AMD's 4x4 Platform

pschmid · Nov 30, 2006

Buy One, Get One Free! Since AMD is unable to provide quad-core processors yet, it has now launched the dual processor "4x4" platform and two-processor kits to fight Intel's imminent Core 2 Quad threat. Socket 1207 and a pair of Athlon 64 FX-70 series CPUs do well, but they cannot counteract Intel's Core dominance - at least not yet.

shinigamiX · Nov 30, 2006

404...

dasickninja · Nov 30, 2006

Beaten to death everywhere else and now it'll be beaten to death in a official thread.

georgelawton · Nov 30, 2006

Wake me up before you go go.

Doughbuy · Nov 30, 2006

Way too many 4x4 threads... can't we just... have one?

Whizzard9992 · Nov 30, 2006

Windows Vista Ultimate RTM HAS been released, and is available to MSDN subscribers. I have the final Vista Ultimate running. Why doesn't THG? The article is littered with, "Well, AMD will probably run better on Vista Ultimate."

Not just that, but how many people will actually be running Vista Ultimate? It's $400. It's not like the glory days of Win 98 and Win 2000 where all you needed was a friend with access to corporate licensing or a little P2P savvy. Let's face it: I'm sure a LOT of entusiasts don't pay for the 5 or 6 OS' they have running on their home LAN. How many are going to favor a $400 OS license over an upgrade from a 7900GS to an 8800???

I liked the article other than the Vista references, and this:

The results of our tests are somewhat ambiguous, so let's first summarize the pros and cons:

I didn't find the results ambiguous at all. They were clearly in Intel's favor. Was the conclusion written before the benches?

Synthetickiller · Nov 30, 2006

This was more of an eye opener for me than I thought. Not that I was going to buy a 4x4 b/c of its "supieriority". Let me explain.

If you use 3Dmark0* to gauge your system, its a nice baseline, but just doesn't translate at all into the real world. I was aware of this, but not to the degree that are shown in the CPU charts:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

Looking at what I would realistically do, it still behooves me to buy an e6600 and OC it to x6800 speeds and above.@ $310 for an e6600, I can purchase a decent liquid cooling set up, still save a few hundred dollars and reach speeds over x6800 (probably spend 700 including cooling), outperforming an FX-74 or QX6700 in REAL LIFE.

Until we see some software that can take advantage of multithread CPUs such as these, stick with C2D. Its MUCH more bang for the buck.

vir_cotto · Nov 30, 2006

At least the Pricing is better.. hehe 2 for one looks like the motherboard will take a hit in th ewallet as well though. Was thinking of maybe trying this out but :? seems too expensive for me.

Ponk · Nov 30, 2006

HHHMMM...Maybe I would agree on you, benchmarks aren't everything, they only represent a small piece of the puzzle. Granted, it is a good standard to test on, it will never represent anything concrete. I would recommend a C2D to anyone, but would never really have one, would purchase an AMD if I had the option. You're not really gonna see the advantage over 4 CPU's to 2 at the minute...

Slobogob · Nov 30, 2006

Way too many 4x4 threads... can't we just... have one?

We could SLI them in the spirit of 4x4. :twisted:

phrog · Nov 30, 2006

I still can't get over this image; holy freaking god thats a ton of hardware packed into a very confined space.

sviola · Nov 30, 2006

You could have added some benchmarks using the 8800 gtx...

Slobogob · Nov 30, 2006

The more i look at it, the more it looks like a chipped up car engine. 8O

If someone would´ve shown me that picture 3 years ago, i would´ve said "nice photoshop".

Slobogob · Nov 30, 2006

You could have added some benchmarks using the 8800 gtx...

They tried. Didn´t you read about the blackout in the newspaper?

Doughbuy · Nov 30, 2006

Anyone wanna try cable routing on this beast?

12 SATA cables, power cables for everything, not to mention the 10 fans that need to be powered...

Then throw in liquid cooling too... a bunch of tubes everywhere?

It'd take Picasso to build a computer with all that in there and still look nice.

dasickninja · Nov 30, 2006

Do it yourself? Not unless you have plans on pulling out your hair and weeping in frustration. If I ever lost my mind and decided to buy one of these things, I'd leave it to the guys at Falcon to build. Let them route that thing.

Slobogob · Nov 30, 2006

Do it yourself? Not unless you have plans on pulling out your hair and weeping in frustration. If I ever lost my mind and decided to buy one of these things, I'd leave it to the guys at Falcon to build. Let them route that thing.

Make sure they understand that you really, really want that 12 drive raid 0.

dasickninja · Nov 30, 2006

"Sir could you please repeat that?.... A twelve drive configuration in RAID 0.... But its a Quad FX sir.... yes I understand that it's your money.... maybe you'd be better suited with an Alienware sir."

DoubleE460 · Nov 30, 2006

Lol... gives shoehorn technology a face...
Reading some reviews really convinced me that the hw... is more of a joke than anything else... doesn't even give you any good oc and what a nightmare to find good coolers for that thingy...
The Dodo bird revived.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/425/1/

DScott79 · Nov 30, 2006

I'm still happy with my P2B-D.

Doughbuy · Nov 30, 2006

Can it do 12 drive raid, I have a feeling since their's two dedicated controllers it can't raid between the two controllers, or I'm missing something here...

2 6 drive raid 0? Shrug...

TechnologyCoordinator · Nov 30, 2006

I've seen enough benchmarks from many different sources. My conclusion:

Quad FX = FAILURE

dasickninja · Nov 30, 2006

No, RAID 0 can accommodate any amount higher than two. Any RAID controller worth its salt should be able to run that much.

elbert · Nov 30, 2006

Buy One, Get One Free! Since AMD is unable to provide quad-core processors yet, it has now launched the dual processor "4x4" platform and two-processor kits to fight Intel's imminent Core 2 Quad threat. Socket 1207 and a pair of Athlon 64 FX-70 series CPUs do well, but they cannot counteract Intel's Core dominance - at least not yet.

OMG the ASUS has 4-16X PCIE slots. Could this make for an AMD advantage until Intel comes with 4-16X PCIE slots mobo of their own? A quad GPU enthusiast setup for xmas?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/first-amd-4x4-mobo-spotted-216206.php

Whizzard9992 · Nov 30, 2006

Buy One, Get One Free! Since AMD is unable to provide quad-core processors yet, it has now launched the dual processor "4x4" platform and two-processor kits to fight Intel's imminent Core 2 Quad threat. Socket 1207 and a pair of Athlon 64 FX-70 series CPUs do well, but they cannot counteract Intel's Core dominance - at least not yet.

OMG the ASUS has 4-16X PCIE slots. Could this make for an AMD advantage until Intel comes with 4-16X PCIE slots mobo of their own? A quad GPU enthusiast setup for xmas?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/first-amd-4x4-mobo-spotted-216206.php

Nope.

The last 2 slots are too close together. All SLI setups are double-length. It doesn't make sense to have 4 PCI-E slots on a motherboard if you're going to make them too close together to be usable....

Unless I'm just missing something....

AMD's 4x4 Platform

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Glorious

Distinguished

Share this page