Why AMD isn't putting two X2 together for quad?

[AKIRA972]

AMD 65n is almost here - the smart choise is to do as intel and to weld toghter 2 X2 to quad until K8L wil come next year?

4X4 seems to be expensive! expensive! expensive!

 

[gOJDO]

Most likely because the dissipated heat, the need for more RAM modules, the need for new socket and more epxencive mainboard(probably 6 layer) becouse the two "glued" K8 CPUs are requireing independend RAM pools. It will be problematic(because of the double the dissipated heat) and the overall system cost, performance, power requirements and price will be the same as the 2P WS/server solution.

 

[aditya]

so basically because amd integrates their memory controller into the cpu die, so they can't have 2 memory controolers so they are making a native quad core rather then two serperate dual cores

is that what u are saying?

 

[BaronMatrix]

AMD 65n is almost here - the smart choise is to do as intel and to weld toghter 2 X2 to quad until K8L wil come next year?

4X4 seems to be expensive! expensive! expensive!

There is said to be three SKUs (FX70, FX72 and FX74) with only the highest speed chip being over $1000 (per pair). That undercuts C2Q which is said to be $1200.

As to why they don't go with MCM, I guess they want all native chips. The dual core Opteron and X2 made a heckuva splash and two FXs at any speed will be a force to be reckoned with.

Also, with the Opteron price cuts you can get two 265s for even less. The only difference maybe Registered RAM. The first FXs had it but hopefully they won't go back down that route.

 

[gOJDO]

[There is said to be three SKUs (FX70, FX72 and FX74) with only the highest speed chip being over $1000 (per pair). That undercuts C2Q which is said to be $1200.

No you are wrong!
The 4GHz FX CPUs will cost no more than 50$ for a pair. Also you'll get a free "dev" mainboard without PCI-X, SODIMM and SCSI controllers, but with two PCIe x16 slots and for another $50 you'll get a two of the new AMD corssfire X2000 graphics cards. The registered DDR2 will become a standard, once AMD decides that the 4x4 will be the fastest platform in the history and future of the entire universe! So it will cost less than 15$ for a 2GB registered DDR2-1200 CL3. Unlike the superior AMD, the inferior Intel platforms will not use such cheap and fast memory.
Also, the slowest CPU on earth, C2Q will cost $10000 and it will be uncompatible with any mainboards.

 

[Eurasianman]

And where are you getting your intel (information, not processor ) :?:

 

[Heyyou27]

[There is said to be three SKUs (FX70, FX72 and FX74) with only the highest speed chip being over $1000 (per pair). That undercuts C2Q which is said to be $1200.

No you are wrong!
The 4GHz FX CPUs will cost no more than 50$ for a pair. Also you'll get a free "dev" mainboard without PCI-X, SODIMM and SCSI controllers, but with two PCIe x16 slots and for another $50 you'll get a two of the new AMD corssfire X2000 graphics cards. The registered DDR2 will become a standard, once AMD decides that the 4x4 will be the fastest platform in the history and future of the entire universe! So it will cost less than 15$ for a 2GB registered DDR2-1200 CL3. Unlike the superior AMD, the inferior Intel platforms will not use such cheap and fast memory.
Also the slowest CPU on earth, C2Q will cost $10000 and the will not be compatible with any mainboards.You're probably right.

 

[gOJDO]

And where are you getting your intel (information, not processor ) :?:

From BaronBS, LameNoobMike, 9nm, Shakira and some other very unbiased persons who know everything. Also proves can be found on AMDZone, PlanetAMD64, the_Inq and other amazingly realible wonderfull sites.
For example, this is the most realible one:
sharikou.blogspot.com

 

[shabodah]

It wouldn't be difficult for AMD to disable one of the two memory controllers on each. I think it would be somewhat easy to "glue" together two dual-core cpu's. But, it would be hypocritical of AMD to do so after all the bashing they have done over Intel doing this. So, I'd say the only real reason as to why, is pride.

 

[AKIRA972]

It wouldn't be difficult for AMD to disable one of the two memory controllers on each. I think it would be somewhat easy to "glue" together two dual-core cpu's. But, it would be hypocritical of AMD to do so after all the bashing they have done over Intel doing this. So, I'd say the only real reason as to why, is pride.

In the words of Marclos Wallas from pulp fiction : "fuck pride" .

We want more power on our cpu now, not in a year.

I think that the most interesting thing AMD is working on is combining all the cores to create one amazing thread insted of many. for games I presume...

 

[Seraph95Zero]

Totally agree with shabodah, i dont believe that the decision to NOT do that rests only with heat differences, sure it would make a difference, but once again... Intel does it without huge problems... have done it(glued method) on the 90nm and 65nm and continues todo it. As far as the new chip is concerned is look like they are reinventing the glued method, most of the stats I read about in the other post about the new core on here projected them as being double what the currently are. So who knows, its like real lemonade and koolaid, both are drinks but ones easier to make; and everyone is going to say ones better than the other.

 

[shabodah]

"Reverse Hyperthreading" seems to be all speculation at this point. I'm sure we all wish it was true, but there does not seem to be any evidence of it. It was thought that the socket f Opterons would have an on-board PCIe controller at one point, too. Some rumors are too good to be true. With all the latency of memory these days, I don't understand why Intel and AMD are taking some of the ideas of Sun's T1 and implementing them. With CAS of 4 being the norm, they'd should do something else to make things more efficient.

 

[Ycon]

Because that would cost less than the monolithic chip.

 

[turpit]

AMD 65n is almost here - the smart choise is to do as intel and to weld toghter 2 X2 to quad until K8L wil come next year?

4X4 seems to be expensive! expensive! expensive!

There is said to be three SKUs (FX70, FX72 and FX74) with only the highest speed chip being over $1000 (per pair). That undercuts C2Q which is said to be $1200.

As to why they don't go with MCM, I guess they want all native chips. The dual core Opteron and X2 made a heckuva splash and two FXs at any speed will be a force to be reckoned with.

Also, with the Opteron price cuts you can get two 265s for even less. The only difference maybe Registered RAM. The first FXs had it but hopefully they won't go back down that route.

"...It is said..." By whom? Would you care to provide a link as where your getting this information?

I hope you not refering to the Blog section at PC world here:

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002475.html

the "under" 1G (as in $999.99 model which is 1 penny under $1G0 is the ENTRY level model, which they state isnt even up to FX 64 performance levels

I know it wasnt the 4x4 roadmap leaked here:

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/44504/AMD-4x4-platform-gebaseerd-op-Socket-1207.html

as even though I dont read dutch, no prices were mentioned

Oh wait, let me guess, the good old standby of uber reliable info, The (gag) Inquirer, here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35049

Which is interesting.
Interesting as in this next article from that very same 'ultra-reliable' source they say only 2 members of the 4x4 line are going to be less than 1 grand:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33268

Which, if Im not mistaken is the same source which provided the 80% performance increase you keep yaking about:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33081


how about here: the specific prices AS LISTED BY YOUR FAVORITE SOURCE, THE INQUIRER:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34918

FX 74 $1500
FX 72 $1132
FX 70 $999


SO JUST WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS

There is said to be three SKUs (FX70, FX72 and FX74) with only the highest speed chip being over $1000 (per pair). That undercuts C2Q which is said to be $1200.

Because if its your prefered site for all propaganda 'AMD', they are contradicting themselves. And I strongly suggest you check the dates and authors of those articles.

 

[aditya]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34916

I know that the inquirer are full of ****, but this is sort of an interview,

it says how quad cores are useless for games because they aren't multithreaded enough

on the other hand

http://www.siliconvalleysleuth.com/2006/09/intel_shows_off.html

intel shows off quad core gaming

 

[dasickninja]

They do so, because that is the crowd that this kind of procssor will most likely appeal to. The gamers and the enthusiasts.

 

[speedemon]

:idea: Its funny I was thinkin the same thing