Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will 4x4 Cannibalize Opteron Sales???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 8, 2006 10:04:06 PM

So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?

EDIT: Adjust thread title for fun.
October 8, 2006 10:06:12 PM

In simple, no. Opteron is more for servers and workstations. 4x4 will be for pure gaming. AMD said this themselves.
October 8, 2006 10:07:22 PM

No, 4x4 is sacrificing for price a lot of important server/workstation features on the motherboards..
Also the stability of the Opteron platform is expected to be higher.
I don't know it 4x4 has a market, but that's hardly the server/workstation market.
Related resources
October 8, 2006 10:08:34 PM

Right, but I doubt AMD will restrict 4x4 from running workstation/server apps. On the other hand, Opterons will probably be more stable since they'll be using ECC DDR2.

EDIT: I can see this cannibalizing lowend multiprocessor *workstation* sales, prob. not server sales.
October 8, 2006 10:12:55 PM

Restrict it from running server/ws apps no.
But features such as ECC memory and PCI-X, are important for these apps.. plus benefits like integrated SCSI and gigabit network, sure they can be added to 4x4, but then it won't be cost effective.
And 4x4 mobos are likely to be optimized for performance, rather than stability.
October 8, 2006 10:14:14 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?



Would you do that with a MISSION-CRITICAL SERVER?
October 8, 2006 10:15:05 PM

LOLLERFALLS, read the reply :roll:
October 8, 2006 10:17:06 PM

Quote:
Opterons will probably be more stable since they'll be using ECC DDR2.

Nope, Opterons are more stable becouse they are produced on a "special" waffers. No ECC DDR/DDR2 is required, but the s940 and s1207 K8 are requireing registered memory(DDR and DDR2).
October 8, 2006 10:18:54 PM

Quote:
Opterons will probably be more stable since they'll be using ECC DDR2.

Nope, Opterons are more stable becouse they are produced on a "special" waffers. No ECC DDR/DDR2 is required, but the s940 and s1207 K8 are requireing registered memory(DDR and DDR2).

I can't wait for you to explain what a "special" wafer is.
October 8, 2006 10:19:31 PM

Aha, explains the overclocking headroom.
October 8, 2006 10:21:47 PM

special is simply a polite way to describe your disability... :wink:
October 8, 2006 10:23:14 PM

Quote:
special is simply a polite way to describe your disability... :wink:



Gee, and I was hoping you had gotten hit by a car.
October 8, 2006 10:24:28 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?



Would you do that with a MISSION-CRITICAL SERVER?

Do you work for NASA as well now?

No ordinary mop and bucket there for sure - bet it is some hi-tech particle filter system, like a vacuum cleaner.
October 8, 2006 10:24:49 PM

Quote:
special is simply a polite way to describe your disability... :wink:



Gee, and I was hoping you had gotten hit by a car.
and we were all hoping that you will get a brain finaly.
October 8, 2006 11:10:14 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?



Would you do that with a MISSION-CRITICAL SERVER?

Do you work for NASA as well now?

No ordinary mop and bucket there for sure - bet it is some hi-tech particle filter system, like a vacuum cleaner.


What does a mission-critical server have to do with NASA?
October 8, 2006 11:11:45 PM

You missed that joke? Dude you need to get out more.
October 8, 2006 11:13:51 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?


Only in the workstation arena, but there AMD has nothing to lose, only to gain.

FX-7X = Opteron, so in effect they are price diluting the flagship line.


No they're not. The cheapest 22xx is $419. The cheapest FX(4x4) is twice that. The most expensive 22xx is $899 so FX74 is priced so that they have to lower the price on mobos and remove ECC or no one will want it.

Socket F prices
October 8, 2006 11:16:09 PM

So in that case, who the hell would in their right mind buy 4x4?
October 8, 2006 11:31:48 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?



Would you do that with a MISSION-CRITICAL SERVER?

Do you work for NASA as well now?

No ordinary mop and bucket there for sure - bet it is some hi-tech particle filter system, like a vacuum cleaner.


What does a mission-critical server have to do with NASA?

What do you have to do with anything to do with intellegence? Oh of course, every scale of measurement has to start somewhere.
October 8, 2006 11:36:15 PM

The IQ scale doesn't have a negative section.
October 8, 2006 11:43:16 PM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?


Only in the workstation arena, but there AMD has nothing to lose, only to gain.

FX-7X = Opteron, so in effect they are price diluting the flagship line.


No they're not. The cheapest 22xx is $419. The cheapest FX(4x4) is twice that. The most expensive 22xx is $899 so FX74 is priced so that they have to lower the price on mobos and remove ECC or no one will want it.

Socket F prices

Except Baron, the FX series are coming in pairs.... divide by 2, you know fractions ....

Second, you cannot compare cheapest to cheapest, the FX-70 = opty 2218 (both 2.6 GHz). Thus 999 for FX-70 a pair, or 500 bucks a piece. The 2218 is going for 873 for one (this is AMD pricing not after retail markup).

Here are the prices, compares
FX-70 = 999/2 = 500 2218 = 873
FX-72 = 1132/2 = 566 2200 = 1165
FX-74 = 1500/2 = 700 No 3.0 GHz dual core opty on the market.

You are spouting nonsense yet again.


You can't buy ONE. They come ONLY IN PAIRS. That's where market segments come in. That's also why I said no one would want them if they use server class boards with ECC Registered.

If I were putting together a server, 4x4 wouldn't even be considered. But then I have seen Dell sell Celeron servers so I guess soem of us don't understand what market segment means.

No matter what you say, 4x4 will not encroach on the territory of Opteron.
Get a life.
October 9, 2006 4:38:21 AM

Quote:
So, if what BaronMatrix say is true, that a Joe Blow could go out and buy a $150 mobo with two FX+'s ($<1000), and get a quad core system, don't you think 4x4 would cannibalize 4P and 2P Opteron sales?


Only in the workstation arena, but there AMD has nothing to lose, only to gain.

FX-7X = Opteron, so in effect they are price diluting the flagship line.


No they're not. The cheapest 22xx is $419. The cheapest FX(4x4) is twice that. The most expensive 22xx is $899 so FX74 is priced so that they have to lower the price on mobos and remove ECC or no one will want it.

Socket F prices

Except Baron, the FX series are coming in pairs.... divide by 2, you know fractions ....

Second, you cannot compare cheapest to cheapest, the FX-70 = opty 2218 (both 2.6 GHz). Thus 999 for FX-70 a pair, or 500 bucks a piece. The 2218 is going for 873 for one (this is AMD pricing not after retail markup).

Here are the prices, compares
FX-70 = 999/2 = 500 2218 = 873
FX-72 = 1132/2 = 566 2200 = 1165
FX-74 = 1500/2 = 700 No 3.0 GHz dual core opty on the market.

You are spouting nonsense yet again.


You can't buy ONE. They come ONLY IN PAIRS. That's where market segments come in. That's also why I said no one would want them if they use server class boards with ECC Registered.

If I were putting together a server, 4x4 wouldn't even be considered. But then I have seen Dell sell Celeron servers so I guess soem of us don't understand what market segment means.

No matter what you say, 4x4 will not encroach on the territory of Opteron.
Get a life.

This was exactly my point.

An FX-70 comes in pairs, at 999, that gives a basic value of 500 bucks per CPU. The 2218, which is the 2.6 GHz opty with 2 HT links is 873.... AMD has just diluted their flagship processor and to do what --- create a fascade that they innovate??? This is kinda stupid.



Oh did I mention that 4x4 only supports 4GB RAM where dual socket Opteron usually goes up to 16GB.
October 9, 2006 4:49:03 AM

Quote:
Well isn't that stupid of AMD then? I mean, you tout your technological prowess and market 64 bit technology, then retard your top line platform to 4 gigs of memory --- they should have remained 32-bit :) ....

Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.



Enthusiasts and devs don't need more than 4GB. Servers and high end HD\CAD wkstas do.
October 9, 2006 4:52:51 AM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.
October 9, 2006 5:32:28 AM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Making the move to 64-bit when AMD did even more pointless.

It still gives you twice the RAM of 32bit XP. Intel was trying to push Itanium to the desktop which would have had the same limitation with XP Pro.
October 9, 2006 6:08:36 AM

I don't have the answer for your question, but I pose another question. What is preventing AMD from releasing a quad core processor right now? Are they waiting for implementation for HT 3.0 to complement extra needed bandwith, or a process shrink?
October 9, 2006 6:11:09 AM

a. AMD doesn't want to release a "glued" quad core solution
b. they don't have a native quad core ready
c. the yields on 90nm for a gigantic core are going to be astronomically low
d. there is no quad core on the market now
October 9, 2006 6:17:10 AM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Making the move to 64-bit when AMD did even more pointless.

It still gives you twice the RAM of 32bit XP. Intel was trying to push Itanium to the desktop which would have had the same limitation with XP Pro.

I get 4 gigs now on 32-bit XP Pro, what's your point? (notable exception, SP2 hides 1 gig so it reporst 3 gigs, but more than what you allude to, are you sure you write software?)

STFU. My 4GB is recognized as 3.25 so it doesn't support 4GB natively. What's the point af having 4 1GB chips if you can't see it all?
Server mobos WILL STILL support 16GB. Under the prerequisite OS. If you want 8GB you need a server mobo and a server OS. Maybe Linux is differnet but WIndows XP supports 2GB. The only reason you see the extra is because of PAE which mimics the /3GB switch in boot.ini.


That is product differentiation.
October 9, 2006 6:33:17 AM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.
October 9, 2006 11:34:47 AM

Is there any home board that can support more than 8Gb of memory?
October 9, 2006 12:17:47 PM

IT shops are generally very conservative when it comes to server hardware selection... so no, I don't see businesses going for dual FX chips. The difference between 99.9 and 99.99% reliability IS a big deal to businesses.

Honestly, I don't see anyone lining up to buy the 4X4 (sorry to sound so negative!)
October 9, 2006 1:23:00 PM

First off, omg that was an amazingly real-time argument between BM and Jack.
Second, who can see anyone buying a 4x4 platform? Its amazingly expensive, has limited actual performance gain over Intel and adding to this that it will be most likely limited in regards to sli due to the whole amd and ati merger.

Die hard AMD fans will buy this and only because they will, like BM sell anything they can (e.g. their common sense) just to buy one of these and retain their horde status.

Intel have a huge lead at the moment, and while I, like so many others, doubt AMD will bring out an inferior product, it is unlikely to be a huge leap like c2d was. Plus adding to the fact that Intel are not resting in this intermission, I fear (for product quality, market dominance and general pricing) that AMD might be in as much trouble as they ever were. When they were the underdog and an unknown player, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now they are in far better market position, they have a long way to fall and will do if they don’t release an unannounced and unexpectedly excellently performing product. They don’t need to out perform c2d, they need to out perform c2q and that will take a huge amount of effort.
October 9, 2006 2:33:06 PM

Quote:
They don’t need to out perform c2d, they need to out perform c2q
at lower price.
October 9, 2006 2:52:03 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.
October 9, 2006 2:54:52 PM

Quote:
First off, omg that was an amazingly real-time argument between BM and Jack.
Second, who can see anyone buying a 4x4 platform? Its amazingly expensive, has limited actual performance gain over Intel and adding to this that it will be most likely limited in regards to sli due to the whole amd and ati merger.

Die hard AMD fans will buy this and only because they will, like BM sell anything they can (e.g. their common sense) just to buy one of these and retain their horde status.

Intel have a huge lead at the moment, and while I, like so many others, doubt AMD will bring out an inferior product, it is unlikely to be a huge leap like c2d was. Plus adding to the fact that Intel are not resting in this intermission, I fear (for product quality, market dominance and general pricing) that AMD might be in as much trouble as they ever were. When they were the underdog and an unknown player, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now they are in far better market position, they have a long way to fall and will do if they don’t release an unannounced and unexpectedly excellently performing product. They don’t need to out perform c2d, they need to out perform c2q and that will take a huge amount of effort.



I guess for the same reason people were buying 965EE in Dell's supercooled, space heater when 4800+ was cleaning up the floor with it. They only have to be faster than their own chiips, just like Intel.
October 9, 2006 3:14:00 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Abit disagrees. I only listed Abit because I like Abit and it's fairly early where I am so I don't want to work too hard.
October 9, 2006 3:22:37 PM

Quote:
I guess for the same reason people were buying 965EE in Dell's supercooled, space heater when 4800+ was cleaning up the floor with it. They only have to be faster than their own chiips, just like Intel.

:trophy:
October 9, 2006 3:22:40 PM

No because there are people with brains (which BaronBS is NOT a part of) that would never choose a crippled DP platform over a real DP platform.
October 9, 2006 3:42:24 PM

Quote:
No because there are people with brains (which BaronBS is NOT a part of) that would never choose a crippled DP platform over a real DP platform.



Sure, but I get paid well for what I do so this is nothing to me. The idea is that if they get the mobo prices down to $200 and no Registered DIMMs it will be as popular as the previous FX. I guess if no one bought an FX before no one will buy them now. But if FX enjoyed moderate sales those who have it already may stick with FX as dual.


Besides what is stripped down about it. Sure they need to remove server features but why would you need server features on a desktop platform?
October 9, 2006 3:55:47 PM

Quote:


I guess for the same reason people were buying 965EE in Dell's supercooled, space heater when 4800+ was cleaning up the floor with it. They only have to be faster than their own chiips, just like Intel.


Um, so what your saying is that AMD is bringing out an inferior product and you will, like other stupid people who brought the pinnacle of watts/square metre 965EE, will buy the stupid waste of money crap that AMD bring out? They only have to be faster than their own chips? so what? They have to bring out something that’s only faster than the FX-62? Sorry, if I had the knowledge I would start a poll on here as to whether everyone thinks that bringing out a new product that does not beat the competition in anyway will help boost sales or mark the demise of a frankly worthwhile and competitive CPU company? I might add a third option into it as well asking whether everyone thinks that BM is making perfect sense today?

Post your answers people in your replies
1) Good sales for crappy processor that doesn’t beat the competition
2) Goodbye for crappy processor maker company that doesn’t beat the competition
3) Baron Matrix made perfect sense with what he said and his unique brand of thinking should not be removed from ours and his mind forever and ever, amen.
October 9, 2006 3:56:05 PM

After reading this entire thread I have a question, how old is BM? 14?
October 9, 2006 4:07:31 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Abit disagrees. I only listed Abit because I like Abit and it's fairly early where I am so I don't want to work too hard.


Those are about the only cases I've ever seen. DDR2 does allow for more RAM on the mobo, but I don't think you can get a 2GB DDR2 chip yet so the point is moot.

Desktops are limited to 4GB. 4x4 is limited to 4GB. That's differentiation.
October 9, 2006 4:11:34 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Abit disagrees. I only listed Abit because I like Abit and it's fairly early where I am so I don't want to work too hard.


Those are about the only cases I've ever seen. DDR2 does allow for more RAM on the mobo, but I don't think you can get a 2GB DDR2 chip yet so the point is moot.

Desktops are limited to 4GB. 4x4 is limited to 4GB. That's differentiation.

I hate to say it Baron, but you're wrong.
http://www.mushkin.com/doc/products/memory_detail.asp?i...
October 9, 2006 4:35:22 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Abit disagrees. I only listed Abit because I like Abit and it's fairly early where I am so I don't want to work too hard.


Those are about the only cases I've ever seen. DDR2 does allow for more RAM on the mobo, but I don't think you can get a 2GB DDR2 chip yet so the point is moot.

Desktops are limited to 4GB. 4x4 is limited to 4GB. That's differentiation.

Point is Asus, DFI, MSI, Gigabyte and all the others have the same deal even the AMD side of the fence they support 8 gig's respectively only when you go down to the cheaper boards does it drop to 4 and 2 gig respectively.

I am also pretty sure you can buy 2gig sticks of DDR2.
October 9, 2006 4:40:22 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Abit disagrees. I only listed Abit because I like Abit and it's fairly early where I am so I don't want to work too hard.


Those are about the only cases I've ever seen. DDR2 does allow for more RAM on the mobo, but I don't think you can get a 2GB DDR2 chip yet so the point is moot.

Desktops are limited to 4GB. 4x4 is limited to 4GB. That's differentiation.

Point is Asus, DFI, MSI, Gigabyte and all the others have the same deal even the AMD side of the fence they support 8 gig's respectively only when you go down to the cheaper boards does it drop to 4 and 2 gig respectively.

I am also pretty sure you can buy 2gig sticks of DDR2.

That's because of DDR2 and I just went to Newegg and saw no 2GB DDR2. And you can still lock the RAM slots to not support more than a given amount. They could use two slots per chip and limit to 1GB or four slots per chip and limit to 512MB. Either way the platform is said to only support 4GB. Server platforms suppor 16GB. Again differentiation.
October 9, 2006 4:40:33 PM

Quote:
Kinda silly don't you think, put 64 bit CPUs into a platform, then physically restrict to from accessing it's full potential.


BTW, X64 Pro only supports 4GB in a desktop mobo.

Mmmmm, Baron, I don't agree with your statement here. There is no 4GB limitation in Windows XP64 of 4GB. That would be for standard Windows XP.

Link to Intel TPS for Westchester Motherboard

Currently all Broadwater G964 and Q965 motherboards if built to Intel's reference design will support up to 8GB under Windows XP64. The limitation comes with the memory address lines that the chipset is designed to impliment. If my memory servers me the Broadwater chipset is currently setup to address 36bits this means 2^36 = 68GB is the actual memory the board can access under Windows XP64.

Since the max that the MCH can handle in memory loading is 2 Memory modules per channel and the max currently out there is 1Gbit technology in a X8 DS Dimm you get 2GB modules. So with that you can reach the 8GB on the Broadwater based baords. When 2Gbit silicon becomes available then with proper Memory Reference Code (MRC) we could see the Broadwater boards support up to 16GB of board memory.

Of course the way Intel does things we would see this on the Bearlake chipset before we would see this on the Broadwater boards.

Oh, Bad Axe also supports 8GB system memory either Non ECC or ECC.


The limitation is the MOBO. Desktop mobos only allow up to 4GB.

Please see the attached link to a Intel Broadwater based motherboard. The link is to the Technical Product Specification (TPS) look at page 10 showing what memory the motherboard can use. It clearly states that the board can utilize 8GB of either DDR2 533 or DDR2 677.

Your motherboard might be limited to only 4 GB but not Intel's.

Also your comment on your motherboard only displays 3.25GB when you have 4GB installed is because the other .75MB is being used by system resources. The 3.25 is the available memory left from your 4GB after the OS, device drivers and other system resources have been loaded.
October 9, 2006 4:56:36 PM

Yeah, there are definately two parts to the support issue, both the motherboard one and the chipset/cpu capabilities. I'm very curious at this point as to if a opteron with registered ecc RAM would work on the 4x4 board, or even better if an opteron with normal RAM might. And currently, I've seen 2210 opterons for $279 each. Sure, they are only 1.8ghz stock.....
October 9, 2006 5:00:44 PM

4x4 will be a server/worstation dressed up as a desktop. Maybe a bios tweak or 3! Not much more.

It will kick ass though.

I want one...
October 9, 2006 5:07:00 PM

Quote:


That's because of DDR2 and I just went to Newegg and saw no 2GB DDR2. And you can still lock the RAM slots to not support more than a given amount. They could use two slots per chip and limit to 1GB or four slots per chip and limit to 512MB. Either way the platform is said to only support 4GB. Server platforms suppor 16GB. Again differentiation.



Again it is not the limitation of the motherboard to 4GB's at least in current generation motherboards. It is the operating system. Any 32bit OS can only access 2^32 bits which works out to be 4GB's. You are correct that you need a 64bit OS to access more than 4GB because it has a much larger address space.

Please see the link to Micron site showing there full line of DDR2 memory modules. They do show 2GB modules using x8 DS 1Gbit technology.

It also shows that DDR2 is not the limitation for 2GB modules either. Please look further down for DDR 2GB modules.

Micron Memory modules

And since you like using Monarch Computers so much in your threads here is a link to a 2GB DDR2 DIMM Module from Monarch.

Monarch 2GB DDR2 Module

You also state that the 4 X 4 is an enthusiest platform that will remove all of the server features but you are forgetting the fact that the board manufactures will still need to use a server platform as the basis to make tthe 4 X 4 from because I don't believe they will put 2 complete desktop chipsets together due to cost and available PCB area. So it should also be able to run up to 8 GB per Socket if using a 64bit OS and not being limited to 4 GB.
!