Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD demos 4X4: 2 CPUs < $1000

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 26, 2006 1:36:19 AM

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, California--Fresh from its ATI acquisition announcement, processor manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) today demonstrated a working four-core desktop system at a technology event held at its company headquarters. The four-core test system used two dual-core 2.8Ghz CPU engineering samples, clocked at the same speed as AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62 dual-core processor.


Full story here:http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154654.html :lol: 
July 26, 2006 1:51:21 AM

Quote:
The first "4" in 4x4 represents the four processing cores present in a two-socket system populated with two dual-core processors. Many assumed that the second "4" referred to quad GPUs when AMD first made the 4x4 announcement, but Moorhead clarified today that the second four represents any kind of high-performance hardware, anything from four hard disks to four GPUs or even 4GBs of system memory.

Kind of a let down. To be fair though:
Quote:
Moorhead announced that the 4x4 platform will be upgradeable to eight cores once AMD releases quad-core processors in 2007. Consumers that pick up a 4x4 system this holiday season will be able to upgrade from dual-core CPUs up to quad-core CPUs without purchasing a new motherboard.


My question is:
Can you use a 4x4 motherboard with only one CPU? If you're staying with AMD on your next build, can you pick up just one CPU now and add another later? Or will you have to buy both CPUs with the 4x4 mobo now and have to replace both CPUs later if you want quadcore chips? (By "now", I mean when the 4x4 mobos appear, obviously.)
July 26, 2006 1:57:27 AM

Quote:

My question is:
Can you use a 4x4 motherboard with only one CPU? If you're staying with AMD on your next build, can you pick up just one CPU now and add another later? Or will you have to buy both CPUs with the 4x4 mobo now and have to replace both CPUs later if you want quadcore chips? (By "now", I mean when the 4x4 mobos appear, obviously.)


To the best of my knowledge, yes, you can use one CPU initially and add a second later.
Related resources
July 26, 2006 1:59:24 AM

it would make the most sense as an upgrade path but who knows as it hasn't been confermed either way, it will be interesting when toms gets to give it a run
July 26, 2006 2:02:29 AM

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, California--Fresh from its ATI acquisition announcement, processor manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) today demonstrated a working four-core desktop system at a technology event held at its company headquarters. The four-core test system used two dual-core 2.8Ghz CPU engineering samples, clocked at the same speed as AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62 dual-core processor.


Full story here:http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154654.html :lol: 

So they showed off a Opteron setup?
July 26, 2006 2:02:58 AM

WTF are we to believe!!! Sockpuppet Baron said this was done several days ago! Surely this news is wrong... :evil: 
July 26, 2006 2:03:57 AM

basicly lol but with different names :lol: 
July 26, 2006 2:06:08 AM

What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.
July 26, 2006 2:07:01 AM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.


Good point, I'm very curious to hear what Microsoft's take is on this.
July 26, 2006 2:08:27 AM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.


Good point, I'm very curious to hear what Microsoft's take is on this.

very, i never even thought of that aspect of it
July 26, 2006 2:11:06 AM

Quote:
... since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.


No,not really as 4x4 is designed to be used with ordinary RAM, ie non ECC RAM.
July 26, 2006 2:14:55 AM

exactly why it would be attractive to entry level workstations... cheaper yet great performance.
July 26, 2006 2:41:54 AM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.

I was under the assumption that the number of cpus did not matter for the license, as long as every installation of windows has a valid product key. About the multiple processor issue though, it is true that only Windows XP Professional will work, as XP Home does not support multisocket systems.
July 26, 2006 2:44:24 AM

but Vista might be different in regards to licensing...
July 26, 2006 2:46:15 AM

Yes perhaps...I never thought about Vista.
July 26, 2006 2:46:38 AM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.
As Joefriday said, XP Professional has support for 2 CPU sockets while XP home only has support for 1.
July 26, 2006 3:03:43 AM

I can't see what's so exciting about this. It looks like two dual-core CPUs on one dual-processor board. Kinda like a workstation for the consumer market. It might outperform Conroe, but it will cost a lot more, use a lot more power, and generate a lot more heat. It's probably a temporary solution until AMD can get K8L working.
July 26, 2006 3:12:06 AM

Megatasking- Playing a game, downloading pron, encoding pron, and burning pron to a dvd all at the same time!

Yay, now I can finally get a 2 dual core processors running at the same time, wait... shouldn't they have called it 2X2?
July 26, 2006 3:17:26 AM

Ah, I doubled checked and you're right. A single Windows XP Professional license allows 2 processors/sockets and Windows XP Home allows 1 processor/socket. The separate licensing per processor policy only applies to other Windows versions presumably Windows 2003, etc.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore...

So only XP Professional or the Vista equivalent will support 4x4. I presume Windows XP MCE also will support 4x4 since it's based on XP Pro.
July 26, 2006 3:18:44 AM

The first 4 in 4x4 is 4 cores, and the second 4 is supposed to be Quad SLI. That's how I understand it.
July 26, 2006 3:22:49 AM

Quote:
I presume Windows XP MCE also will support 4x4 since it's based on XP Pro.

The code is based on Pro, but the licensing may not be.
July 26, 2006 3:33:38 AM

Quote:
How come you posted this news as parrot instead of 9nm?

Whatever happened with this? :lol:  8)


Whether it is parrot or 9nm my reply to him is the same. I feel a two processor solution to be useless for the average user or gamer at home in my opinion. All though I agree it would make a nice small workstation or even single office server.

Here are some of my thoughts on the whole issue. When I look at the 4x4 I don’t see a home PC but a small server. It is going to be extremely expensive with having to buy twice the memory, CPU’s, and a possible additional license fee from Microsoft. And let’s be totally honest here, most gamers do not burn CD’s or other applications while playing online or in single player mode to justify the extra chip. Based on this I feel the Core 2's to be a much better performer at least until the new AMD cores come out for games. However, I don’t think it is a totally bad idea depending on the different solutions in the future. What about a processor and a different socket for a physics chip or co-processor per say.

What if you are one of the few who would want to burn CD’s while playing a game you may ask? I think it would be a better approach to wait for a true quad core from either Intel or AMD. It should be somewhat cheaper and provide great performance. This is just my opinion.
a c 99 à CPUs
July 26, 2006 4:03:56 AM

Well, if the current trend of a lot of cores on one die/socket with only one memory bus/interface to the socket/cores continues, we will find ourselves in a predicament where we have the cores getting starved for bandwidth as memory bandwidth is currently NOT scaling with the amount of cores and one memory bus to a lot of cores gets harder to control the faster it gets, according to JumpingJack (IIRC- it was likely him, but could have been one of the other intelligent forum members.) Thus just pumping bus speed up will not work if we are to go to quad cores and beyond and still feed the cores. We will have to thus increase the amount of bit width of the memory to increase bandwidth. There are 3 methods of this, but they accomplish the same thing:

1. A single quad-channel, 256-bit memory controller, as seen in the Intel 5000x series Dempsey/Woodcrest server chipsets. It would serve one socket instead of two.

2. Two 128-bit memory controllers and two separate banks of RAM, a la the Opteron 200 NUMA. However, putting two independent memory controllers on the same die might be good, it might not.

3. New memory modules that are 128 or 256 bits wide. The 128s would be run in dual channel and 256s would be run in single-channel. This can't happen for a while as I believe than DDR3 is still 64-bit.

So until I start to see any of the 3 things above happen, running two dual-core processors, either being fed by a 128-bit bus from a quad-channel memory controller (Intel DIB) or from two separate memory banks and controllers (AMD Opteron NUMA) would be the best solution. 4x4 has this and it represents a quick and easy way to keep the cores fed.
July 26, 2006 4:12:19 AM

Quote:
Well, if the current trend of a lot of cores on one die/socket with only one memory bus/interface to the socket/cores continues, we will find ourselves in a predicament where we have the cores getting starved for bandwidth as memory bandwidth is currently NOT scaling with the amount of cores and one memory bus to a lot of cores gets harder to control the faster it gets, according to JumpingJack (IIRC- it was likely him, but could have been one of the other intelligent forum members.) Thus just pumping bus speed up will not work if we are to go to quad cores and beyond and still feed the cores. We will have to thus increase the amount of bit width of the memory to increase bandwidth. There are 3 methods of this, but they accomplish the same thing:

1. A single quad-channel, 256-bit memory controller, as seen in the Intel 5000x series Dempsey/Woodcrest server chipsets. It would serve one socket instead of two.

2. Two 128-bit memory controllers and two separate banks of RAM, a la the Opteron 200 NUMA. However, putting two independent memory controllers on the same die might be good, it might not.

3. New memory modules that are 128 or 256 bits wide. The 128s would be run in dual channel and 256s would be run in single-channel. This can't happen for a while as I believe than DDR3 is still 64-bit.

So until I start to see any of the 3 things above happen, running two dual-core processors, either being fed by a 128-bit bus from a quad-channel memory controller (Intel DIB) or from two separate memory banks and controllers (AMD Opteron NUMA) would be the best solution. 4x4 has this and it represents a quick and easy way to keep the cores fed.


Thanks
July 26, 2006 4:26:20 AM

Bandwidth isn't a problem for AM2 for the next few years. The entire point of going to DDR2 was to ensure sufficient bandwidth for the future.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33094

The fact is, the processors do quite fine on dual channel 400MHz memory. At 800MHz only a single channel is really needed. This means that the existing dual channel DDR2 800 setup already supplies enough bandwidth for quad cores. Granted K8L will use more bandwidth but a bump to dual channel DDR2 1067 will be more than enough for a quad core K8L, especially as the IMC improves and real bandwidth approachs theoretical. We won't likely see 8-cored processors until 2008 and by that time DDR3 1333 and faster will be out and smaller processes will allow AMD to increase caches as well. Really, there isn't a need to go to fancy 256-bit memory controllers, etc.
a c 99 à CPUs
July 26, 2006 4:37:33 AM

Hmm. I was assuming K8L to be a 4-issue core and that would take up at least a third more bandwidth at all clock speeds, so DDR2-1067 in dual channel would feed a K8L quad core. My socket 939 X2 does do well with a dual-channel DDR 400 interface, so a K8 quad core would do okay on a dual DDR2-800 interface.

But this is at current clock speeds in the mid 2 GHz range. Tests of the AM2 vs. 939 chips showed that while the chips 2.4 GHz and below weren't memory starved at 6.4 GB/sec, ones 2.6 and faster did benefit from the increased DDR2 bandwidth. So maybe a K8L quad at <2.5 GHz would run fine on a dual DDR2-1067 interface, but would one over 3.2 GHz do as well? Would it need DDR2-1200 or -1333 and will such speeds be officially released? I don't know. Time will tell though.
July 26, 2006 4:58:13 AM

cant u right now take 2 dual core opteron chips socket 940 and put them in one mother board? correct me if im wrong but how would that be differnt
July 26, 2006 6:03:41 AM

So it's Intel fan's turn to not believe any reports relating to AMD's up and coming new technology?????

Nevertheless, since the report didnt comment on much.......I still think running 4+ cores is an overkill especially if the CPUs must be FX series......thats an overkill on processing power and your wallet!!!!
July 26, 2006 8:06:50 AM

Quote:
I can't see what's so exciting about this. It looks like two dual-core CPUs on one dual-processor board. Kinda like a workstation for the consumer market. It might outperform Conroe, but it will cost a lot more, use a lot more power, and generate a lot more heat.
For people who need or like very high performance, this will offer it at a lower price, IF, the 4x4 compatible FXs are priced low enough.

With regards power consumption, you get better performance per watt when using two CPUs at mid range speeds versus one heavily overclocked CPU. This is because the extra voltage needed to gain maximum clock speed when O/Cing significantly increases power consumption, due to the fact that power is related to the square of the voltage. i.e. if voltage doubles, power consumption quadruples.
Of course, this is only true for applications that can use the 4 cores.

Quote:
Nevertheless, since the report didnt comment on much.......I still think running 4+ cores is an overkill especially if the CPUs must be FX series......thats an overkill on processing power and your wallet!!!!
Since they haven’t announced pricing on this new range of FX 4x4 CPUs, it’s a bit premature to comment on value for money. It will have to be cheaper than building an Opteron DP system, but it will also need to compete with Woodcrest, which currently offers much better performance per buck versus S940 Opterons for the CPUs. The Woodcrest platform is new, so the motherboard and RAM is still expensive. Socket F pricing is unknown at this point as are the costs of the platform. By the end of the year we should have an idea where pricing is for the three competing platforms.

As for the processing power being overkill; have you ever tried editing High Definition Video! HD video is slowly going to become much more used; Sony are bringing out two new H.264 based HD camcorders in the Autumn that use DVD/HDD.
It’s true though that for most people quad cores is currently not needed.
July 26, 2006 11:17:57 AM

Who the heck cares about AMDs Acts of Desperation?
Only you, BM, dvd, Pat, 9nm/BS/RB/LMM/GLI/MD/MB are going to buy 4x4, other people dont have that much money to blow on AMD :lol: 
July 26, 2006 12:06:56 PM

Quote:
Who the heck cares about AMDs Acts of Desperation?
Only you, BM, dvd, Pat, 9nm/BS/RB/LMM/GLI/MD/MB are going to buy 4x4, other people dont have that much money to blow on AMD :lol: 
Since they haven't released pricing information yet, I think you're being premature. It could turn out to be a bargain DP system, or it could be as you say an act of desperation.
July 26, 2006 12:08:12 PM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.
Not to mention that you're going to need a fairly sustantial PSU(no 450-500watts here), and all those RAM modules will likey need to be DDR2-1067+ @tight timings. Also, factor in the cooling as 2xFX-62's @ 125w each , all that high-speed RAM, minimum 2xHighend GPU's is going to fill the case with some serious heat. We may even be talking huge $400 server cases to accomodate all the hardware and provide ample room for fans, airflow. So, all told, it might set you back $4000+ and likely many driver problems will surface..no doubt. I think i'll just play my games, then when i want a break, or go spend time with my wife, start ripping videos, etc. and save myself $3000. :wink:
July 26, 2006 12:32:38 PM

Quote:
Not to mention that you're going to need a fairly sustantial PSU(no 450-500watts here), and all those RAM modules will likey need to be DDR2-1067+ @tight timings. Also, factor in the cooling as 2xFX-62's @ 125w each , all that high-speed RAM, minimum 2xHighend GPU's is going to fill the case with some serious heat. We may even be talking huge $400 server cases to accomodate all the hardware and provide ample room for fans, airflow. So, all told, it might set you back $4000+ and likely many drives problems will surface..no doubt. I think i'll just play my games, then when i want a break, or go spend time with my wife, start ripping videos, etc. and save myself $3000. :wink:


That is so wrong. They are releasing a separate range of FX chips for this. The 65nm X2 CPUs released at the end of the year have a TDP of 65W up to 2.6 or possibly 2.8 GHz.
130W equates to one FX62 or a Conoe at ~3.5 GHz and the performance of two 2.6 GHz Athlons in multi-threaded applications will obliterate anything apart from Woodcrest/Opteron.
Don’t forget, it’s a lot easier to cool two 65W chips than one 125W one, so that really helps.

The quad core GPU thing does seem an irrelevance, but you aren’t forced by 4x4 to use that. You can go 4x2 or 4x1, which is what interests me.

Where do you get the idea that you need DDR2 10667!

This is the most delusional speculation I have seen in a while. Is the heat getting to you?
July 26, 2006 12:42:11 PM

Quote:
Not to mention that you're going to need a fairly sustantial PSU(no 450-500watts here), and all those RAM modules will likey need to be DDR2-1067+ @tight timings. Also, factor in the cooling as 2xFX-62's @ 125w each , all that high-speed RAM, minimum 2xHighend GPU's is going to fill the case with some serious heat. We may even be talking huge $400 server cases to accomodate all the hardware and provide ample room for fans, airflow. So, all told, it might set you back $4000+ and likely many drives problems will surface..no doubt. I think i'll just play my games, then when i want a break, or go spend time with my wife, start ripping videos, etc. and save myself $3000. :wink:


That is so wrong. They are releasing a separate range of FX chips for this. The 65nm X2 CPUs released at the end of the year have a TDP of 65W up to 2.6 or possibly 2.8 GHz.
130W equates to one FX62 or a Conoe at ~3.5 GHz and the performance of two 2.6 GHz Athlons in multi-threaded applications will obliterate anything apart from Woodcrest/Opteron.
Don’t forget, it’s a lot easier to cool two 65W chips than one 125W one, so that really helps.

The quad core GPU thing does seem an irrelevance, but you aren’t forced by 4x4 to use that. You can go 4x2 or 4x1, which is what interests me.

Where do you get the idea that you need DDR2 10667!

This is the most delusional speculation I have seen in a while. Is the heat getting to you?I don't know if you've read any AM2 reviews, but the general consensus is that AM2 requires the best possible DDR2 you can get your hands on. I don't think someone laying out several thousand dollars on a machine is going to throw anything but the best RAM in it, as the setup is afterall about getting the best performance available. We don't know for sure if normal x2's will work in 4x4 (no matter what Baron Matrox says), so for now it looks like FX. AMD hasn't even shown working 65nm silicone, so don't bet the farm on using 65w chips.Research stuff before you spout off.
July 26, 2006 12:49:32 PM

Right, the first 4x4 will be 90nm... If they want 65nm by Dec you better go with Intel's 65nm Quad Core out by then.
July 26, 2006 12:51:48 PM

Quote:
Right, the first 4x4 will be 90nm... If they want 65nm by Dec you better go with Intel's 65nm Quad Core out by then.
I don't think he's seen AMDs recent roadmaps.
July 26, 2006 1:05:42 PM

Quote:
What I'd be interested to know is what type of Windows licensing arrangement 4x4 has. Currently Microsoft charges licenses per processor or per socket, which is why dual core or quad cores only need one Windows license. However, with 4x4 you have 2 processors in 2 sockets just like a workstation, which means that you not only have to pay more for the motherboard, get 2 CPUs, get twice the RAM to fill twice the slots, but also pay 2 Window licenses. Microsoft may decide to allow a single license for a 4x4 setup, but then they would lose workstation revenue since 4x4 makes a great cheap workstation.
Not to mention that you're going to need a fairly sustantial PSU(no 450-500watts here), and all those RAM modules will likey need to be DDR2-1067+ @tight timings. Also, factor in the cooling as 2xFX-62's @ 125w each , all that high-speed RAM, minimum 2xHighend GPU's is going to fill the case with some serious heat. We may even be talking huge $400 server cases to accomodate all the hardware and provide ample room for fans, airflow. So, all told, it might set you back $4000+ and likely many driver problems will surface..no doubt. I think i'll just play my games, then when i want a break, or go spend time with my wife, start ripping videos, etc. and save myself $3000. :wink:

I agree, that is another valid point. By the way, I did a little checking on the Microsoft license requirements for Vista. I may have read it wrong but I believe this is correct. Please let me know otherwise. Vista has 7 versions.

Number of physical CPU’s supported.

Windows Starter 2007 1
Windows Vista Home Basic 1
Windows Vista Home Premium 1
Windows Vista Business 2
Windows Vista Small Business 2
Windows Vista Enterprise 2
Windows Vista Ultimate 2

I don’t believe there are any issues with the number of cores supported per CPU but I don’t have any information so far on that. I also can’t find any pricing information on the different versions.
July 26, 2006 1:08:02 PM

Quote:
I don't know if you've read any AM2 reviews, but the general consensus is that AM2 requires the best possible DDR2 you can get your hands on. I don't think someone laying out several thousand dollars on a machine is going to throw anything but the best RAM in it, as the setup is afterall about getting the best performance available. We don't know for sure if normal x2's will work in 4x4 (no matter what Baron Matrox says), so for now it looks like FX. AMD hasn't even shown working 65nm silicone, so don't bet the farm on using 65w chips.Research stuff before you spout off.
I’ve laughed over the years as I’ve seen people obsessing over paying through the nose for high end memory that gives minimum performance gains for maximum outlay. Also, it’s optional; you don’t have to buy it to benefit from the move to quad cores. You make it sound as if AM2 desperately needs it, it doesn’t right now. If clock speeds get high enough so that the AM2 platform needs it in the future, then that’s another story and by then RAM of that speed will be cheaper.

They will be using different chips for 4x4 as they need 2 HT links. You do some research before jerking off again in public.

I didn’t say that 4x4 would be released at 65nm, just that when it does hit 65nm the power consumption is not a problem. AMD already have 65W AM2 4600+ so if you are desperate to have 4x4 from day one, the lower clocked 90nm parts will still be lowish power. A more patient person would wait until 65nm are released.

Reading between the lines it seems as there will be only one 4x4 below $1000, so this has no interest for me. I’ll go back to checking out Woodcrest and waiting for the right motherboard and also check out Socket F. It may be a good competitor for Woodcrest on 65nm.
July 26, 2006 1:17:29 PM

All of this has been discussed before. Waaaay too much redundancy on these forumz, in my humble opinion. I shall attempt to sum up everything on the subjects:

1) AM2 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. DDR2 support had to come at some point, and this seemed like a good time. 939 still has performance comparable to AM2, because it's a new platform. Quit bitching and moaning because the new platform isn't a night-and-day difference from the old one. Give it some effing time. If a platform doesn't do what you expect, find one that does. Enough fanboyism.

2) 4x4 is more useful in the workstation sector than in the mainstream and enthusaist markets. That is, unless AMD can magically make "reverse hyperthreading" happen, in which case I will retract this statement. Until then, 4x4 will remain useful only for extremely mutlithreaded environments, such as 3D modeling and professional video editing/encoding.

3) AMD has produced some pretty nice power consumption figures (at least in comparison to NetBurst :roll:) . Their dual cores comsume about the same amount of power as their single-cored counterparts, perhaps a little more. I believe they may be able to do the same for 4x4. I'm pretty sure it will use more power than current CPUs, but then again, the high-end workstations that will be using 4x4 parts won't be using generic 450W PSU's. Those will be using high-end PCP n' P, Tagan, and FSP units because the rest of the computer demands it. 4x4 will conform to the situation that requires it.

4) AMD and Intel will always be producing products to beat the other. It's called competition. For the consumer, that's a good thing.

5) These companies will also produce products that benefit the most influential market. Mainstream. Dell is the biggest seller because most people who buy computers don't give a rat's tailfeathers what's in it, as long as they can check MySpace, send their e-mail, and sync with their iPods. They could care less whether their machine is using Corsair or Wintec, AMD or Intel. Like it or not, the enthusiast market is small, as is the workstation and server market. No matter if our parts are more expensive than mainstream, in some cases workstation. Mainstream parts sell more. Example: who do politicians care most about? The elderly. Their demographic has the highest population of voters. The squeaky hinge gets the grease. Enthusaists aren't squeaky enough, I suppose :roll:

6) Core 2 has better average performance and a better price/performance ratio than AMD64. A $400 Intel chip is capable of beating a $900 AMD chip.

7) Core 2 has better value than AMD64. The same $400 chip produces less heat and consumes less power than the same $900 chip.

Give it a freaking rest. Save the dispute until 4x4 is actually released. Then argue your brains out. You've done enough for now, I think. THG veterans, back me up here.
July 26, 2006 1:59:20 PM

Quote:
All of this has been discussed before. Waaaay too much redundancy on these forumz, in my humble opinion. I shall attempt to sum up everything on the subjects:

1) AM2 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. DDR2 support had to come at some point, and this seemed like a good time. 939 still has performance comparable to AM2, because it's a new platform. Quit bitching and moaning because the new platform isn't a night-and-day difference from the old one. Give it some effing time. If a platform doesn't do what you expect, find one that does. Enough fanboyism.

2) 4x4 is more useful in the workstation sector than in the mainstream and enthusaist markets. That is, unless AMD can magically make "reverse hyperthreading" happen, in which case I will retract this statement. Until then, 4x4 will remain useful only for extremely mutlithreaded environments, such as 3D modeling and professional video editing/encoding.

3) AMD has produced some pretty nice power consumption figures (at least in comparison to NetBurst :roll:) . Their dual cores comsume about the same amount of power as their single-cored counterparts, perhaps a little more. I believe they may be able to do the same for 4x4. I'm pretty sure it will use more power than current CPUs, but then again, the high-end workstations that will be using 4x4 parts won't be using generic 450W PSU's. Those will be using high-end PCP n' P, Tagan, and FSP units because the rest of the computer demands it. 4x4 will conform to the situation that requires it.

4) AMD and Intel will always be producing products to beat the other. It's called competition. For the consumer, that's a good thing.

5) These companies will also produce products that benefit the most influential market. Mainstream. Dell is the biggest seller because most people who buy computers don't give a rat's tailfeathers what's in it, as long as they can check MySpace, send their e-mail, and sync with their iPods. They could care less whether their machine is using Corsair or Wintec, AMD or Intel. Like it or not, the enthusiast market is small, as is the workstation and server market. No matter if our parts are more expensive than mainstream, in some cases workstation. Mainstream parts sell more. Example: who do politicians care most about? The elderly. Their demographic has the highest population of voters. The squeaky hinge gets the grease. Enthusaists aren't squeaky enough, I suppose :roll:

6) Core 2 has better average performance and a better price/performance ratio than AMD64. A $400 Intel chip is capable of beating a $900 AMD chip.

7) Core 2 has better value than AMD64. The same $400 chip produces less heat and consumes less power than the same $900 chip.

Give it a freaking rest. Save the dispute until 4x4 is actually released. Then argue your brains out. You've done enough for now, I think. THG veterans, back me up here.
I think if you don't like it, go participate in another thread. Did i mention Conroe in my post? Thought not. Go rag on someone else who'll bow to your sucky requests.Speculation is part of almost every post. Get used to it. Even when you suggest a PSU to someone for their build, you're speculating that it will be a good PSU for that person....Nothing more. You want to whine, got to a kennel, and talk to the stray dogs....they like whiners. If not., STFU!
July 26, 2006 2:03:10 PM

If you think I was talking to you about everything, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to give that impression, but the forum only lets you reply to one person, not the topic itself. I'll clarify next time. We cool?

And what does stary mean?

For clarification, this topic was addressed to you.
July 26, 2006 2:10:50 PM

Quote:
If you think I was talking to you about everything, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to give that impression, but the forum only lets you reply to one person, not the topic itself. I'll clarify next time. We cool?

And what does stary mean?

For clarification, this topic was addressed to you.
Yes, fine, but i still get tired of people who try to stifle threads. So what if a subject is discussed several times?No biggy. If i don't like where it's going, i leave the thread. If there are 3 threads actively discussing the same topic, then i believe it's a waste of bandwidth/resources. It's no different than meeting people at work in the cafeteria every day, and talking about the weather. :wink:
stary=typo>>>stray.
July 26, 2006 2:34:15 PM

Quote:
I don't know if you've read any AM2 reviews, but the general consensus is that AM2 requires the best possible DDR2 you can get your hands on. I don't think someone laying out several thousand dollars on a machine is going to throw anything but the best RAM in it, as the setup is afterall about getting the best performance available. We don't know for sure if normal x2's will work in 4x4 (no matter what Baron Matrox says), so for now it looks like FX. AMD hasn't even shown working 65nm silicone, so don't bet the farm on using 65w chips.Research stuff before you spout off.


Actually, I have yet to see any AM2 benches that directly compare DDR2 at different timings (say, 4-4-4-8 to 5-5-5-12) but I am curious about them. Any links handy?
July 26, 2006 3:01:55 PM

Quote:
but Vista might be different in regards to licensing...


If and when it comes out though.
July 26, 2006 3:30:38 PM

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, California--Fresh from its ATI acquisition announcement, processor manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) today demonstrated a working four-core desktop system at a technology event held at its company headquarters. The four-core test system used two dual-core 2.8Ghz CPU engineering samples, clocked at the same speed as AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62 dual-core processor.


Full story here:http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154654.html :lol: 


The four-core test system used two dual-core 2.8Ghz CPU engineering samples, clocked at the same speed as AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62 dual-core processor



This is the key sentence in the entire article. It may mean that these will be the first RHT chips for those who were saying they need 4x4 AND RHT.

I mean I'm trying to figure out if they were 65nm engr samples.

If they were that means this will release on 65nm and will not be as expensive. But it could also mean that the chips for this will add the second two HT ports.


Curiouser and curiouser.
July 26, 2006 3:32:21 PM

Quote:
I don't know if you've read any AM2 reviews, but the general consensus is that AM2 requires the best possible DDR2 you can get your hands on. I don't think someone laying out several thousand dollars on a machine is going to throw anything but the best RAM in it, as the setup is afterall about getting the best performance available. We don't know for sure if normal x2's will work in 4x4 (no matter what Baron Matrox says), so for now it looks like FX. AMD hasn't even shown working 65nm silicone, so don't bet the farm on using 65w chips.Research stuff before you spout off.


Actually, I have yet to see any AM2 benches that directly compare DDR2 at different timings (say, 4-4-4-8 to 5-5-5-12) but I am curious about them. Any links handy?

There was one at extremetech a month or two ago, I think. They went all the way to 3-3-3-9 and got 10-20% increase vs CAS5.
July 26, 2006 3:36:09 PM

Quote:
We don't know for sure if normal x2's will work in 4x4 (no matter what Baron Matrox says), so for now it looks like FX. AMD hasn't even shown working 65nm silicone, so don't bet the farm on using 65w chips.Research stuff before you spout off.



Please, AMD says there is no difference the amount of HT links between X2 and FX. Not me.

Also why is the test using an engr sample? They haven't said anything about a redesign to accomplish 4x4 (though they're kinda tightlipped) so there is a good chance this was a

65nm chip
July 26, 2006 3:42:17 PM

If it was a 65nm chip, they would have said they had working silicon to inspire confidence.

Where the hell did you pull RHT from? Haven’t you already figured out from the numerous other threads that it doesn't exist?

And here i hoped your stupidity disappeared...
July 26, 2006 3:44:58 PM

Quote:
4x4 is more useful in the workstation sector than in the mainstream and enthusaist markets. That is, unless AMD can magically make "reverse hyperthreading" happen, in which case I will retract this statement. Until then, 4x4 will remain useful only for extremely mutlithreaded environments, such as 3D modeling and professional video editing/encoding.



WHy was this test using


ENGR SAMPLES?


This is not a pro incentive they will not buy this for work. They will use Opteron and SCSI and ECC.

What if they do turn on this "DMT" thing? I have to say they won't need 4x4 to take Core 2 out. Core 2 is clock for clock about 25% faster (Anand) and this should bring 40% increase over regular K8. And contrary to popular opinion AMD talked about this in 2005 at their Analyst Day.

It was called "switch-on-event" and "cluster-based." It on this link, slide 69.

DMT RHT or whatever
!