Anyone thinking about getting the quadfx(4x4)

[reconviperone1]

The more i read about Quadfx, the more i get it, the ability to megatask, and haveing two cpu sockets to upgrade to dual quad core down the line it a good thing. i personnaly still wouldnt purchase Quadfx, but im not a power user liie the people its aimed at. I think itll be cool though.

 

[dasickninja]

I'm iffy about it. It seems kinda stop gap. I'll buy it just to test it out.

 

[Dahak]

It is my intent to build a quadfather as soon as I have the money.Probably after x-mas,as I'll be done investing into my Bronco 4x4.But I also know that it will cost me about 3000-3500 to build as I will be building it with the latest gpu.I am an avid gamer and do so enjoy building a new machine.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120

 

[SuperFly03]

I am, honestly, not very optimistic. It really sounds as if they dreamnt it up while high on the reefer one night. Instead of focusing their efforts on the processor itself, they have shifted to putting more of them on a mobo. Well that still doesn't solve te problem of the C2D and C2Q (as of now) walking all over the A64 line. Another question is, how close are they being clocked to the archiecture speed limits? The FX 70 is coming out at 3.0GHz, I am guessing there won't be much room to OC. Also will it even beat a C2D? While I really want to see how it will all turn out performance wise, I am not optimistic. What I do want to see is K8L.

 

[niz]

Bad design. They had to get something/anything out quick to try and stop the marketing damage being caused by Intel's core 2.

Its a quick-and-dirty hack job and not a good technical solution. If I was looking to buy a cpu/mobo soon I'd definately go with intel.

 

[dasickninja]

The QX6700 is a drop in for any one who has a good 965 or 975 motherboard. 4x4, is a whole new system the user would have to purchace.

 

[BaronMatrix]

The more i read about Quadfx, the more i get it, the ability to megatask, and haveing two cpu sockets to upgrade to dual quad core down the line it a good thing. i personnaly still wouldnt purchase Quadfx, but im not a power user liie the people its aimed at. I think itll be cool though.

Though i's not popular in the face of C2Q, I WILL be getting a two socket system. Even if the mobo is $400. I will probably wait until the low end 8800s come out cause $450+ for a GPU is too much. Even if it's faster than SLI and XFire.

For my dev work, it will be a dream come true.

FX70
7200.10
8800
4GB RAM

From what I'm seeing they will only be in systems first, so I'll probably get the barebones and add-on. I figure I can get what I want for about $2500. That's abotu what I paid for a 4400+ system last year.

That will be a hell of an upgrade.

 

[reconviperone1]

Im waiting for the k8l(or am2+)also, however the quadfx sounds intrigueing, anadtech placed two quad core xeon in a power mac, and the thing was amazing, the ability to do that with amd fx cpus would be cool, eight cores long before they are availible for the desktop. A dual cpu quad core fx system with 8gb of memory and 2 512 mb video cards would be a dream system, however a family man like myself can only budget so much for computer stuff, after getting memory,psu, cpu,s,etc for a quadfx, it turns out to be quite a investment.

 

[rodney_ws]

Bad design. They had to get something/anything out quick to try and stop the marketing damage being caused by Intel's core 2.

Its a quick-and-dirty hack job and not a good technical solution. If I was looking to buy a cpu/mobo soon I'd definately go with intel.

What he said... word for word.

 

[reconviperone1]

A dual socket systems is definately a good investment for the power user, years ago, i had a dual socket pentiium pro motherboard with one cpu, and it was fast, when i added a second pentium pro, and windows 2000 it was awesome, although no app really took advantage of it then. Now with games and programs that take advantage of dual core or multiple cpu systems, i can see why some would get the quadfx. From personal experiance i know that ner0 and divx create run a lot faster on my 4200x2, than they did on my a64 3200

 

[BaronMatrix]

don't wait that long for k8l, am2+ will be good enough. am2+ and am3 are pretty simular with the exception of ddr3

I seriously suggest to anyone considering 4x4 to not get it unless the really want to megatask, as the inquerer says, its about platformance or having the most bling (I know, coming from an amd fan)

however when 1027+ 4x4 mobo comes out, then it might be something to consider, as it will have a better architecture and ht3

Considering that AM2+ is not due until July or so, and I am still on 939, I may as well jump up to Agena(Quad core) compatible sockets. My highest upgrade (939-wise) is FX60 which costs too much right now.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Bad design. They had to get something/anything out quick to try and stop the marketing damage being caused by Intel's core 2.

Its a quick-and-dirty hack job and not a good technical solution. If I was looking to buy a cpu/mobo soon I'd definately go with intel.

What he said... word for word.

Core 2 wasn't a "knee-jerk" why is QuadFX? It still won't use much more power than Opteron 2xxx. There are SLI 2xxx systems. Are Intel fans threatened by AMD innovation?

 

[dasickninja]

Two chips on a board is innovation?

 

[reconviperone1]

Amd always has a trick up its sleeve, im sure there is more to the quadfx than what we know already. We mere mortals will just have to wait until release date. On a side note though, i just read that amd is gonna use 4 diffrent sockets in the next 2 years, that doesnt give me a happy face.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Amd always has a trick up its sleeve, im sure there is more to the quadfx than what we know already. We mere mortals will just have to wait until release date. On a side note though, i just read that amd is gonna use 4 diffrent sockets in the next 2 years, that doesnt give me a happy face.

Don't despair, they are all compatible with the previous. AM2 chips will work in AM2+. AM2+ chips will work in AM3 and vice versa, according to the latest news. So if you buy AM2 now you can slap in a quad 65nm chip next year (Agena). It will run at 2000MHz HT but it will be native quad and will support 1066DDR2. I usually sell my whole system anyway when I upgrade so it won't be a bad thing.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Two chips on a board is innovation?

For the desktop it is. It was done once before around 10 years ago. Removing the server necessities definitely is. Everyone knows ECC is slower and more expensive and you don't need PCI-X to play FEAR.

 

[rodney_ws]

Bad design. They had to get something/anything out quick to try and stop the marketing damage being caused by Intel's core 2.

Its a quick-and-dirty hack job and not a good technical solution. If I was looking to buy a cpu/mobo soon I'd definately go with intel.

What he said... word for word.

Core 2 wasn't a "knee-jerk" why is QuadFX? It still won't use much more power than Opteron 2xxx. There are SLI 2xxx systems. Are Intel fans threatened by AMD innovation?
Well, let me start by saying I'm honored that BaronMatrix replied to my post (seriously!)

Comparing C2D to 4X4 seems a bit much to me... C2D is an effective response to a competitor (AMD) that had gained the upperhand (Athlon 64, X2, FX, etc) ... it (C2D) was well thought out, well executed, and well needed. 4X4 IS more of a knee-jerk response... no doubt AMD would rather have 4 cores inside of one physical package for numerous reasons... but that's not in the immediate future. The AMD response (4X4) seems as if the marketing guys said "Oh #%!%, they've got a quad-core system... come up with something FAST... something... anything!"

Both are responses to competitors making gains... the C2D just seems to be a better developed, more logical response. Yes, we're talking semantics here... but I think it's fair to say the two are different.

 

[reconviperone1]

True dual socket has been done, but never so cheaply, when i had my pentium pro, it was used with one cpu and it cost me about 300 bucks, adding the second cpu , a 15gb hard drive, and memory really added to the price, but it was still cheaper than getting ap3 system at the time. So the innovation is not really the dual socket, but the availibilty of daul socket to the average joe for cheap.

 

[rodney_ws]

But is that really so great if Intel has a single chip solution that'll either equal or exceed its performance?

I just don't like the idea of having an extra heatsink/fan or waterblock just because AMD couldn't squeeze the 4 cores into one chip.

 

[rodney_ws]

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!

 

[BaronMatrix]

Bad design. They had to get something/anything out quick to try and stop the marketing damage being caused by Intel's core 2.

Its a quick-and-dirty hack job and not a good technical solution. If I was looking to buy a cpu/mobo soon I'd definately go with intel.

What he said... word for word.

Core 2 wasn't a "knee-jerk" why is QuadFX? It still won't use much more power than Opteron 2xxx. There are SLI 2xxx systems. Are Intel fans threatened by AMD innovation?
Well, let me start by saying I'm honored that BaronMatrix replied to my post (seriously!)

Comparing C2D to 4X4 seems a bit much to me... C2D is an effective response to a competitor (AMD) that had gained the upperhand (Athlon 64, X2, FX, etc) ... it (C2D) was well thought out, well executed, and well needed. 4X4 IS more of a knee-jerk response... no doubt AMD would rather have 4 cores inside of one physical package for numerous reasons... but that's not in the immediate future. The AMD response (4X4) seems as if the marketing guys said "Oh #%!%, they've got a quad-core system... come up with something FAST... something... anything!"

Both are responses to competitors making gains... the C2D just seems to be a better developed, more logical response. Yes, we're talking semantics here... but I think it's fair to say the two are different.


A smart company competes with themselves. Intel knew that PD was not the way to go eventually. That's where Core 2 came from. They learned that they needed 4 issue and shared L2.

AMD is more concerned about servers and mobile but FX is dead at 3.0GHz. This is a way to provide not only more perf for FX, but also a path to 65nm quad with two sockets.

It may even be the first desktop platform with a Torrenza socket. Those will be moreso for servers. Imagine a quad Agena FX in one socket and an X1900XT doing physics and fp in the other.

Then throw in 8800\R600 SLI(they will probably be 80nm by then, maybe even 65nm).

That is worth a few months with the second best perf. I'm sure AMD won't be too far back. And with games getting 100+ fps, any system will do the job.

I have wanted two sockets without ECC and AMD came through so they can continue to get my money.

 

[rodney_ws]

Why the fascination with 2 sockets?

 

[reconviperone1]

Intel was on point with the quad core 2, but i still think the quadfx, the dual socket power mac with xeons, or any dual socket is a good investment for the power user. I play games occasionally, and burn movies to divx, so im not the guy its meant for, however, theguys who drops five grand for a falcon northwest computer wont blink a eye at buying the quad fx. I would say for the gamer a quad core 2 would suffice, for the xtreme power user, the quadfx,snf the ability to upgrade to 2 quad cores is the way to go.

 

[1Tanker]

The more i read about Quadfx, the more i get it, the ability to megatask, and haveing two cpu sockets to upgrade to dual quad core down the line it a good thing. i personnaly still wouldnt purchase Quadfx, but im not a power user liie the people its aimed at. I think itll be cool though.

Though i's not popular in the face of C2Q, I WILL be getting a two socket system. Even if the mobo is $400. I will probably wait until the low end 8800s come out cause $450+ for a GPU is too much. Even if it's faster than SLI and XFire.

For my dev work, it will be a dream come true.

FX70
7200.10
8800
4GB RAM

From what I'm seeing they will only be in systems first, so I'll probably get the barebones and add-on. I figure I can get what I want for about $2500. That's abotu what I paid for a 4400+ system last year.

That will be a hell of an upgrade.How can you(seriously) say those two sentances in the same post. They contradict each other. $450 for a high-end Graphics Card is not new/hard to swallow, but $400 or more
for a DT motherboard is pretty much unchartered territory, and makes me think.......Bend Over. :?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Why the fascination with 2 sockets?

It's a need not fascination. I do dev work and use VMs. Having two sockets means twice as many VMs and VS 2005 instances. Some people need SLI, I need dual sockets.