Woodcrest, 4x4, Socket F pricing & Mac DP

[crow_smiling]

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[crow_smiling]

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!

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

 

[Dante_Jose_Cuervo]

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?

 

[crow_smiling]

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.

 

[mesarectifier]

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.

 

[spud]

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.

 

[Ycon]

Stop wasting oxygen BaronBS

 

[YO_KID37]

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.

 

[Scarchunk]

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.

 

[spud]

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!

 

[LordPope]

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.

 

[9-inch]

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.

 

[mesarectifier]

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.

 

[crow_smiling]

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

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.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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?

 

[9-inch]

Intel did 28 watts on 90 nm with Dothan

They could do that because Dothans were clocked lower.
Nice try. 8)

 

[intelamduser]

So Intel should charge more so AMD can stay competitive?

(sigh)

 

[BaronMatrix]

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).

 

[crow_smiling]

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!

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

 

[crow_smiling]

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.

 

[9-inch]

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:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/298/pc-desktop-le-core-duo-face-a-la-concurrence/page21.php

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:

 

[crow_smiling]

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.

 

[ethernalite]

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: