Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Could Intel Implement 4x4 Technology?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 21, 2006 6:39:28 PM

We all know about the thing once called the K8L, but it got me to thinking, since there is a agreement between Intel and AMD to share technology, could Intel ever turn out something like the 4x4 with their chips? Or is that just stupidity?
September 21, 2006 7:07:23 PM

seems feasible. From the slides it really doesn't look like anything but a 2P workstation without ECC/FBDIMM

There could be a market for low - midrange wrorkstations but will it cannibalize Zeon/Opteron sales?

I don't think it will be big in the enthusiast market until the gaming engines become much more thread optimized.
September 21, 2006 7:10:26 PM

Firstly 4x4 is not a technology it is mearly a platform, i believe that intel could, if they wanted, make a similar platform although they do not need to at the monent seeing as they're c2d cpus hold the performance advantage at the monent. they also have kentsfield which will be quad core (2 conroe dies stuck together with a crossover bar) whereas 4x4 will be 2 dual core althonx2s on the same motherboard with a single HTTlink linking the two together. 4x4 is basically a stopgap measure for amd, it is catered for the enthusiast market. :) 

look here about cross liecentcing aggreents and what can and cannot be shared:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

4x4 is basicaly using 2 dual core proessors on a *server like* motherboard with 2 sockets for cpus on it. not sure if 4x4 motherboards have sli though)
Related resources
September 21, 2006 7:10:53 PM

Well, considering dual socket boards already exist for intels latest cpu in the workstation space, they could easily do something like this. It wouldn't make any sense to do it, but they could.

Everyone should realize by now that the only reason AMD is going with the 4X4 approach is because they won't have a chip that can evenly match intel anytime soon. I can only see heavy multi-taskers and audio/video guys doing the 4X4 thing. It will never be mainstream.
September 21, 2006 7:22:24 PM

true, it'll cost a fortune, can you only use fx 62 chips with it or any x2?

obivously they would both have to be am2 cpus as this is their current socket and will stop producing 939 now or soon.
September 21, 2006 7:27:32 PM

According to the diagrams you can only use FX chips. And you have to buy the equal amount of RAM for it to work.
September 21, 2006 7:45:08 PM

cor! 8O thought so, however if they did allow for it to work with ordinary athlon x2s it would be much better, if you could also use only one cpu and 'upgrade' later it would be much better, meaning that you have a reasonably good upgrade path to a quad processor pc. however it does't do any of the above.

(although ifyou can prove me wrong then well i'll have to agree with you).

alhough no doubt people who have a lot of money in thy're wallet and know almost nothing about computers who want the the best of the best will undoubtly pay for it (even hough it probably wont be the best). that is if they buy a pre built pc and have no or very very little knowledge of computers :lol: 
September 21, 2006 7:47:02 PM

Seems like a waste of money and useless. Who needs that much processing power? Most people here are gamers, we don't do heavy scientific calculations. Although the Kentsfield has some crazy ass arithmetic going for it. I would like to see 1 Kentsfield > AMD 4X4.
September 21, 2006 7:51:18 PM

Naw, I think it specifically designed to only work with both processors.
Besides from what I hear, it'll be for people that can afford to buy both processors.
September 21, 2006 8:55:21 PM

also, although i know people who buy this platform wont care all that much, the 4x4 platform will produce more heat(due to two processors on one motherboard unlike kentsfield) and use more power (kentsfield has a 110w tdp whereas a single athlon fx62 has a 130w tdp). This may not sound much of a difference but thats only for ONE fx cpu and if you use two then it magically doubles to 260w! :lol:  also you would need to buy more ram?, and annother heatsink for the other processor.

and yes i know that most people who would buy a comp with 4x4 will not care about the above but im just saying :D 
September 21, 2006 9:11:34 PM

From all that people seem to be saying it seems like place holder technology.
September 21, 2006 9:27:48 PM

I was thinking about what people said about 4x4 being designed primarily for servers and workstations. Most servers are in the rack configeration, with racks stacked one on top of the other. If this is going to use two chips that will put out more heat than a quad core chip would this would be a bad idea for servers. I was just talking to the IT guys from the college I go to and they say that heat is aa huge factor in maintainiing a server/mainframe.
These guys are terribly conserned about heat and they passed this concern along to me.
What do you guys think?
September 21, 2006 9:28:01 PM

Quote:
According to the diagrams you can only use FX chips. And you have to buy the equal amount of RAM for it to work.

The 4x4 needs special FX chips that have 2 HT links, the standard ones only have one. According to ElmoIsEvil in another thread - the chips will be sold as "2 Packs", so it looks like you'll have to buy both CPUs at once, and not be able to build with just one now and add another later.

Intel is going to add it's own higher-speed version of HyperTransport in 2008 on its Tukwila platform:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tukwila_%28processor%29
Quote:
It has been publicly disclosed that Tukwila and its associated chipset would bring socket compatibility between Intel's Xeon and Itanium processors, by introducing a new interconnect called Common System Interface (CSI). This ultimate endeavor would help reduce product development costs for both Intel and its partners, by allowing for greater reuse of components and manufacturing processes. CSI is also purported to provide much better performance than AMD's Hypertransport.

Tukwila is reported to have four "full" CSI links and two "half" links

CSI will give Intel the capability to make its own 4x4. I think Intel would rather add more cores than add a second socket for CPUs. However, it may add another socket for third party chips as AMD is announcing:
AMD's new chip ploy--open source sockets
Quote:
Advanced Micro Device plans to publish its Opteron socket specification in a move that it hopes will boost sales by letting other chip makers design application-specific co-processors to be integrated alongside Opteron for optimized performance.
September 21, 2006 9:33:32 PM

Quote:
I was thinking about what people said about 4x4 being designed primarily for servers and workstations. Most servers are in the rack configeration, with racks stacked one on top of the other. If this is going to use two chips that will put out more heat than a quad core chip would this would be a bad idea for servers. I was just talking to the IT guys from the college I go to and they say that heat is aa huge factor in maintainiing a server/mainframe.
These guys are terribly conserned about heat and they passed this concern along to me.
What do you guys think?


The 4x4 is going to be marketed as an Enthusiast platform. In this market, horsepower counts more than energy/heat efficiency.

As far as the server market: AMD already has multisocketed Opteron boards.
September 21, 2006 10:02:15 PM

Quote:
The 4x4 is going to be marketed as an Enthusiast platform. In this market, horsepower counts more than energy/heat efficiency.


Although they seem to have forgotten about the fact that we still care about what price we have to pay for said horsepower.
September 21, 2006 10:18:11 PM

Maybe if the FX stays at $750+, people will think it's a deal getting a "Two Pack" of 4x4 compatibles for $1000-$1200.

There seems to be a whole market for people with more money than brains. Anymore, I seem to be lacking in both. :( 

Can't wait for a head-to-head comparison with Kentsfield, however. :) 
a c 102 à CPUs
September 21, 2006 11:23:41 PM

Well, I think we'll know how that will pan out:

1. Single threaded apps that love clockspeed: Kentsfield
2. Single-threaded apps that are integer-heavy: Kentsfield
3. Single-threaded games: Kentsfield
4. Single-threaded apps that love RAM bandwidth: Kentsfield
5. 4-threaded apps that love clockspeed: Kentsfield
6. 4-threaded apps that are integer heavy: Kentsfield
7. 4-threaded apps that love RAM bandwidth: 4x4

The big questions are multithreaded FP-heavy apps and multithreaded games that like both clockspeed and RAM bandwidth. 4x4 will have a far better memory interface, but it will have a lower clock speed. As far as power is concerned, both will be roughly equal, and that means one very hot Kentsfield with TDPs in the Pentium D 840 range or two K8s with decent TDPs throwing off a lot of heat between the two of them.

I'd personally lean towards the 4x4 because my usages tend towards as many cores as one can get (compiling!!) and the 4x4s will allow TWO quad-core Kx Barcelona chips to be stuck in there in the future versus just one Kentsfield in a 775 board. I'd be aiming at getting a poor man's workstation, so I guess that makes me out of the target demographic- AMD and Intel would rather have me buy more expensive Opteron and Xeon platforms. I think that AMD will see some cannibalization of low-end 2P workstations with the 4x4, and I am wondering if that's not one of their goals all along. Well, unless the boards that run 4x4 are workstation-unfriendly...
September 22, 2006 2:02:02 AM

Quote:
We all know about the thing once called the K8L, but it got me to thinking, since there is a agreement between Intel and AMD to share technology, could Intel ever turn out something like the 4x4 with their chips? Or is that just stupidity?


I think it's more a matter of would than of could; anyway, a lot has been said about the Torrenza initiative, already; I've found this at vr-zone (which doesn't seem very reliable as a source...) but then, I've found it also at THG's:

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4033

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/21/amd_torrenza/

Apparently only rumours (and, originally quoted from AMD), Cray, Fujitsu Siemens Computers, IBM and Sun Microsystems would be willing to adopt AMD's Torrenza Innovation Socket (WTM).
This notice would have stroke dust if it weren't for the Big Names involved (I guess that, even AMD cannot make random & gratuitous statements, when such Big Names are involved; but, that's my opinion).
vr-zone goes as far as to state that
Quote:
The Torrenza Innovation Socket enables OEMs who develop their own silicon to take full advantage of an x86 environment and the accompanying economics associated with packaging, chipsets and motherboard designs. OEMs will be able to contribute to and obtain the Torrenza Innovation Socket Specification and associated design documentation.

That'd be fun to see a Sun's Tx running in an x86 server platform...

Another tidbit from vr-zone, concerning Intel's integration of a graphics core in the MCH (nothing new) and... in the CPU:

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4036

Rumours, of course.


Cheers!
September 22, 2006 2:04:30 AM

We live for these rumors though.
Thank you everyone for the info. I was just thinking how cool it would be to pair the 4x4 with the new Kentsfield core.
!