Barcelona_Xtreme
Distinguished
- Dec 18, 2006
- 72
- 0
- 18,630
Give AMD credit, they've started an industry trend! :lol:
Personally, I don't have particularly high hopes for Quad FX in its current state.
That being said, I think this "V8" is dead in the water as it is if thay don't support SLI and unbuffered memory.
Personally, I don't have particularly high hopes for Quad FX in its current state.
That being said, I think this "V8" is dead in the water as it is if thay don't support SLI and unbuffered memory.
1Tanker
Splendid
- Apr 28, 2006
- 4,645
- 1
- 22,780
Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???
Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....
This just gets more comical by the week.
JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:
Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."
Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???
Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....
This just gets more comical by the week.
JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:
Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."
Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."
Yeh, but what does it make the V8? A glued dual core double quad, a glued mobo dual quad or a glued mobo, glued dual core octocore?
God, Im confused now.
qurious69ss
Distinguished
- Mar 4, 2006
- 474
- 0
- 18,780
It's a proof of concept which means that if you wanted one today you could have one, but unlike amd's 4X4 joke it is not actually being sold as a platform.
turpit
Splendid
- Feb 12, 2006
- 6,373
- 0
- 25,780
Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???
Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....
This just gets more comical by the week.
JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:
Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."
Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."
What's worse is that they call the darn thing V8 ---- I mean, come on 4x4 to V8 --- what is this??? Show me a hybrid, like the Prius -- say a CPU and GPU on the same chip, now we're talkin'.LMAO.
Maybe its a subtle marketeering tactic to get the over 50-60's hotrod demographic interested in computers
qurious69ss
Distinguished
- Mar 4, 2006
- 474
- 0
- 18,780
Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???
Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....
This just gets more comical by the week.
JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:
Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."
Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."
What's worse is that they call the darn thing V8 ---- I mean, come on 4x4 to V8 --- what is this??? Show me a hybrid, like the Prius -- say a CPU and GPU on the same chip, now we're talkin'.Jack, I can positively tell you that Intel doesn't have anything called a V8 on their roadmap. This name was given by dailytech or whomever, but like I said before this is just a proof of concept. Intel is not that desperate yet.
First: What do you have against FB-DIMM? Your DDR2 rigs are running in dual channel mode.
While Intel's server chipsets can run FB-DIMM in quad channel mode.
(For double the bandwidth I can live with a small latency hit.)
AMD can also do the quad-channel trick using 2 memory controllers on the 4x4 platform.
But they also take the latency hit if a CPU needs to access data that happens to be in the memory range of the other CPU's controller.
Second: Intel server chipsets can daisy-chain southbridges to create extra PCI-E lanes.
They already use a 3th chip between the nortbridge and soutbridge to provide PCI-X.
Since PCI, PCI-X and PCI-E are all software compatible it would not be a difficult task to create a chip that provides extra PCI-E lanes.
So they can build a mobo with multiple 16x PCI-E slots if they want to.
They only downside is the cost. FB-DIMM is expensive and so are the Intel server chipsets.
On the other side: If you are really want to use setups like this for gaming, does the cost really matter to you?
While Intel's server chipsets can run FB-DIMM in quad channel mode.
(For double the bandwidth I can live with a small latency hit.)
AMD can also do the quad-channel trick using 2 memory controllers on the 4x4 platform.
But they also take the latency hit if a CPU needs to access data that happens to be in the memory range of the other CPU's controller.
Second: Intel server chipsets can daisy-chain southbridges to create extra PCI-E lanes.
They already use a 3th chip between the nortbridge and soutbridge to provide PCI-X.
Since PCI, PCI-X and PCI-E are all software compatible it would not be a difficult task to create a chip that provides extra PCI-E lanes.
So they can build a mobo with multiple 16x PCI-E slots if they want to.
They only downside is the cost. FB-DIMM is expensive and so are the Intel server chipsets.
On the other side: If you are really want to use setups like this for gaming, does the cost really matter to you?
I think you need to understand this a little better before you post. Trying reading Tom's article..
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces2007_intel_eight_core/
"The system was the brainchild of Francois Piednoel, an engineer with Intel's benchmarking team. He wanted to show how simple it was to make an 8-core workstation with regular parts. "We're not marketing it, but if you want it and need it, it's available."
Piednoel added that the parts weren't "crazy expensive" and could easily be purchased through online retailers like Newegg or Gamepc.com."
So unlike AMD... Intel is not actually trying to market this beast but instead is just trying to make a point about what is possible if you choose to build one.
- Mar 14, 2006
- 190
- 0
- 18,680
What's the point? Anybody who want's to spend that kind of money knows about dual socket boards. Do they need to take a shot at AMD's blunder? It's like saying "AMD can make crap products for gaming, well we can take parts of the shelf and make a rig that runs hot, costs a ton, and doesn't deliver performance too."
IMO, the point or proof of concept for whats is currently possible in a multicore setup today. I don't think Intel is telling its customer, "hey checkout OUR cool MEGATASKING Platform" so go out and buy one,...like AMD is trying to do. Or maybe it's just a demo where they have some benchies thats say, hey AMD, our beast sucks less than yours and we did it with off the self items. In either case, I don't think Intel is not trying to fool anyone here with trickly marketing tactics.
shinigamiX
Distinguished
- Jan 8, 2006
- 1,107
- 0
- 19,280
Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???
Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....
This just gets more comical by the week.
JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:
Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."
Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."
The thing to do then is to beat both kids up and ask "Who's your daddy now, bitch?"
Regarding "V8", I guess all we can do is hope that it stays a POC.
IMO, the point or proof of concept for whats is currently possible in a multicore setup today. I don't think Intel is telling its customer, "hey checkout OUR cool MEGATASKING Platform" so go out and buy one,...like AMD is trying to do. Or maybe it's just a demo where they have some benchies thats say, hey AMD, our beast sucks less than yours and we did it with off the self items. In either case, I don't think Intel is not trying to fool anyone here with trickly marketing tactics.
DVM
there is no reason for intel to point out the intel version of 4x4 unless they have an advantage in doing so. i doubt they want to sell it but rather point out that its not inovative and not new. the 4x4 platform is being exposed by this article, not being sold by intel. i think we all understand this. i think its funny 4x4 is more expensive.
OK.. i agree with that as i think it supports my send 2nd point....
LOL this multi socket thing is getting out of hand.
How the heck is 'V8' geared towards the gamer with FB-DIMMs and no SLI support? :roll:
This is all PR people, nothing else.
AMD wants to have more cores than Intel by using 4x4, and Intel says 'ME TOO!'
How the heck is 'V8' geared towards the gamer with FB-DIMMs and no SLI support? :roll:
This is all PR people, nothing else.
AMD wants to have more cores than Intel by using 4x4, and Intel says 'ME TOO!'
1Tanker
Splendid
- Apr 28, 2006
- 4,645
- 1
- 22,780
I dont think you get how the propaganda machine works.4x4 was designed for desktop,V8 was borrowed from a 2u server.who wants to pay for fbdimms?
cooler yet is that the intel sytem before amd catches up will friggen scream,my gawd dewd !!! its just cool all the way around to have both these loosers doing this crap.what it could turn into is awesome.
Having read a few other news releases on the CES report, it is clear that this is not something Intel will try --- so it appears to be more of a joke than anything else.
I mean get it... V8, 'Wow, I could of had a V8'
It might have been cheaper for Intel to copy AMD's other tactic, and hand out a "2P Desktop's For Dummies" pamphlet. :tongue: heheheTRENDING THREADS
-
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram