The Inq reports that RD690 will support QFX

Everyone favorite rag has supposedly pinned AMD down on the existence of a CrossFire-enabled chipset due by Feb.

I guess by next month we'll know if the chipset has any tweaks to improve the NUMA perf (even though Vista has the implementation, a bad chipset will cause perf problems).

It is due to debut around the time that R600 is to pop up its head. ATi chipsets are known to be lowest power ones otu tof the thre bigs X86 manufs.

I guess it can't get worse.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

I still say no hope for Quad FX until it offers something that Intel can't. It's only hope is octo-core (two quad cores CPUs). But even then, that'll be a niche market for AMD's people who need platformance for their mega-tasking.

Interesting find Baron, thanks.

Reply to TechnologyCoordinator

I don't see how a chipset could improve NUMA performance in any way.
NUMA is completely bypassing the chipset, the memory controllers are in the CPUs, and they are directly connected by HT.
A chipset can help only in increasing bandwidth/latency toward the PCI-Express bus, or reduce power consumption, but i think the former is not a problem at all with 680a, and the latter could be reduced, but by a marginal factor in the overall power balance.
The only way to increase NUMA performance is a faster HT link, with lower protocol overhead, and more cache in the CPUs; none of this can be obtained with a new chipset.
...
Oh well, if i want to pull science fiction out of my arse, i can think the following:
- chipset with direct access to memory, large integrated cache (let's say 16MB or more) and prefetching logic to sit in between the 2 CPUs, hooked to the HT links and to the memory controllers of the CPUs, which are not able to access memory directly anymore.
The chipset would fool the CPUs into thinking they are directly talking to memory or the other CPU, while in fact they are not, they get served their data through their IMC and HT links from the chipset, which has access to a single memory pool.
This would be in fact some kind of north bridge.
Of course, such a solution is sheer foolish, it completely defies the concept of Direct Memory architecture, would cost a lot and be extremely difficult to design.
Not on earth.

Reply to Pippero

Quote :

I still say no hope for Quad FX until it offers something that Intel can't. It's only hope is octo-core (two quad cores CPUs). But even then, that'll be a niche market for AMD's people who need platformance for their mega-tasking.

Interesting find Baron, thanks.

I disagree. For people who want their preferred brand to be faster than the compeition that maybe important but I personally only want it to be faster than the AMD chip I have.

QFX is that and more.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

I don't see how a chipset could improve NUMA performance in any way.
NUMA is completely bypassing the chipset, the memory controllers are in the CPUs, and they are directly connected by HT.
A chipset can help only in increasing bandwidth/latency toward the PCI-Express bus, or reduce power consumption, but i think the former is not a problem at all with 680a, and the latter could be reduced, but by a marginal factor in the overall power balance.
The only way to increase NUMA performance is a faster HT link, with lower protocol overhead, and more cache in the CPUs; none of this can be obtained with a new chipset.
...
Oh well, if i want to pull science fiction out of my arse, i can think the following:
- chipset with direct access to memory, large integrated cache (let's say 16MB or more) and prefetching logic to sit in between the 2 CPUs, hooked to the HT links and to the memory controllers of the CPUs, which are not able to access memory directly anymore.
The chipset would fool the CPUs into thinking they are directly talking to memory or the other CPU, while in fact they are not, they get served their data through their IMC and HT links from the chipset, which has access to a single memory pool.
This would be in fact some kind of north bridge.
Of course, such a solution is sheer foolish, it completely defies the concept of Direct Memory architecture, would cost a lot and be extremely difficult to design.
Not on earth.

Let's say that you buy a car that has a bad carburetor. You race it and lose, but then find out the carburetor was bad. Does that mean the car was bad?

You fix the carburetor and though it doesn't make it go faster than the defined max speed, it also won't go slower.

I guess we would have to get an Opteron 2218 and run single threaded apps on it with XP Pro, X64 and Server 2003.

If the Opteron scores higher at the same clockspeed then the chipset is

HOLDING THE PLATFORM BACK.

That was my point. Not that a chipset can increase speed.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Uhh, yeah, i got your point.
However, nVidia should have screwed up big time (like a major bug) to induce a penalty to CPU performance in a chipset which is essentially just a tunnel between the HT link and the PCI-Express bus.
The case of traditional chipsets such as Intel ones is different, since there the north bridge integrates the memory controller, hence it plays a major role in CPU performance.

Reply to Pippero

Quote :

Uhh, yeah, i got your point.
However, nVidia should have screwed up big time (like a major bug) to induce a penalty to CPU performance in a chipset which is essentially just a tunnel between the HT link and the PCI-Express bus.
The case of traditional chipsets such as Intel ones is different, since there the north bridge integrates the memory controller, hence it plays a major role in CPU performance.

If I remeber correctly lots of folks had to flash the Asus P5W(?) BIOS just to put Core 2 on it, so it is possible that a glitch liek that slipped through QA at Asus.

Also as everyone says it's a brand new mobo with a brand new design, so there maybe issues with the first retail rev. Poeple here even said to wait for a new revision of Core 2 when it was first released.

Crap happens and like I said the only real way to prove it one way or the other is to compare it to Opteron at the same clock with different OS' and singlethreaded apps.

Reply to BaronMatrix

It is easier to explain this to a brick. It has more chances to undersand anything.

Reply to gOJDO

Quote :

It is easier to explain this to a brick. It has more chances to undersand anything.

The funny thing is that I can't stand you but I don't stalk you on the forum. if you have no opinion regarding the topic, go to a post where you do.

Reply to BaronMatrix

This would make sense for some performance spanking reviews of the R600. A good chipset with what we hope is a killer card in the R600 will divert some of the specific attention away from the 4x4 and move it to the performance of the whole system and it's potential. Which is only a good thing for AMD.

Reply to The_Abyss

You cant improve something that ISNT THERE.

Reply to Ycon

Quote :

This would make sense for some performance spanking reviews of the R600. A good chipset with what we hope is a killer card in the R600 will divert some of the specific attention away from the 4x4 and move it to the performance of the whole system and it's potential. Which is only a good thing for AMD.

And that was my point. The platform is a good idea but the issues revealed by LegitReviews cast a shadow over the launch. Of course if it was Intel, they would get the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, that is also my hope; that a new chipset(lower power) and GPU (lower power 80nm R600 even with 500M transistors).

Perhaps nVidia will pick up spedd and go to 65nm quickly that will definitely drop power a lot.

Fortunately for me I will be getting this for the two sockets and NOT the 4 PCIe and the apps that matter are EXTREMELY multi-threaded.

It will do well for me even if it's not faster than C2Q.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

GPU (lower power 80nm R600 even with 500M transistors).

The inquirer is predicting 720million...

Quote :

Perhaps nVidia will pick up spedd and go to 65nm quickly that will definitely drop power a lot.

Not for the high end, just craploads more transistors which means more heat.

Reply to Action_Man

Quote :

You cant improve something that ISNT THERE.

Sure it is. It hardly ever loses to C2D X6800 and E-versions are long gone.

I am interested in the scaling shown in multithreaded game tests. Even if it achieves less than this theoretical number, it will still take basically every other chip out and beat the crap out of it.

This is of course excluding C2Q.

Why are you all so down on this? Two sockets are supposed to use more power than one. Except for singlethreaded games FX62 is totally improved upon. I would say that if the NUMA of Vista does it's job correctly, all game data will be on one socket's RAM banks.

Either way, Visual Studio will fly.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

GPU (lower power 80nm R600 even with 500M transistors).

The inquirer is predicting 720million...

Quote :

Perhaps nVidia will pick up spedd and go to 65nm quickly that will definitely drop power a lot.

Not for the high end, just craploads more transistors which means more heat.

TSMC and UMC are already working on 45nm and there was a report that nVidia is looking to shrink G80 soon. Supposedly because of the complexity they didn't want to do the shrink at the same time. I would think that by April we will see a 65nm announcement for GPUs.

That would definitely give nVidia back the advantage since it is said that R600 will be faster than G80.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

TSMC and UMC are already working on 45nm and there was a report that nVidia is looking to shrink G80 soon.

TSMC and they're not making 65nm products atm.

Quote :

That would definitely give nVidia back the advantage since it is said that R600 will be faster than G80.

ATi can't go 65nm either?

Reply to Action_Man

TSMC is supposedly working on 32nm already (though that's still far far away).
45nm should start production in H2 2007.
(link)

Reply to Pippero

I'm aware of whats going on at TSMC, I'm pointing out that they don't have 65nm products in the market.

Reply to Action_Man

This is going to be interesting, I wonder if quad fx will actually be able to recieve a 5% oc to 3300 mhz with the rd690

Reply to I_Love_Tacos

Quote :

This is going to be interesting, I wonder if quad fx will actually be able to recieve a 5% oc to 3300 mhz with the rd690

More than likely a better cooling system would be needed but then K8 probably won't scale too much more at 90nm. The thing I would hope for is different level boards. I don't need 4 PCIe slots, 20 USB ports or 12 SATA.
Since AMD already has a server chipset, they can more than likely tweak 690 to be better than the single socket version.

We'll see though.

Reply to BaronMatrix

I can understand that, and I agree that 4x4 seems like something that amd was trying to simply get realesed before kentsfield for some market share, but this will be interesting to see, as the ati mobo is supposed to be able to oc anything, yet k8 arch has maxed out at a bit above 3ghz (some people are getting the older fx single cores and the fx-60 to as high as 3.4, but thats about it)

Reply to I_Love_Tacos

Quote :

I'm aware of whats going on at TSMC, I'm pointing out that they don't have 65nm products in the market.

No one has requested them yet. ATi and nVidia will shrink more quickly than AMD/Intel. I wish I could remember the site suggesting that nVidia would skip 80nm and go to 65nm. It was probably that rag The Inq.
I am actually of the opinion that GPUs may hit 45nm first.

They do have a more immediate need to reduce power.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

No one has requested them yet.

BS. They're still in the works.

Quote :

ATi and nVidia will shrink more quickly than AMD/Intel.

You're kidding right?

Quote :

I wish I could remember the site suggesting that nVidia would skip 80nm and go to 65nm.

Ahahaha yeah right.

Quote :

I am actually of the opinion that GPUs may hit 45nm first.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah they'll beat intel to 45nm AHAHAHAHA!

Quote :

They do have a more immediate need to reduce power.

More BS, in the high end they can just reduce clocks or transistor counts but no they're all about pushing it to the max while mid and low end are fine. What a moron.

Reply to Action_Man

Quote :

I'm aware of whats going on at TSMC, I'm pointing out that they don't have 65nm products in the market.

No one has requested them yet. ATi and nVidia will shrink more quickly than AMD/Intel. I wish I could remember the site suggesting that nVidia would skip 80nm and go to 65nm. It was probably that rag The Inq.
I am actually of the opinion that GPUs may hit 45nm first.

They do have a more immediate need to reduce power.

I will bet you dollars to donuts that the next smallest process that any gpu company uses will be 65nm. And that will be on the companies mainstream product and not their high end. The GPU companies have been bit too many times trying to transition too soon to a smaller process technology.

Reply to pausert20

Quote :

No one has requested them yet.

BS. They're still in the works.

Quote :

ATi and nVidia will shrink more quickly than AMD/Intel.

You're kidding right?

Quote :

I wish I could remember the site suggesting that nVidia would skip 80nm and go to 65nm.

Ahahaha yeah right.

Quote :

I am actually of the opinion that GPUs may hit 45nm first.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah they'll beat intel to 45nm AHAHAHAHA!

Quote :

They do have a more immediate need to reduce power.

More BS, in the high end they can just reduce clocks or transistor counts but no they're all about pushing it to the max while mid and low end are fine. What a moron.

How many different chip families and variations ahs nVidia produced since P4 and K8 came out? How many different ATi chip families - including IGPs?

The GPU market moves mych faster than the CPU market. GPUs are specialized for parallelism and internal bandwidth. Get a clue.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

How many different chip families and variations ahs nVidia produced since P4 and K8 came out?

All on the same process noob. Notice how the G80 is still on 90nm, etc etc.

Quote :

Get a clue.

So amusing coming from an assclown such as yourself.

Reply to Action_Man

CPU's always have and always will be ahead of GPU's in terms of manufacturing technology.

Reply to TechnologyCoordinator

Quote :

The thing I would hope for is different level boards. I don't need 4 PCIe slots, 20 USB ports or 12 SATA.
Since AMD already has a server chipset, they can more than likely tweak 690 to be better than the single socket version.

We'll see though.

True, replace the 20USB ports with a fake vagina port. We know you want to make love to your precious 4x4. :roll:

Reply to 1Tanker

Quote :

How many different chip families and variations ahs nVidia produced since P4 and K8 came out?

All on the same process noob. Notice how the G80 is still on 90nm, etc etc.

Quote :

Get a clue.

So amusing coming from an assclown such as yourself.

I know you ar ebut what am I?

At any rate, the fact is that the new GPU rat eis 6-12 months wher CPU take 12-18.

Your arguments show your ignorance. TSMC is ready. UMC is ready. Either company (ATi/nidia) could be working on 65nm and get a tape out in a month. Again they don't have as many "general-purpose " transistors so the complexity is lowered in design and manufacturing. Just don't be surprised fif they don't have a 65nm GPU before you know it.

Both comapnies have already released 80nm chips (ATi X1950/nVidia GeForce Go) and it was said that nVidia could have made G80 80nm but decided that the desgin was more important than the shrink (in terms of doing one or the other or both). As someone noted, (it's in the news)Intel and TSMC are working on 32nm while TSMC and UMC have produced 45nm wafers.

We'll see.

But back on topic, I think that a more compact chipset is the way to go with a high power CPU setup and an AMD chipset will undoubtedly perform slightly better, especially with a hybrid design baased on RD690.

I would like to see AMD update the chip to minimize power somewhat (idle is acceptabel using CnQ) although long before QFX there were 700W PSUs with dual rails.

Either way, I will be upgrading to this with Vista. The debate is whether it will be an AMD chipset or nVidia. Don't need SLI or Xfire.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

I don't see how a chipset could improve NUMA performance in any way.
NUMA is completely bypassing the chipset, the memory controllers are in the CPUs, and they are directly connected by HT.
A chipset can help only in increasing bandwidth/latency toward the PCI-Express bus, or reduce power consumption, but i think the former is not a problem at all with 680a, and the latter could be reduced, but by a marginal factor in the overall power balance.
The only way to increase NUMA performance is a faster HT link, with lower protocol overhead, and more cache in the CPUs; none of this can be obtained with a new chipset.
...
Oh well, if i want to pull science fiction out of my arse, i can think the following:
- chipset with direct access to memory, large integrated cache (let's say 16MB or more) and prefetching logic to sit in between the 2 CPUs, hooked to the HT links and to the memory controllers of the CPUs, which are not able to access memory directly anymore.
The chipset would fool the CPUs into thinking they are directly talking to memory or the other CPU, while in fact they are not, they get served their data through their IMC and HT links from the chipset, which has access to a single memory pool.
This would be in fact some kind of north bridge.
Of course, such a solution is sheer foolish, it completely defies the concept of Direct Memory architecture, would cost a lot and be extremely difficult to design.
Not on earth.

Let's say that you buy a car that has a bad carburetor. You race it and lose, but then find out the carburetor was bad. Does that mean the car was bad?

You fix the carburetor and though it doesn't make it go faster than the defined max speed, it also won't go slower.

I guess we would have to get an Opteron 2218 and run single threaded apps on it with XP Pro, X64 and Server 2003.

If the Opteron scores higher at the same clockspeed then the chipset is

HOLDING THE PLATFORM BACK.

That was my point. Not that a chipset can increase speed.

1. If you bought a brand new care with a bad carb....you got yourself a lemon.

2. If you bought a car nowadays with a carburetor......that's some pretty old tech....pretty-much all production street cars have fuel-injection now.

3. Either way, you got taken.

Reply to 1Tanker

Quote :

I know you ar ebut what am I?

Wow the primary school comeback, gg moron.

Quote :

At any rate, the fact is that the new GPU rat eis 6-12 months wher CPU take 12-18.

Yeah but the process is the same moron.

Quote :

Either company (ATi/nidia) could be working on 65nm and get a tape out in a month.

No doubt, but they have nothing on the market that is 65nm.

Quote :

it was said that nVidia could have made G80 80nm but decided that the desgin was more important than the shrink (in terms of doing one or the other or both).

They learnt their lesson the the NV30. :wink:

Reply to Action_Man

Quote :

True, replace the 20USB ports with a fake vagina port. We know you want to make love to your precious 4x4. :roll:

Finally, our clown will loose his virginity from the front side! :lol:

Reply to gOJDO

Quote :

[

I would like to see AMD update the chip to minimize power somewhat (idle is acceptabel using CnQ) although long before QFX there were 700W PSUs with dual rails.

Do you even know what a rail is.... it will take more than a dual rail 700 W PSU to keep this beast up and running.

You'r getting like gOJDO. You saw that with FX74, Raptor RAID and 8800GTX, Anand got load power to 456W. I will have FX70, one 7200 and 8800 GTS. That should be at least 50W less, maybe more.

You stick in the mud.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

1. If you bought a brand new care with a bad carb....you got yourself a lemon.

2. If you bought a car nowadays with a carburetor......that's some pretty old tech....pretty-much all production street cars have fuel-injection now.

3. Either way, you got taken.

Yet another victim of the thing from the pit. Analogies do't have to be exact. If you really got that out of that post, then you are just a troublemaking stalker.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

[

I would like to see AMD update the chip to minimize power somewhat (idle is acceptabel using CnQ) although long before QFX there were 700W PSUs with dual rails.

Do you even know what a rail is.... it will take more than a dual rail 700 W PSU to keep this beast up and running.

You'r getting like gOJDO. You saw that with FX74, Raptor RAID and 8800GTX, Anand got load power to 456W. I will have FX70, one 7200 and 8800 GTS. That should be at least 50W less, maybe more.

You stick in the mud.

Baron, you spread such incredible FUD throughout this forum, I have tried many tacts to figure out ways to either teach you what you don't obviously know or secure a method to stop you from doing the thread crapping you so commonly do.

At first I was nice.
Then I was logical and politely provided data, commentary and proof.
Then I offered advice, again politely.
Then I was abrasive and insulting.
Then I tried being nice again
Then I simply ignored it, thankfully most others see right through your crap.
Then it drove me crazy, so now I am back to being abrasive and insulting again.

You have no shame. The forum users general fall into two types, those coming here to have a question answered by a geek -- typically low post count, do not hang around. Then there are those who like to come and discuss the state of the industry, compare and contrast the two players, and discuss the technical details of personal computing.....

You fall into neither, and bar none, are the most computer ignorant moron I have ever seen. Technically you are deficient, intellectually you are inferior, and your arrogance/conceit prevents you from realizing that.

So yeah, I am a stick in the mud just as you are a thorn in everyone's side.

Post Of The Year.

Reply to carlhungis

Quote :

Baron, you spread such incredible FUD throughout this forum, I have tried many tacts to figure out ways to either teach you what you don't obviously know or secure a method to stop you from doing the thread crapping you so commonly do.

You're no one in charge of anything. How hard would it be to Google "power supply rail?" I got a feeling your whole family's going down O'Doyle.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

Post Of The Year.

I do my best to give you guys something to feel good about. I know you're all consumed by an ingrained inferiority complex.

Reply to BaronMatrix

BTW, did you notice my new sig. Kudos to the person who suggested it.

Reply to BaronMatrix

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.
Throwing rocks into the pond doesn't help us fish though.

If you tell a bunch of techs about Quad-FX in the forest, but nobody cares, was it a fruitful discussion ?

I think God's going to come down and pull civilization over for speeding.
- Except for Quad-FX

I saw a sign that read "24 Hour Quad-FX CPU processing for grid computing," but I don't have that much time.

There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won't.

The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.

Take all the fools out of this world and there wouldn't be any fun living in it, or profit.
- Hector Ruiz, AMD

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." - TabrisarkPeace

"The best argument against non-exclusive membership forums is a five-minute conversation with the average forum user".

"I don't make jokes. I just watch BaronMatrix and report the facts."

"when you try to invest in a fantasy, ultimately your reality is what suffers."
- Unknown

and finally:

Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.

:cry: - TabrisarkPeace

Reply to TabrisDarkPeace

Quote :

What part of the platform do you not understand... pippero explained to you exactly the same way I explained in the other thread:

I understand the entire platform. The chipset controls access to all periherals, including HDD. If you are swapping and the chipset has a problem directing to the proper RAM banks that will cause added latency.

Imagine going to an outdoor level on Oblivion from an indoor level. The indoor level cached 900MB RAM and the cuurent banks for one socket have 500MB left without swapping.

When the outdoor level loads it needs 700MB more which causes swapping. If the chipset doesn't direct the extra RAM to the right socket, swapping will happen during the execution of the outdoor level.

You can use the analogy for any other application.

Besides, ALL OF MY productivity apps will make and use as many threads as necessary, so again X6800 has left the building.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.
Throwing rocks into the pond doesn't help us fish though.

If you tell a bunch of techs about Quad-FX in the forest, but nobody cares, was it a fruitful discussion ?

I think God's going to come down and pull civilization over for speeding.
- Except for Quad-FX

I saw a sign that read "24 Hour Quad-FX CPU processing for grid computing," but I don't have that much time.

There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won't.

The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.

Take all the fools out of this world and there wouldn't be any fun living in it, or profit.
- Hector Ruiz, AMD

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." - TabrisarkPeace

"The best argument against non-exclusive membership forums is a five-minute conversation with the average forum user".

"I don't make jokes. I just watch BaronMatrix and report the facts."

"when you try to invest in a fantasy, ultimately your reality is what suffers."
- Unknown

and finally:

Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.

:cry: - TabrisarkPeace

So I guess next week we'll make the hoop a little smaller. You're getting much better jumping through the larger hoop.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

HOWEVER, one statement of utter ignorance cannot be ignored -- the chipset does not direct the data to a socket determined by the chipset... the OS is the scheduler, it is the OS that determines the node. It is the CPU that maps the memory, because

Then you don't understand the Windows scheduler. Chipsets have kernel drivers and if the driver is not doing the right thing in a case (XP Pro) where the OS has no reign over the HW driver, only calling it, then it will be possible to cause retries by the kernel due to malloc timeouts or having pointers accessed across processor boundaries.

Even when the SW is in charge it still has to have an ACPI chipset driver that responds quickly to IO requests. If that driver has bugs then the OS will still have to handle and correct errors or retry the call.

But I digree, the scheduler's function is to queue kernel access and HAL execution methods. That is why the scheduler is flushed by some testing sites. This clears the queued calls and flushes the memory needed for them. It's functionality is based on thread priority and context.

The current context has the higher priority threads running - except for machine language kernel functions - and if the mechanism has to wait for a misplaced block of RAM that could be instructions OR data, this will cause increased latency in the process.

That is why the first function of a NUMA implementation is to allow processes to have as much proces RAMas possible closest to the socket in terms of SW.

In terms of HW NUMA is moreso used to provide a direct connection for cases when a thread creates global data for threads that may have their data/instructions in the RAM closest to the other socket. The idea is to keep contiguous objects and their methods in the banks of the CPU that is executing the threads.

Reply to BaronMatrix

I don't care whether RD690 can support QFX or not.

Reply to qcmadness

Quote :

I don't care whether RD690 can support QFX or not.

And we thank you for your input.

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

I don't care whether RD690 can support QFX or not.

And we thank you for your input.

The major reason is that RD690 will not affect the performance of the disappointed 4x4 platform.

Reply to qcmadness

Quote :

He doesn't understand that.... he is convinced that the Chipset allocates memory, determines what node to run the thread and which node to put the data....

It is quite funny to watch though...

He forgets the "magic" integrated memory controller in Hammer series?
He is thinking about Intel chipsets? :lol:

Reply to qcmadness

Hehe, when BaronBS claimed that the FSB caused bottlenecking when swapping was occuring, I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Reply to evilr00t

Quote :

I don't see anything related to 'let the chipset manage the memory'....

Well, at least you only needed 2 or 3 edits.

Good job!

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

The major reason is that RD690 will not affect the performance of the disappointed 4x4 platform.

The increasing the negativity answer would be:

Yoour statement is grammatically incorrect as it would actually be stated as "disappointing" and that a broken chipset driver is a broken chipset driver.

The increasing the positivity answer is that no matter what you say QFX significantly closes the gap at the high end (now C2Q) and shows incredible (100%+) scaling in the latest multithreaded THEORETICAL game benchmarks (Valve).

Reply to BaronMatrix

Quote :

BTW, did you notice my new sig.

Yeah, it's very contradictory. "I Don't Get Mad, I Get QFX(hot). Hot is another word for mad.

Reply to 1Tanker

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - The Inq reports that RD690 will support QFX

Please mind

Become a fan

The Inq reports that RD690 will support QFX

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - The Inq reports that RD690 will support QFX

Please mind