Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 4x4 Official Reviews

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is the AMD 4x4 going to succeed?

Total: 104 votes

  • No
  • 44 %
  • Not until K8L
  • 45 %
  • Yes
  • 13 %
December 7, 2006 12:43:03 PM


Quote:
So what I think we are seeing right now are traditional marketing tactics – if you don't have a good product, you talk about your future....

-- Henri Richards, Digitimes Interview March Link: Digitimes Richard's Interview

AbcNews
Anandtech
DailyTech
ExtremTech
FiringSquad
HardOCP
Hexus
HotHardware
HWupgrade
LegitReviews (overclocked FX-74)
PC.Watch
TechReport
THG
XbitLabs

So far we can order 4x4 for a saulty price and get one in 15-20 days:
VelocityMicro
From $4K(2 x FX-70, 2GB (4x512MB) RAM, one VGA ATI Radeon X1900XTX 256MB, no monitor) to $10K.
iBUYPOWER
From $2K(2 x FX-70, 512MB (2 x 256MB) RAM, one VGA - GeForce 7100 TurboCache, no monitor) to $8K.

Its competitor, Core2 Quad is:
1. faster
2. cheaper
3. more overclockable
4. more energy efficient
5. cooler
6. smaller

P.S. For the good of this forum, lets keep it civil on this thread and let's ignore our forum clown.

Thank you.
December 7, 2006 12:47:08 PM

I voted yes, just because I see it succeding in the market it's targeted for. The same people who buy Hummers, thats the same people who will buy 4x4... It has potential for a lot of power, but it also comes with a high price, high energy consumption, and fairly inefficent. But for the hardocre workstation market, I'm saying it will probably succed especially with Barcelona coming...

20 bucks says this thread will be locked by the end of the day.. =P
a c 99 à CPUs
December 7, 2006 1:42:06 PM

It will succeed, but it won't necessarily succeed in the market that AMD targeted it for. It will not be nearly as popular with gamers as AMD would like, but I think it will sell like hotcakes to people wanting an entry-level dual-socket workstation. The QuadFX motherboard + 2 FX70s is a 3/5-cost dual Opteron 2218 workstation setup. This also has the promise of being a very potent file server/NAS box due to its insane amount of SATA ports and PCIe slots (which can support disk controllers and the like.) I think rendering fanatics will buy a bunch of the QuadFXs once the quad-core FX-80s come out, followed by some gamers playing massively-multithreaded games. But mostly the QuadFX will be a popular less-expensive dual-CPU workstation setup like the old dual PII or PIII boards were.
Related resources
December 7, 2006 1:55:22 PM

I think it's going to flop. If AMD had the current "best processor" as it did only months ago this would have succeeded. Or if AMD was able to make 4x4 faster than an Intel offering. Any informed enthusiast is going to pick high performance over Quad FX. You could take the money you'd save buy going with the cheaper, more available Core 2 Quad and upgrade your storage or do something with it.
December 7, 2006 2:26:06 PM

Quote:
I voted yes, just because I see it succeding in the market it's targeted for. The same people who buy Hummers, thats the same people who will buy 4x4... It has potential for a lot of power, but it also comes with a high price, high energy consumption, and fairly inefficent. But for the hardocre workstation market, I'm saying it will probably succed especially with Barcelona coming...

20 bucks says this thread will be locked by the end of the day.. =P


I think the hummer is a bad comparison since it can outperform almost all stock vehicles in many aspects of offroad trials.

The AMD doesn't have this ability. Its slower, costs more, and creates a cooling issue. No one can actually name a positive unless you need an inefficeint space heater.

If this processor was marketed for the average user who would never actually open the computer case, then sure, it could do well, but for anyone who actually knows anything, it won't.

Frankly, the econemy sucks (unless you produce weapons or oil :lol: ) and people don't have the money to drop on a lesser CPU that costs more, even if they believe in brand loyalty.

There's only 1 person on the forum (we all know who it is) who's going to drop the thousands to purchase one.

If Tom's is any example of the enthusiast market, then this processor is dead in the water for now. Maybe 8 cores at the same price would do the trick, but that'll have to be seen.
December 7, 2006 2:33:08 PM

Quote:
Maybe 8 cores at the same price would do the trick, but that'll have to be seen.


And i hope it won't need 2-socketed or even 4-socketed board (2 octa core or 4 dual core) :lol: 
December 7, 2006 2:35:51 PM

Voted for the later release of K8L
1. Think it was a big mistake to release with only one Mobo supplier.

2. Also, really really could have waited one month for 65nm to release so there is at least a chance of better overclocking/cooler operation/energy efficiency.

3. If the K8L can change the advantage in a few of the things on your list:
Quote:
Its competitor, Core2 Quad is:
1. faster
2. cheaper
3. more overclockable
4. more energy efficient
5. cooler
6. smaller


Then it has a chance of doing great things.

4. Performance in Vista/NUMA, which shows some improvements, I believe will be the determining factor. I know XP has numa but it has lacked a processor to take advantage of its capabilities and has not had the tweaking that it is undergoing in Vista.
December 7, 2006 2:36:38 PM

Meh, I shoulda mentioned H2... anyways... A tank will outperform a Hummer also...

The 4x4 with FX cores won't do well, but I'm seeing the 4x4 with quad-cores each might make a dent. It depends on how AMD's quad-core solution does, but if they can deliver something comparable to the Kentsfield, then this platform might take off. Right now though, don't see why AMD is bothering with it... should have waited to release both Barcelona and this at the same time... feels rushed to me either way.

Also, in response to MU_Engineer, 4x4 is not for gamers. Their official position is the "Megatasking" crowd, which gamers are not...
a c 99 à CPUs
December 7, 2006 2:40:44 PM

I'd say that Tom's is a pretty decent indicator of the gamer market. That does encompass a chunk of the "enthusiast" market, but there are a lot of enthusiasts that don't game. Some do dev work, some muck around with video, some program. The thing all of these people have in common is that they use desktops that are powerful, they generally build their own, and they generally have technical knowledge. Other than that, somebody who is a hard-core programmer may have a completely different usage pattern than a video junkie than a gamer. They'll each buy a different machine with different parts that are the fastest for their usages.

The QuadFX and FX-70s has its advantages and disadvantages, and its advantages are not in gaming on Windows. Its advantages are more in server/workstation applications as that's where the platform really came from. Note that it also has better support for things like NUMA in server/workstation OSes (namely, a UNIX variant) than in the gamers' Windows.

I do agree that the QuadFX was a little ill-timed and could have been better executed. But that's true for just about any product, the Core 2 Quadro QX6700 and Intel's chipsets included. (The FSB on the Core 2 Quadro should have been at least 1333 MHz and Intel needs to make a new high-end desktop chipset as the old 975X is getting really long in the tooth.) So before you completely knock something, realize that there are people for whom it very may well do better than something else. So in fact, the Hummer analogy is 100% right. Most people very rarely or never take their cars off-road, so the Hummer's advantages never get seen. However, the slow on-road acceleration, high curb weight, long stopping distance on pavement do get seen. So for them, a Hummer would suck compared to a Porsche Boxter or equivalently-priced sports car. But for those whose usage includes off-road trails, the Hummer beats the Boxster hands-down.
December 7, 2006 2:48:32 PM

It will most likely be 2 CPUs with 4 cores each.

Basically, if you do any gaming, get an intel.

If you have ADHD, get an AMD b/c you must MEGA-TASK!


I am interested to see just how it will run on Vista.


Does anyone know (I'm being lazy here) if Vista supports multiple threads?
December 7, 2006 2:52:11 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know (I'm being lazy here) if Vista supports multiple threads?


I would hope so, but with M$, you never know!
December 7, 2006 2:55:53 PM

Vista is supposed to come with much better support for multi-core CPU's. So we should hopefully see a performance gain there.
December 7, 2006 3:07:38 PM

Quote:
I'd say that Tom's is a pretty decent indicator of the gamer market. That does encompass a chunk of the "enthusiast" market, but there are a lot of enthusiasts that don't game. Some do dev work, some muck around with video, some program. The thing all of these people have in common is that they use desktops that are powerful, they generally build their own, and they generally have technical knowledge. Other than that, somebody who is a hard-core programmer may have a completely different usage pattern than a video junkie than a gamer. They'll each buy a different machine with different parts that are the fastest for their usages.


Yeah, that pretty well describes me, heavy on the vid side, light on the gaming. I'm looking to go to 2xClovertown for my personal system and am not even remotely considering QuadFX. Shame since I was an AMD guy for many years and over a dozen systems.

BTW, is that the stock HSF in those photos? Looks really efficient... hahaha...
December 7, 2006 3:18:43 PM

Quote:
P.S. For the good of this forum, lets keep it civil on this thread and let's ignore our forum clown.



I think it will succeed beyond people's wildest dreams because it already has. It's just a Dual opteron with nonECC or server level mobos

BTW, you are just asking for flames posting something like that. Jack isn't a clown.
December 7, 2006 3:31:56 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know (I'm being lazy here) if Vista supports multiple threads?


I would hope so, but with M$, you never know!
8O you kidding, right?
Maybe there's something i'm missing here.. but how could anyone release in 2007 an OS which doesn't support multiple threads? :?
December 7, 2006 3:37:08 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know (I'm being lazy here) if Vista supports multiple threads?


I would hope so, but with M$, you never know!
8O you kidding, right?
Maybe there's something i'm missing here.. but how could anyone release in 2007 an OS which doesn't support multiple threads? :?

WMI in Vista

How can you argue with a Microsoft document that ends with:

"(Bzzzzz – SNAP! - …) Hey, look at that! Scripting Dog caught the fly! We’re done here anyway, so please excuse us while we go get a reward for her, and help her get the taste of fly out of her mouth (which she doesn’t seem to be enjoying)." :lol: 
December 7, 2006 3:56:41 PM

I wouldn't even think about 4X4 right now..it is just poor alternative to C2Q right now..Also, when Barcelona(Agena FX) comes out, then there is going to be new 4X4 with HT3..so there are absolutely no reason to get 4x4 right now.
December 7, 2006 4:03:13 PM

Funny how he didnt remove the Optebooms IHS so everyone can see that its DIE is about as large as Clovertowns 2 DIEs
December 7, 2006 4:05:44 PM

No one seems to mention that the C2D and C2Q will also benifit from Vista. I do not believe that Vista is going to be a factor at all.

I also believe that the 4x4 platform will fail. If your going to spend the amout that the 4x4 costs, then why not buy a dual socket xeon board w/ xeon quads.
December 7, 2006 4:20:20 PM

Vista is going to be a factor (albeit this won't compensate for many other architectural deficiencies), because C2D and C2Q do not use a NUMA memory architecture.
NUMA is a handicap to performance, when memory is not properly allocated to the processor which is going to use it.
This forces such processor to have to ask to the other processor to provide it (through the HyperTransport link) the data that it's working on, and this greatly increases the latency of such an access, hindering performance.
NUMA on the other hand provides an advantage in terms of aggregate bandwidth, because bandwidth scales linearly with the number of processors employed.
This is advantageous for server and scientific applications, but it's not for typical desktop usage, where the K8 core has been shown not to be bandwidth starved even when using just DDR400.
December 7, 2006 5:06:08 PM

Numa Numa...

My view on NUMA is that until we see benchmarks on Windows Vista, we shouldn't expect too much. At least, probably not enough performance increase to merit 4x4 beating out the C2Q...

Either way, the 4x4 platform isin't for "desktop" usage anyways, especially with all the additional troubles it brings. Desktop wise, the C2Q would be more useful as of now. Workstation wise...
December 7, 2006 5:11:44 PM

Quote:
I'd say that Tom's is a pretty decent indicator of the gamer market. That does encompass a chunk of the "enthusiast" market, but there are a lot of enthusiasts that don't game. Some do dev work, some muck around with video, some program. The thing all of these people have in common is that they use desktops that are powerful, they generally build their own, and they generally have technical knowledge. Other than that, somebody who is a hard-core programmer may have a completely different usage pattern than a video junkie than a gamer. They'll each buy a different machine with different parts that are the fastest for their usages.

The QuadFX and FX-70s has its advantages and disadvantages, and its advantages are not in gaming on Windows. Its advantages are more in server/workstation applications as that's where the platform really came from. Note that it also has better support for things like NUMA in server/workstation OSes (namely, a UNIX variant) than in the gamers' Windows.

I do agree that the QuadFX was a little ill-timed and could have been better executed. But that's true for just about any product, the Core 2 Quadro QX6700 and Intel's chipsets included. (The FSB on the Core 2 Quadro should have been at least 1333 MHz and Intel needs to make a new high-end desktop chipset as the old 975X is getting really long in the tooth.) So before you completely knock something, realize that there are people for whom it very may well do better than something else. So in fact, the Hummer analogy is 100% right. Most people very rarely or never take their cars off-road, so the Hummer's advantages never get seen. However, the slow on-road acceleration, high curb weight, long stopping distance on pavement do get seen. So for them, a Hummer would suck compared to a Porsche Boxter or equivalently-priced sports car. But for those whose usage includes off-road trails, the Hummer beats the Boxster hands-down.


"Megatasking" fine, but it's still not as fast at "megatasking" as Kentsfield yet.
December 7, 2006 5:35:37 PM

Quote:
"Megatasking" fine, but it's still not as fast at "megatasking" as Kentsfield yet.


ROFLCOPTER

It's good at being more expensive and performing less while using 600 watts of power at idle.
December 7, 2006 5:47:02 PM

Hey, i'm not Shakira, i never said that with Vista, 4x4 will beat Kentsfield. ;) 
However, some benchmarks (with Vista RC2) are already available, and it indeed does provide a decent boost in performance for 4x4 with some applications.
This was linked in another thread, but i'll report it here.
(link)
December 7, 2006 6:13:02 PM

Quote:
Hey, i'm not Shakira, i never said that with Vista, 4x4 will beat Kentsfield. ;) 
However, some benchmarks (with Vista RC2) are already available, and it indeed does provide a decent boost in performance for 4x4 with some applications.
This was linked in another thread, but i'll report it here.
(link)


And people also don't realize that MS does most speed optimizations after the final RC, so expect somewhat better numbers from RTM Vista. They are actually still working on the Home editions so they may pick up even more tweaking than Vista Business.

You are a minority here if you have anything good to say about QFX.

www.ibuypower.com

You can get a QFX system for a lot less than $4000. That original link is not very customizable. But then it is from OddBall. he is not a friend of AMD.
December 7, 2006 6:21:40 PM

Still wonder what the "definition" of megatasking is... is it multi-tasking squared... or multi-tasking cubed? Multi-tasking to the mega power?

I guess 4x4 is only for the ADD and ADHD kids out there...
December 7, 2006 6:44:04 PM

Quote:
20 bucks says this thread will be locked by the end of the day.. =P


You owe me 20 bucks :D 

PM me, and I will give you my bank account number. :lol: 
December 7, 2006 6:51:07 PM

Ain't the end of the day yet... for me at least... only 3 P.M. here in Texas.
December 7, 2006 6:55:08 PM

Quote:
Still wonder what the "definition" of megatasking is... is it multi-tasking squared... or multi-tasking cubed? Multi-tasking to the mega power?

I guess 4x4 is only for the ADD and ADHD kids out there...


Of course you can megatask on an Intel machine. However does Intel have the following:

PLATFORMANCE
December 7, 2006 7:27:52 PM

Quote:
Still wonder what the "definition" of megatasking is... is it multi-tasking squared... or multi-tasking cubed? Multi-tasking to the mega power?

I guess 4x4 is only for the ADD and ADHD kids out there...


Of course you can megatask on an Intel machine. However does Intel have the following:

PLATFORMANCE
Hey, no fair! I want more PLATFORMANCE!!!! :( 
December 7, 2006 8:10:17 PM

Quote:
This also has the promise of being a very potent file server/NAS box due to its insane amount of SATA ports and PCIe slots (which can support disk controllers and the like.)


This is an excellent point. I'll take it one step further. You buy two motherboards and only one (pair of) CPU. Plug one CPU to each motherboard (as stupid as it sounds, one CPU is faster than two - see the Anandtech review) and voilla. You have two extremely potent file servers at the cost of one CPU. Use one and sell the other :) 

Actually the motherboard is the only useful part of this platform.
December 7, 2006 8:14:58 PM

The MSRP of the Asus 4x4 mainboard will be $350, and is expected to be between $400-$500 for the end users. Not very cheap for a file server.
For file server, you better buy any cheap sAM2 mainboard, Athlon64 and

24 port ARECA SATA II RAID Adapter
December 7, 2006 8:28:07 PM

At home, I've got 4x400 GB and 4x500 GB drives on two Athlon PC's. Why not can one of them, have all 8 drives plus the system drive plus a SATA optical and two free SATA's for future expansion on one PC only.

Plus you have the additional PCIe's in case you are crazy enough to add 12 more SATA's on a Raid controller.

If you consider the cost of a typical server motherboard plus a PCIe SATA Raid controller, you go FAR beyond the cost of the 4x4 Asus.

Believe me it's not a bad deal brate. The only difficult part is to find a stupid who will buy the system w/ the second CPU :) 
December 7, 2006 9:15:32 PM

Quote:
At home, I've got 4x400 GB and 4x500 GB drives on two Athlon PC's. Why not can one of them, have all 8 drives plus the system drive plus a SATA optical and two free SATA's for future expansion on one PC only.

Plus you have the additional PCIe's in case you are crazy enough to add 12 more SATA's on a Raid controller.

If you consider the cost of a typical server motherboard plus a PCIe SATA Raid controller, you go FAR beyond the cost of the 4x4 Asus.

Believe me it's not a bad deal brate. The only difficult part is to find a stupid who will buy the system w/ the second CPU :) 



Looks like you found him. I mean I'm so stupid I actually think it's a good idea. I would like to see a few more mobos with perhaps one chipset and less PCIe slots. Support for 8GB RAM would also be a good thing.

Here is the best C2Q mobo out right now.


Looks like it's $400.
December 7, 2006 10:07:15 PM

Dude, you have a processor with MMX technology? I feel so outdated now. :( 
December 7, 2006 10:08:14 PM

Quote:
I'm not replying to anybody specifically because I don't want to feed the trolls. But, out of the blue, I just wanted to show you an Intel quad-core mobo for $227 on Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

:p 


I would say that since C2Q is a derivative of C2D, QFX will get cheaper CPU-oriented mobos before long. There is only one QFX mobo right now but the point was that for more than SLI ( which Striker and L1N both have) they are rather expensive. Striker only has 1 socket and less features with 3 PCIe slots.

ibuypower.com has under $3000 FX systems with 8800. It's a good idea. EVen if Vista doesn't improve NUMA transfers and placement, it enables better DX 10 graphics and multi-core support so even the lowly QFX platform should perform better under it vs. XP. The X64 version should do even better for multi-core even the most WORTHLESS variety.


It's on my shopping list.

QFX rules! Right behind C2Q is not a bad position.
December 7, 2006 10:17:44 PM

Quote:
Striker only has 1 socket

Well, DUH... what did you expect it to have?
December 8, 2006 12:40:39 AM

Quote:
XP SP2 already does numa

here is the code it uses to get the node

GetNumaProcessorNode

Retrieves the node number for the specified processor.


BOOL WINAPI GetNumaProcessorNode(
UCHAR Processor,
PUCHAR NodeNumber
);

Parameters
Processor
[in] The processor number.
NodeNumber
[out] The node number. If the processor does not exist, this parameter is 0xFF.
Return Value
If the function succeeds, the return value is nonzero.

If the function fails, the return value is zero. To get extended error information, call GetLastError.

Remarks
To retrieve the list of processors on the system, use the GetProcessAffinityMask function.

Example Code
For an example, see Allocating Memory from a NUMA Node.

Requirements
Client Requires Windows Vista, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, or Windows XP SP2.
Server Requires Windows Server "Longhorn" or Windows Server 2003.
Header Declared in Winbase.h; include Windows.h.

Library Use Kernel32.lib.

DLL Requires Kernel32.dll.



Well, gee thx, but I have enough code to write and I don't think that would get me DX10.
December 8, 2006 1:06:21 AM

Quote:
I voted yes, just because I see it succeding in the market it's targeted for. The same people who buy Hummers, thats the same people who will buy 4x4... It has potential for a lot of power, but it also comes with a high price, high energy consumption, and fairly inefficent. But for the hardocre workstation market, I'm saying it will probably succed especially with Barcelona coming...

20 bucks says this thread will be locked by the end of the day.. =P


You do know that Hummers are no longer for sale, and that what GM is now calling a "Hummer" and selling for a ridiculous price is really just a S-1500 frame/drivetrain with "boxy" body bolted on, right?

On to the topic, I agree with what some others have written, that judging by the responses from this and other sites threads, 4x4s future doesnt look attractive. If 4x4 was actually outperforming C2Q conclusively in the benchs, I might agree that the "extreme" market segment would be attracted, but considering that 4x4 does not yet compete with C2Q, why spend more for less if your either a perfromance enthusiast or posession "elitest"?
Additionally, I cant help but suspect, given C2Ds suprisingly large OC-ability on air, that Intel has a E7400 3.5Mhz and/or C2Q 7400 waiting in the wings to drop on the market when all the optimizations to QFX bring it up to its potential.

Just my opinion
December 8, 2006 4:01:28 AM

215 is pretty disappointing. :( 
December 8, 2006 8:15:47 AM

I wonder how OC-able will be the FX-70. If it can reach 3.2GHz stable it would be nice.
December 8, 2006 4:37:42 PM

Quote:
[I actually think it's a good idea..


I wasn't joking either. An FX 7x based file server with a lot of onboard stuff is a cheap but potent server alternative.
December 8, 2006 4:47:05 PM

That is freaking hilarious! How would you type out in the cold like that, gloves are way too fat.. but man, that's hardcore... All that and still only 215... they might break 250 if they got some liquid nitrogen... :D 

I should import air from Alaska to cool my CPU...
December 8, 2006 7:06:10 PM

Hmm it would be nice to have a single Socket F motherboard...
Then possibly it could be overclocked around 3-3.2GHz, but with the dual socket and added mobo complexity i'm a bit skeptical.
Some mobo manufacturer could try to design a stripped down version of 4x4 with single socket, then a gray market of single CPUs taken out from the FX-7x packages could flourish.. ;) 
December 8, 2006 7:35:35 PM

There will be s1207 1P mainboards, but for buffered RAM. But there is no point for DT/WS 1P s1207 mainboard when we have sAM2 for that purpose.
IMO the mainboard is not a issue for the poor OC of 4x4, since the multiplier on the FX CPUs is fully unlocked. It is the K8 CPU which is reaching its max freqfency at 3Ghz on the 90nm SOI2.
December 8, 2006 8:15:01 PM

There's certainly been a lot of talk about this platform. This is what, the 20th thread? Anyway, in my opinion, the QuadFX system, while marketed to compete with the C2Q, is really more in the dual-socket league. Are there many benchmark comparisons with other dual-socket systems, like the DP Opteron and Xeon workstations? My consideration would be to use the QuadFX in place of a different DP workstation if the performance was as good or better, while I expect the QFX to be more affordable (regular DDR2 ram, AMD REALLY slashing the price on the processors, etc.). Any comments?
December 8, 2006 8:44:26 PM

4x4 is destined to be worse until AMD gets real quad cores out.
December 8, 2006 10:00:36 PM

So it's not the best for now.

I think what people are overlooking here is that AMD is being innovative in their decisions. While 4x4 might look like a mess right now it certainly has HUGE potential to scale. (hey, there is one good thing about 4x4).

AMD has the right idea. Since there is a physical limit on the clock speed that silicon wafers will allow, there is no choice but to scale hardware at this point. Intel is also working on technology beyond silicon with their photonic processors that may be seen perfected decades from now (much speculation here). However, in the near future, scalability will win the crown and 2 sockets essentially allows for double the scale factor with each addition to core count on any die. Intel has done dual socket in the past but there's one thing that constantly holds them back and its the north bridge. Hypertransport is already amazing and is consistantly evolving.

I don't see why anyone cares so much right now anyway. You all have your C2D systems by now. That should hold you over at least until you see:

HTT 3.0 (42 GB/s aggregate BW)
Agena FX 2xQuad core processors (8 CPU cores total)
In house optimized ATI/AMD graphics/physics accelerators

I think that it is exciting to know that technology like this is right around the corner. This initial run could be compared with the launch of Intel's Core architecture. It wasn't very good. But then came Core 2 and blew us all away.

So what if the very first 4x4 system isn't that great? At least it's a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile Intel is being more on the traditional side which some (including myself) believe is a good thing as well. Getting energy down and performance up always wins me over.

Can't wait to see where this goes...
!