.


Wow! That was random.
July 23, 2006 4:49:20 PM

Quote:
Matter Can't be Created nor Destroyed. So what you mean to say is stop converting Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide for the plants, The American SUV's are already doing that very efficiently.


Wow! That was random.

Word.
Thats What I Love About This Place!
July 23, 2006 5:11:33 PM

I think AMD will make the 4x4 FX series only

but allow it to be easily cracked for the Enthusiast crowd

They don't want to allow the OPTY market using cheaper 4x4 systems

To allow us to be happy...allow whateva check feature for the FX line to be cracked easily... no business wants to used hacked servers to save a few bucks.
But we would love it.

Plus I dont see how they can LOCK out non fx-cpu's....what happens if a x2 in in the 4x4's sockets...the system wont post?

AMD let OPTY's be used on current 939 boards.... I think that pretty much sums it up.
July 23, 2006 5:16:08 PM

Quote:
FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+. There are NO ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES in FX and X2.
The whole point of 4x4 is to allow two dual core Am2 procs to work.
Now that I’ve had some sleep I can see that there’s a problem here. Opteron 2xx CPUs have multiple HT links, as without them the platform wouldn’t scale anywhere near as well as it does. So unless AM2 chips already have a second HT link, this platform isn’t going to perform well. If you look at this Official AMD slide you will see that the CPUs are labeled ‘dual core FX’ and they have multiple HT links. This doesn’t sound promising for X2 support on 4x4 unless ALL X2s on AM2 already have multiple HT links. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if this is a turkey or this bird will fly high.

I think that this "might" be possible with the upcoming die shrink (65nm). I guess AMD will make 4x4 initially for FX and later on leave the platform open to X2s.
July 23, 2006 5:36:14 PM

Quote:
I think that this "might" be possible with the upcoming die shrink (65nm). I guess AMD will make 4x4 initially for FX and later on leave the platform open to X2s.


Who cares? 4x4 is a sucky idea.
July 23, 2006 5:41:22 PM

Quote:
I think AMD will make the 4x4 FX series only
Plus I dont see how they can LOCK out non fx-cpu's....what happens if a x2 in in the 4x4's sockets...the system wont post?
AMD let OPTY's be used on current 939 boards.... I think that pretty much sums it up.
If the FX have dual HT and the X2 have single HT then the system simply won’t post I presume. We don’t even know that the current FX62 will work with 4x4. They could bring out a separate range of FX chips that are in effect re-jigged Opterons and are not compatible with current AM2 chipsets even though they use the same socket. There are a myriad of possibilities here. It’s a bit of a head fkcu :( 

Quote:
I think that this "might" be possible with the upcoming die shrink (65nm). I guess AMD will make 4x4 initially for FX and later on leave the platform open to X2s.
Good point; they could have the 2nd HT link in the 65nm die and enable it initially for FX but with the choice of enabling on X2 when they feel the time is right. Or maybe they enable it on the X2 5000+ and higher, to stop people using X2 3800+ with it. AMD have done similar things with Cool n Quiet & 64 bit support for Sempron and it gives them flexibility. It sounds like a nice plan to me. It seems more practical than using a re-jigged Opteron but time will tell.
July 23, 2006 7:58:48 PM

Quote:
SO you're saying that Intel is right to charge so much less for something so much faster THAN THEIR OWN XEONS?


Of course, there is nothing wrong to making a superior product and producing it costs that allow one to pass savings on to the market.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong, the heat of competition, to price your superior product such that a consumer would rather buy your product than the competition.

Finally, how many times have we heard "damn man Intel charges too much" during the subferior days of crappy AMD products selling for 50 bucks less. This is a double standard, first they charge too much, now your complain they charge too little?

Are you nuts? Or have you been drinking agian?

You must be using the same logic that leads you to conclude that AMD doesn't need 65 nm I suppose.... still, strange way to think about it.


AMD chips have never been crap. I never complained about their prices being too high because AMD was always there.

In terms of the havoc this move will wreak on the channel, it was not a good idea.

I have never said AMD doesn't need 65nm. I have compared their power management to Intel's at 65nm. A 2.8Ghz Opteron at 55W is a major achievement for 90nm.

Normally the new stuff replaces the old at the same price point. Then the price of the old goes down somewhat. In this case, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPARE PD and Core 2. If Core 2 E6600 (wins against the FX62) is only $400 how much is the 965EE worth?

How about 830, 840, 930, 940?
July 23, 2006 10:12:37 PM

Quote:
Intel did 28 watts on 90 nm with Dothan

They could do that because Dothans were clocked lower.
Nice try. 8)
July 23, 2006 10:18:26 PM

So Intel should charge more so AMD can stay competitive?

(sigh)
July 23, 2006 10:56:25 PM

Quote:
FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+. There are NO ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES in FX and X2.
The whole point of 4x4 is to allow two dual core Am2 procs to work.
Now that I’ve had some sleep I can see that there’s a problem here. Opteron 2xx CPUs have multiple HT links, as without them the platform wouldn’t scale anywhere near as well as it does. So unless AM2 chips already have a second HT link, this platform isn’t going to perform well. If you look at this Official AMD slide you will see that the CPUs are labeled ‘dual core FX’ and they have multiple HT links. This doesn’t sound promising for X2 support on 4x4 unless ALL X2s on AM2 already have multiple HT links. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if this is a turkey or this bird will fly high.



I posted a link to AMDs site that clearly states there is no difference. The FX has 1 HT link. The X2 has 1 HT link. If you look closely you will only see ONE link going from either chip in the diagram.

The X2 would work exactly the same. Since FX is the pinnacle of course it would still be when compared to two X2s and would be the enthusiast choice (rich though they'd need to be).
July 23, 2006 11:01:24 PM

Quote:
Who cares? 4x4 is a sucky idea.
I have to love the attitude, we don’t even really know what 4x4 is going to be yet and you’ve already dismissed it.
The strange thing is, it has the potential to be a breakthrough product or an over-priced folly, or somewhere in-between the two. Until the details are out we just won’t know, so why even have an opinion!
July 23, 2006 11:01:49 PM

Quote:
So Intel should charge more so AMD can stay competitive?

(sigh)



No. Intel should simply replace the price of their older chips with the newer ones. It will be hard enough for them to dump inventory with slightly higher prices, but on Thursday the PD line is officially worth an average of $10.

This means they will take a bath on theose chips and the low price of Core 2 means they have no desktop chips to make up the difference. No one needs an Extreme 6800 if they can easily clock the 6400 to the same speed.


Maybe that's why AMD is not that big on 50%+ overclocks.
July 23, 2006 11:13:59 PM

Quote:
I posted a link to AMDs site that clearly states there is no difference. The FX has 1 HT link. The X2 has 1 HT link. If you look closely you will only see ONE link going from either chip in the diagram.
The question isn’t about the current X2s or FXs, but the Chip labeled ‘Dual Core FX’ in this diagram. The chip at the top of the diagram clearly has 2 HT links. So what will these be, next generation FXs! The FX range has mutated quite a lot and it may well do so again. It’s all rather intriguing and open to much speculation.
July 23, 2006 11:14:45 PM

Quote:

Nope not quite, Dothan and subsequent steppings were reviewed clocked up to Athon speeds -- power consumption remaind well below AMDs:


That pentium-M still draw more power than a 50W Opteron in power comsumption. :lol: 

Quote:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/298/pc-desktop-le-co...

Pentium M overclock in link above.....

Intel's 90 nm is far superior to AMD's 90 nm at both leakage and transistor switching (gate delay).


Keep dreaming in your fantasy world. :lol: 
July 23, 2006 11:29:54 PM

Quote:
Intel should simply replace the price of their older chips with the newer ones. It will be hard enough for them to dump inventory with slightly higher prices, but on Thursday the PD line is officially worth an average of $10.

This means they will take a bath on theose chips and the low price of Core 2 means they have no desktop chips to make up the difference. No one needs an Extreme 6800 if they can easily clock the 6400 to the same speed.
The vast majority of people who buy a computer have no idea about Conroe or AM2 or FX62 or X6800. They look at the price and glance at the features and mentally tick off a few boxes. These people aren’t generally going to pay a premium for Conroe; they’ll just buy whatever’s in the store or on Dell’s website at a good price. Intel shouldn’t have a problem selling PDs as they’ve priced them nice and low. Dell will probably initially only sell you a C2D in a mid range configuration, so all the ‘bargain’ hunters eating at the bottom of the trough will be buying Celeron D, P4, PD and be very happy with what they get.
The same goes for Athlon 64, they will continue to sell because they're still good chips and should be competitively enough priced, although they may struggle to compete at the lower end with X2 versus PD.
July 23, 2006 11:37:53 PM

Quote:

Nope not quite, Dothan and subsequent steppings were reviewed clocked up to Athon speeds -- power consumption remaind well below AMDs:


That pentium-M still draw more power than a 50W Opteron in power comsumption. :lol: 

So, wait, you're telling me that AMD's laptop processors used more than 53W, since the Turion ML-40 used 3 more Watts than the Pentium M overclocked to 2.8Ghz? Damn, I didn't know AMD's laptop processors were that bad... :roll:
July 24, 2006 2:53:01 AM

You are all delusional to think mission-critical vendors will price a Woodcrest machine cheaper than a Opteron machine. It's all above PERCEIVED value not actual value. Sure you can build both machines cheaper, but majority of the sales in servers will come from vendors and not mom and pop stores.

HP Opteron workstations were 2x-3x more expensive than their Xeon counterparts but if you built both yourself the cost difference will be practically nil. Granted, HP has it's own kick-ass mobo for the Opteron...

Listen, when a server/drive at work goes down - it calls HP(serious) and an engineer will rush in and repair the problem. We calculated a lost day to due the main server crashing was equivalent to half a million. You guys deal with cheapo home machines and online component sellers.

If all these penis benchmarks are true then vendors will charge MORE (how much depends) for the faster machine regardless if the components are CHEAPER. Which means vendors who used to love AMD and may re-love Intel (maybe - depends on availability and reliability). Intel was an ugly, old bitchy fag-hag and now with its new CPU makeover needs to recourt vendors.

The new Woodcrest G5s will kick ass and Apple will charge a premium for them and PEOPLE WILL PAY - especially 3D artists making good money. In the end, the price/performance for the new G5s will be worse than an AMD system but who cares when you want the fastest? Rich boy toys? Kinda of - more like rich power user with freelance work that pays for the toys.
July 24, 2006 3:19:05 AM

Quote:
Intel should simply replace the price of their older chips with the newer ones. It will be hard enough for them to dump inventory with slightly higher prices, but on Thursday the PD line is officially worth an average of $10.

This means they will take a bath on theose chips and the low price of Core 2 means they have no desktop chips to make up the difference. No one needs an Extreme 6800 if they can easily clock the 6400 to the same speed.
The vast majority of people who buy a computer have no idea about Conroe or AM2 or FX62 or X6800. They look at the price and glance at the features and mentally tick off a few boxes. These people aren’t generally going to pay a premium for Conroe; they’ll just buy whatever’s in the store or on Dell’s website at a good price. Intel shouldn’t have a problem selling PDs as they’ve priced them nice and low. Dell will probably initially only sell you a C2D in a mid range configuration, so all the ‘bargain’ hunters eating at the bottom of the trough will be buying Celeron D, P4, PD and be very happy with what they get.
The same goes for Athlon 64, they will continue to sell because they're still good chips and should be competitively enough priced, although they may struggle to compete at the lower end with X2 versus PD.


You are making my point for me, marketing the newest at the same price the older was sold at will help clear the old stuff and give a reason to buy the hew stuff even though it's a few bucks more.
July 24, 2006 3:29:32 AM

The sad thing is that you're right. Remember people, we live in a CAPITALIST society. Everyone wants more and more money even if the product is cheaper to manufacture. Think about it, what do you think the real value of a woodcrest workstation is and what do you think companies like BOXX, Alienware and Apple are doing with those prices? It's like thinking, is a Ferrari really worth that much? Or do they just inflate the price since the thing is ungodly fast? It's all about money for them. Believe it or not, Dell actually probably has some of the best prices I've seen for woodcrest servers and workstations.
July 24, 2006 7:11:34 AM

Quote:
You are all delusional to think mission-critical vendors will price a Woodcrest machine cheaper than a Opteron machine. It's all above PERCEIVED value not actual value. Sure you can build both machines cheaper, but majority of the sales in servers will come from vendors and not mom and pop stores.

HP Opteron workstations were 2x-3x more expensive than their Xeon counterparts but if you built both yourself the cost difference will be practically nil. Granted, HP has it's own kick-ass mobo for the Opteron...

Listen, when a server/drive at work goes down - it calls HP(serious) and an engineer will rush in and repair the problem. We calculated a lost day to due the main server crashing was equivalent to half a million. You guys deal with cheapo home machines and online component sellers.

If all these penis benchmarks are true then vendors will charge MORE (how much depends) for the faster machine regardless if the components are CHEAPER. Which means vendors who used to love AMD and may re-love Intel (maybe - depends on availability and reliability). Intel was an ugly, old bitchy fag-hag and now with its new CPU makeover needs to recourt vendors.

The new Woodcrest G5s will kick ass and Apple will charge a premium for them and PEOPLE WILL PAY - especially 3D artists making good money. In the end, the price/performance for the new G5s will be worse than an AMD system but who cares when you want the fastest? Rich boy toys? Kinda of - more like rich power user with freelance work that pays for the toys.


While you make some good points that have a good basis, your overall point is DEFINITELY incorrect. If a company can sell a server for lets say about $1k/performance metric, and an AMD has a 4x performance metric and Intel has a 5x performance metric, then they COULD charge $4k for an AMD system and $5k for an Intel system. Yes, this is correct. But if the company pays $3k for both system, they will make $1k off of the AMD system and $2k off of the Intel system. But they will sell approximately the same amount of systems. This means they will make $1.5k on average. Since they have more margin on Intel, they can sell it slightly below $5k, and it will have a better price/performance ratio, and therefor sell better than the AMD system. This would boost the companies average profit per system.
July 24, 2006 8:10:29 AM

Quote:
FX has nothing to do with 4x4 except that it would be faster than 4200+.


Well, AMD says that 4x4 has everything to do with X2 processors, as they have stated that those CPUs will be the only ones using 4x4.

Which makes

Quote:
The whole point of 4x4 is to allow two dual core Am2 procs to work. WIth a price drop to $282 two 5000+ chips would be under $600. If they get 50% efficiency(1:1 increase over 1 proc) that means 150% faster than current benches. IF they really get the 80% reported on non game benches, this will be close to twice as fast.


irrellevant.

Just hoping that something will happen doesn't make it real. Hell, even Peter Pan had difficulties with that.

Quote:
Looking at Anands COre 2 Extreme article, that would give 5000+

5.526 : 3DS Max
1335 : Cinebench(SMP)


WIth a $150 mobo that would make a real enthusiast powerhouse, especially by just clocking to 210 x 13 = 2730MHz.


Several more leaps of faith there, not just in the pricing.

Quote:
It wouldn't be what Content creators would mainly use because they buy the best and best is Opteron/51xx with a SCSI based board, but it would be my next dev box.


But you said you just got a new Opteron for dev? And you still didn't say what you develop.
July 24, 2006 9:29:33 AM

Quote:
I have to love the attitude, we don’t even really know what 4x4 is going to be yet and you’ve already dismissed it.
The strange thing is, it has the potential to be a breakthrough product or an over-priced folly, or somewhere in-between the two. Until the details are out we just won’t know, so why even have an opinion!


4x4 = 2x Dual core CPUs + 2x Dual GPU graphics cards

So we do know what it is. And it is a sucky idea.
July 24, 2006 10:05:13 AM

Why are you so concerned about how cheap Intel comes down on their chips?

The lower the better for the consumer. Intel has made billions of dollars over the years by selling their products at the cost the market would bare not what they actually cost to produce. If they hadn't they would not be worth the billions they are now.

How much does it actually cost to make a chip once the process of development is completed? Maybe $25.00.

Do some simple math, if they sell one million chips that cost $25.00 to produce this equals 25 million Now they sell these products for $400 each this leaves a difference of 375 million dollars. Lets add 200% for development and you still have a net of $300 million, You see where I am going and you know why Intel is worth billions.

If Intel wants to sell you a processor for $300.00 that performs better than a processor that costs $600.00 and you are unhappy about it then buy the $600.00 chip. Or if you want the $300 chip and you think its too cheap them send the rest of the money to a charity and it will maybe make you feel better.

But your nonsence about how much Intel should sell their chips for is just that. You're just pissed that Intel is going to undercut AMD and hurt their sales and are making some kind of feeble attempt to rationalize your anger.
July 24, 2006 12:35:12 PM

Quote:
4x4 = 2x Dual core CPUs + 2x Dual GPU graphics cards

So we do know what it is. And it is a sucky idea.
It might not be up your street, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
If it will take regular AM2 chips in an affordable dual socket motherboard with unregistered RAM; then a lot of people will get a hard on for this. Down boy.
That would be offering something new. The GPU side of the equation is of no interest to me, but others will dig that also.
If it only takes FX chips, then……. Did someone say Woodcrest?
July 24, 2006 12:45:35 PM

Quote:
If it only takes FX chips, then……. Did someone say Woodcrest?


True, and to touch on something you said about this not being a sucky idea. It isn't a bad idea. Think about it, 4X4 is supossed to utilize Reverse Hyperthreading to make the OS see all four CPUs as one HUGE core. All the execution units of those four cores will be used for gaming since it is a gaming platform. This doesn't mean that it's limited to gaming though. As for the whole quad graphics idea for the 4X4 I'm going to wait for NVidia to perfect the drivers for their quad-SLI since right now it doesn't seem to be that great. As for Woodcrest... if I'm correct it won't be too great for gaming simply because Woodcrest and Glidewell (woodcrest's workstation platform) is designed for well... workstations. This is not to say that it won't be at least decent for gaming, but I haven't seen any benchmarks. On the other hand when it comes to multi-tasking you'll probably want Woodcrest. Even the 5130 which I found for about $390 on newegg has insane performance compared to a pair of opty 258's. In the end it's really up to personal preference on whether one is an Intel, AMD, or Apple fan.[/quote]
July 24, 2006 1:54:05 PM

Quote:
It might not be up your street, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
If it will take regular AM2 chips in an affordable dual socket motherboard with unregistered RAM; then a lot of people will get a hard on for this. Down boy.
That would be offering something new. The GPU side of the equation is of no interest to me, but others will dig that also.
If it only takes FX chips, then……. Did someone say Woodcrest?


It's not just not up my street, it's not up the street of most people (basically everyone except BM, 9in and the crue) because of the fact that in order to outperform a $400 CPU you have to buy two $1000 CPUs (or thereabouts, I'm not overly familiar with US prices)
July 24, 2006 3:34:14 PM

Quote:
4X4 is supossed to utilize Reverse Hyperthreading to make the OS see all four CPUs as one HUGE core.


No it is not.
July 24, 2006 3:46:29 PM

Quote:
But you said you just got a new Opteron for dev? And you still didn't say what you develop.


No I said I got access to it. I don't think I can afford an 875 system right now.


X2 and FX will work. that was my point.
July 24, 2006 4:07:20 PM

Quote:
Since they have more margin on Intel, they can sell it slightly below $5k, and it will have a better price/performance ratio, and therefor sell better than the AMD system. This would boost the companies average profit per system.


They could - but I'm not convinced they would (only maybe after bargaining or competition between vendors was cutthroat). If somebody came by and said "we could replace your 300 CPUs with one machine" - it would be 20% faster and use 50% less power but cost the same. I'm sure we'd say - yes. Instead of lowering prices vendors will just add 24/7 support for 2 months. Dicking over $1K or even $10K isn't worth it. CPUs are such a tiny fraction of overall cost. What matters more is performance + energy efficiency + stability. Xeons systems had NONE of those in the past 2-3 years. They were such a shitty product people were forced to flee into the arms of AMD. The question is will they come back and learn to love the Intel?
July 24, 2006 4:31:56 PM

Uh dude I never said it's going to but I read an article with like the head of development at AMD and he said that 4X4 was pretty much a gaming platform and that it was going to utilize reverse hyper-threading to improve gameplay because seriously, how many games support more than 2 threads? Exactly. Now whether or not they are going to utilize it is up to them. Like I said, from what I saw in the interview he said it's supossed to, now that doesn't mean it's going to. Personally I'm going for Woodcrest though
July 24, 2006 4:36:26 PM

Quote:
If Intel wants to sell you a processor for $300.00 that performs better than a processor that costs $600.00 and you are unhappy about it then buy the $600.00 chip. Or if you want the $300 chip and you think its too cheap them send the rest of the money to a charity and it will maybe make you feel better.



You must be bored. WHy would you think I care what happens to a company that isn't paying me?

Intel will feel more pain from these prices than AMD. Look at Dell, even though they did manage growth it was almost $.10 EPS less than expected. With the prices of PD/P4 dropping again it will mean even lower margins for them.
July 24, 2006 4:47:25 PM

Quote:
You must be bored. WHy would you think I care what happens to a company that isn't paying me?


What, you mean like the way that you don't care about what happens to AMD?
July 24, 2006 5:28:34 PM

Quote:


5.526 : 3DS Max
1335 : Cinebench(SMP)


It can manage 1335, but not 1337. Typical of AMD.
July 24, 2006 6:01:51 PM

Quote:
Why are you so concerned about how cheap Intel comes down on their chips?

The lower the better for the consumer. Intel has made billions of dollars over the years by selling their products at the cost the market would bare not what they actually cost to produce. If they hadn't they would not be worth the billions they are now.

How much does it actually cost to make a chip once the process of development is completed? Maybe $25.00.

Do some simple math, if they sell one million chips that cost $25.00 to produce this equals 25 million Now they sell these products for $400 each this leaves a difference of 375 million dollars. Lets add 200% for development and you still have a net of $300 million, You see where I am going and you know why Intel is worth billions.

If Intel wants to sell you a processor for $300.00 that performs better than a processor that costs $600.00 and you are unhappy about it then buy the $600.00 chip. Or if you want the $300 chip and you think its too cheap them send the rest of the money to a charity and it will maybe make you feel better.

But your nonsence about how much Intel should sell their chips for is just that. You're just pissed that Intel is going to undercut AMD and hurt their sales and are making some kind of feeble attempt to rationalize your anger.

That sounds like Walmart, breaks old business with very low prices then jacks their prices up later on customers. Its unfair trade as any business, other than none profit business, operating at a loss on any item, be it a CPU, is subject to trade violation laws.

Intel being worth billions is more server processor related then consumer based processors.

Now I think neither AMD or Intel sales their CPU's for less than they cost and AMD will match Intels price per performance where they can. The E6300 to E6600 can and is be matched in performance per price but Intel has retaken the performance crown. This is good as it forces AMD to come with better products and price which makes it cheaper and better for all.

I want my E6600 system crap it!!! This waiting is the only down side.
July 24, 2006 6:05:20 PM

Quote:
Uh dude I never said it's going to but I read an article with like the head of development at AMD and he said that 4X4 was pretty much a gaming platform and that it was going to utilize reverse hyper-threading to improve gameplay because seriously, how many games support more than 2 threads? Exactly. Now whether or not they are going to utilize it is up to them. Like I said, from what I saw in the interview he said it's supossed to, now that doesn't mean it's going to. Personally I'm going for Woodcrest though


Yeah, there were lots of rumors about RHT, however, now every site agrees they were just that - rumors.

Just search some older threads, you will find lots of info.
July 24, 2006 6:33:52 PM

Yeah I know. Either way with the current trend of multi-threading it would be kind of pointless ya know? Multicore CPUs are now going to be able to handle multi-threaded games instead of having one core idle due to a single thread. Who knows, you might even see games that will run 4 threads so you can even use a woodcrest setup... ya never know
July 24, 2006 6:52:24 PM

Quote:
Yeah I know. Either way with the current trend of multi-threading it would be kind of pointless ya know? Multicore CPUs are now going to be able to handle multi-threaded games instead of having one core idle due to a single thread. Who knows, you might even see games that will run 4 threads so you can even use a woodcrest setup... ya never know

The truth is its not pointless as RHT would be the perfect load balancer. You would see multithreaded programs getting 90% instead of only about 80% increases over single threaded programs.

RHT is alive as Inquire is the only site running the RHT is a rumor. This site is enough for me as the CTO of AMD talks about the first stepping stone of RHT using the FPU's by way of extensions. He even goes on to talk about using the entire core which is RHT.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=256...
!