Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone thinking about getting the quadfx(4x4)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2006 12:28:38 PM

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.

More about : thinking quadfx 4x4

November 23, 2006 1:15:10 PM

I'm iffy about it. It seems kinda stop gap. I'll buy it just to test it out.
November 23, 2006 1:16:27 PM

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
Related resources
November 23, 2006 1:30:13 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 1:43:09 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 1:44:44 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 1:47:51 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 1:51:01 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 2:16:32 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 2:25:00 PM

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
November 23, 2006 2:27:19 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 2:30:56 PM

Quote:
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?
November 23, 2006 2:33:43 PM

Two chips on a board is innovation?
November 23, 2006 2:42:42 PM

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.
:cry: 
November 23, 2006 2:48:44 PM

Quote:
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.
:cry: 


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.
November 23, 2006 2:51:05 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 2:56:08 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 3:09:06 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 3:11:59 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 3:14:23 PM

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!
November 23, 2006 3:15:42 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 3:22:54 PM

Why the fascination with 2 sockets?
November 23, 2006 3:46:43 PM

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.
November 23, 2006 3:57:34 PM

Quote:
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. :?
November 23, 2006 3:58:03 PM

Quote:
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.
November 23, 2006 3:59:53 PM

Quote:
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.You need dual lobotomy's.
November 23, 2006 4:05:11 PM

Meh, what ever happened to taking it easy on Baron?
November 23, 2006 4:06:38 PM

To easy ain't it. :p 
November 23, 2006 4:25:16 PM

Quote:
To easy ain't it. :p 
Sorry, i started it...I'm a Baaaddd boy. :oops: 
November 23, 2006 4:33:26 PM

Quote:
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. :?


The ASUS SLI board for C2Q is $400. The video card will not be in use as much as the mobo. I don't play games that much. That mobo will also support quad core chips.

All in all I think I can get an FX70 system for around $2500-$3000. It won't have RAID or SLI.
November 23, 2006 4:35:14 PM

Quote:
Meh, what ever happened to taking it easy on Baron?



I don't think I need defense. Have at thee. BTW, give Jack 5 stars. I would but he makes me sick.
8O
November 23, 2006 4:49:25 PM

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


Having read through 2 pages of posts, I'll keep it simple. I'm also thinking about the AMD 4x4 setup and using the FX74 cpu, but I want to read the benchmarks before getting too excited about it. As you day, I'm iffy about it.

My 939 works OK for most things, but is showing its age and is slowing in some things. The next year, with Vista, games requiring DX10, etc gives me reason to build another machine. I just gotta figure out what seems best at the time I build. If Am3 comes along and is better or Intel comes out with something better, fine with me, I'll go that route.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2006 4:54:50 PM

Quote:
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.

Not really.. Asus have been releasing Desktop/Workstation grade Dual Xeon boards (Asus’s PC-DL comes to mind although using Xeon processors... but also we had the Tyan Pentium 2/III Dual Slot motherboards) for some time now. It's not at all an innovation... it's a knee jerk reaction to try to stem Intel's technological lead.
November 23, 2006 5:11:51 PM

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


Ninja, nothing personal, but I hope you don't mind me asking how the freakin' &#$% you as such a young man can afford to buy damn near every new computer system monthly! If you have a trust account or a rich gf then more power to ya. But if you work for a living like I do, I'd love to find out what you do and ask if there's room in your company for an old shrewd weasel like myself! :lol: 

And BTW, if you are ever worrying about what to do with all those state-of-the-art systems after you're finished playing with them for three weeks, I'd be more than happy to pay for the shipping to my address! :D 

Now I think I'll go back to staring at my stack of bills and deciding if I'm going to pay the electric or the gas bill this month! :cry: 
November 23, 2006 5:14:13 PM

Errr... independently wealthy? I'll start a company soon enough, and pay the gas bill. you can use candles. :wink: :p 
November 23, 2006 5:17:43 PM

Quote:
Errr... independently wealthy? I'll start a company soon enough, and pay the gas bill. you can use candles. :wink: :p 


Yeah, I figured you'd want me to choose gas over electric so that I couldn't post anymore! :lol: 

P.S. My resume is in the mail. :D 
November 23, 2006 5:21:46 PM

Quote:
Errr... independently wealthy? I'll start a company soon enough, and pay the gas bill. you can use candles. :wink: :p 


Yeah, I figured you'd want me to choose gas over electric so that I couldn't post anymore! :lol: 

P.S. My resume is in the mail. :D Silver Spoon.....Nuff said. :wink: :lol: 
November 23, 2006 5:28:24 PM

Not silver, platinum. :wink: :p 
November 23, 2006 5:28:28 PM

I had a silver spoon once. Hocked it. :lol: 
November 23, 2006 5:32:25 PM

Quote:
I had a silver spoon once. Hocked it. :lol: 
I'm pretty sure i was born with a plastic spoon. :cry: 
November 23, 2006 6:52:00 PM

4x4 is a very high end.. expensive platform & highly upgradeable. 8)

I wish I had the money to buy this or upgrade :?

Come on guys... U can plug-in 2 Quad Core K8L later. Intel may introduce 8 core in late 2007 or early 2008. So I u want 8 cores by Q2 of 2007 then 4x4 is the way to go.

4 PCI-Express slots! Any gamer would want to have that.
No news of any Intel mobos having 4 PCI-Express. So if u want immense Grafix power then 4x4 is the way to go.

To make a system like this u need $x$!

I see no way a Core2 Quad beating this is in Games if the 4x4 use 4 grafix Cards.
November 23, 2006 6:54:33 PM

Quote:
I had a silver spoon once. Hocked it. :lol: 
I'm pretty sure i was born with a plastic spoon. :cry: 

at least you got a spoon, all i got was a oddly colored spork
November 23, 2006 6:58:23 PM

Hey, Ninja! I finally found a photo of you!!! :lol: 

November 23, 2006 7:01:52 PM

Quote:
To make a system like this u need $x$!

I see no way a Core2 Quad beating this is in Games if the 4x4 use 4 grafix Cards.


Two FX CPUS: $1500
4 DX10 Cards: $2000
Mobo: $400

You're almost at four grand and you don't have any RAM or HDs yet. If I gotta spend this type of cash to have fun, it's gonna have long blonde hair and a rack! :lol: 
November 23, 2006 7:42:44 PM

Quote:
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.

Huh? thats bullcrap. The number of VM instances you can have isn't tied to how many physical cpu sockets you have. Thats what the V in VM stands for... Virtual.

Even on a single cpu system you could have 999 concurrent VMs each running their own VS2005 instance if you want. The performance would likely suck but you could do it.
November 24, 2006 6:13:31 AM

2 FX cpus will cost $1500?

I saw the price starting from $600(2.6Ghz processor) and ending at $1000.
November 24, 2006 6:19:56 AM

Quote:
2 FX cpus will cost $1500?

I saw the price starting from $600(2.6Ghz processor) and ending at $1000.

2 X $600 = $1200
2 X $1000 = $2000
November 24, 2006 7:32:06 AM

Well ill defanitly be getting a 4x4 system doubt ill get the first ones coming out since software isnt up to par when it comes to multi cpu systems. As for the quad sli i dont see any point at all. Dual is ok i guess if more games actualy could use it but 4 is i dont know how to even put it.

Why does everyone think 4x4 is amd rushing out to get a new platform to kill the core2? has anyone actualy thought about this? seriously maybe the core2 is why its coming out now but with or with out core2 this platform was coming. Parallism was coming AMD was just trying to get more into a system. 8 cores from dual sockets 16 cores later. For now that really doesnt mean ANYthing other then windows and allocate applications and even a load but what really takes any advantage of a 4 core cpu let alone a dual core right now.

Will i get it? um yeah of course. will i get quad SLI even thinking of the most extreem cases i cant think of a place for quad csli/xfire so no. I may perhaps get a dual video option considering i been playing a game thats been coded for it and i do play in max settings at 1920x1200 and up.


Giddy your getting way ahead of your self there. hardly anything benafits from SLI let alone a dual SLI setup its doubtfull your going to see anything take much advantage of it. Hell xfire setups are beating quad sli right now just showing games dont care. When it comes to games the more cores approche right now isnt going to do alot either.

However since multi core computers and 64 bit computers have been out for some time now along with sli/xfire i have hopes software makers will sart optimising up and coming software and those barriers will be gone.


So my next system will be a 4x4 system with xfire and 4 gigs of ram. Im hoping to add scsi to that also ;)  anyways im hoping by that time (aprox 6 months from now since i just built a computer not to long ago) that software and games i want to play will take advantage of at least half that power.

Well that was my two cents :p 
November 24, 2006 8:15:05 AM

Jeez!

I had to take a loan at the bank to be able to afford my pc a year ago. and added bits as I went along... I would have to sell my car to be able to afford the 4x4.

must be nice with technology being a lot cheaper in the states, and having a decent pay cheque too :oops:  :cry: 
November 24, 2006 8:29:41 AM

How much do you get for a kidney....
!