Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Confused , does AMD have 1 quad core cpu ?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Socket
  • Quad Core
  • AMD
  • Motherboards
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
September 17, 2007 10:41:41 PM

I am extremely confused and have to upgrade some hardware. Looking at a dual socket cpu motherboard 775 / 771 / ?? whatever AMD has in a quad core cpu and sticking 2 to 4 quad core cpu's into 1 motherboard.

I see socket f and quad core but then it is 2x fx-74's cpu's that is @ dual core. I thought fx-74 would at least be quad core ? or 4 cores per 1 cpu chip ?

Does AMD have a Quad core CPU ie: 1 chips 4 cores or not yet ?
Is it worth waiting for something like this if it might happen ?

Should I just get a 2x or 4x Intel e5335 and a dual / 4 socket socket 771 motherboard with pcie16 slot ? or 2 for SLI ? if available.

Thanks for the help.

More about : confused amd quad core cpu

September 17, 2007 10:46:45 PM

AMD has just released the "barcelona" core, which is a true quad core, the current release is only server chips, the quad opterons. The desktop variant which will firstly fit AM2 motherboards, and later on AM2+ motherboards will be released in a couple of months, it will use the new quad core "barcelona" arcitecture and will hopefully have higher clocked versions of the server chips that were released last week.

The desktop quad cores will be called "phenoms", and as with the quad opterons processors, will be 4 cores on 1 die.
September 17, 2007 11:27:11 PM

Cool then maybe a server motherboard + 2 or 4 barcelona's should be fun. Thanks will look into it. LOL 4 quads yeah droolll.
Related resources
September 17, 2007 11:37:37 PM

maybe this is a stupid question but what do you need that much power for?
September 17, 2007 11:58:22 PM

WarraWarra said:
I am extremely confused and have to upgrade some hardware. Looking at a dual socket cpu motherboard 775 / 771 / ?? whatever AMD has in a quad core cpu and sticking 2 to 4 quad core cpu's into 1 motherboard.

I see socket f and quad core but then it is 2x fx-74's cpu's that is @ dual core. I thought fx-74 would at least be quad core ? or 4 cores per 1 cpu chip ?

Does AMD have a Quad core CPU ie: 1 chips 4 cores or not yet ?
Is it worth waiting for something like this if it might happen ?

Should I just get a 2x or 4x Intel e5335 and a dual / 4 socket socket 771 motherboard with pcie16 slot ? or 2 for SLI ? if available.

Thanks for the help.

With Intel you get very few pci-e lanes and NO SLI a long with high cost FB-DIMMS.
September 18, 2007 12:19:28 AM

human error is a good name --I m referring to your quote "which is a true quad core"

The only thing true about the "barcie" is its truly slower and truly not as good as the "untrue Intel quad core" - Truly you would be better served with a 775 socket and not wait for amd since its unlikely they will have a better product this decade!

who says its a true quad core - i mean its ok to quote amd's propaganda bs which has truely backfired (confrim by a check of their stock price) - but too use a "true" quad core as a "true" difinition of what is or is not a quad core makes me cringe!

a "true" quad core has 4 cores - regardless if the cores are on 1 die or 2!

lets make sure we do not propagate a bad marketing champaign by the second rate cpu maker or amd!

IFB amd is always #2!
September 18, 2007 12:25:10 AM

Actually many 775 socket mobos are sli ready - nvidia will not licience sli to intel - f'n chineese!

intel lets nvidia build chipsets and licence tech but nvidia does not reciprocate. nvidia sucks!

SO LETS GET IT STRAIT INTEL HAS SLI - NVIDIA WILL NOT LET THEM SELL IT!

VERY FEW PCI-E LANES????

975x chipset has been out for years with dual 16x lanes

new x38 has the same - its out early - and all the new dx tests show the ati hd 2900xt will beat 8800gtx with new drivers!

haha amd fanatics intel wins again!

X38 is out soon!

http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2007/09/17...
September 18, 2007 8:17:46 AM

dragonsprayer said:
human error is a good name --I m referring to your quote "which is a true quad core"

The only thing true about the "barcie" is its truly slower and truly not as good as the "untrue Intel quad core" - Truly you would be better served with a 775 socket and not wait for amd since its unlikely they will have a better product this decade!

who says its a true quad core - i mean its ok to quote amd's propaganda bs which has truely backfired (confrim by a check of their stock price) - but too use a "true" quad core as a "true" difinition of what is or is not a quad core makes me cringe!

a "true" quad core has 4 cores - regardless if the cores are on 1 die or 2!

lets make sure we do not propagate a bad marketing champaign by the second rate cpu maker or amd!

IFB amd is always #2!


Really there was no error in my post, barcy is the first true quad core - my wording stating true quad was not a snipe at intel processors, but rather an attampt at disinguishing barcy away from a dual socket mobo with 2 dual cores, which was mentioned in the OP as an option. The question asked about quad core availability from AMD, i answered it, and since the desktop variant is not out yet we don't know how it will perform against intel's core 2 quads, or penryn (although they look to be in a very similar performance bracket to the current intel quad offerings, and since i don't know how well penryn is, we can only speculate as to how much their performance will lag behind it.

And as to the argument on "best processor" it depends on why the person wants it - AMD's barcy will be better power consumption and heat wise compared with intels' (and thus better in a video encoding box where the user is concerned about power bills/heat more than speed), BUT intels' will have the advantage of higher clock speeds and penryn around the corner will be producing less heat than current intel quads.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b À AMD
September 18, 2007 10:22:10 AM

Agreed, human_error!! ^^^
September 18, 2007 11:21:51 AM

I enjoy reading about the articles about AMD's smart/bad decision to not make a quad core until they had a 'true quad-core'. Some top honcho at AMD was quoted as saying that they realize now that the 'true quad-core' arguement is mute. If they had the choice to do true quad-core or glue together 2 dual cores all over again, they'd do 2 dual cores. They determined after the fact that they could have glued 2 dual cores together easily and marketed it, but they didn't realize this until the true quad-core was about to hit the market. The fact that they even admit they made the mistake says alot. Not many companies will admit their errors(cough, Microsoft).
September 18, 2007 1:52:23 PM

Can you even buy a AMD Quad...
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 18, 2007 2:17:14 PM

First of all, what are you doing that would require 8 cores?
September 23, 2007 7:04:56 AM

Quote:
Your saying they didnt realize they could put two dual cores together to make a quad core until the quad core hit the market??? LOOOL. Thats the funniest thing Ive read today.
You seriously think that the engineers at AMD didnt realized they could make a quad with 2 dual cores? If you believe that, you win the ignoramous of the week award. :pt1cable: 
The mistake was that they didnt make a quad core (2 dual cores) when Intel did, not that they didnt realize they could do it. They wanted to better Intel by releasing the first true quad. However with all the problems that caused delays, it hurt them very badly in the end. That was AMD's biggest mistake of the year.


ROFL at YOU! There was some kind of problem with the signal termination for their Hypertransport technology. If they wanted to glue 2 together it was going to require a partial redesign of the silicon to allow for 2 dual cores to be glued together to make 1 quad core. Later when they had overcome some kind of obstacle with Barcy, they realized the same solution would have worked with their dual cores without a silicon redesign.

On another note, don't you think that AMD thought of gluing 2 chips together like Intel even if it was only to have a chip to compete with? If I were a competitor I'd want a chip to compete, and so I think it's very likely there was an engineering reason why they didn't do it.

YOU win the Ignoramus award buddy. :) 

You should have kept your mouth shut, than opened it and removed all doubt.

BTW, i'm not flaming you, I'm just having some fun times tonight. :)  I'd love to provide a link, but I can't seem to find the article I read :( .
September 23, 2007 7:28:09 AM

human_error said:
Really there was no error in my post, barcy is the first true quad core - my wording stating true quad was not a snipe at intel processors, but rather an attampt at disinguishing barcy away from a dual socket mobo with 2 dual cores, which was mentioned in the OP as an option. The question asked about quad core availability from AMD, i answered it, and since the desktop variant is not out yet we don't know how it will perform against intel's core 2 quads, or penryn (although they look to be in a very similar performance bracket to the current intel quad offerings, and since i don't know how well penryn is, we can only speculate as to how much their performance will lag behind it.

And as to the argument on "best processor" it depends on why the person wants it - AMD's barcy will be better power consumption and heat wise compared with intels' (and thus better in a video encoding box where the user is concerned about power bills/heat more than speed), BUT intels' will have the advantage of higher clock speeds and penryn around the corner will be producing less heat than current intel quads.



yes human, you are right!

the whole amd marketing thing drives me crazzzy - as you say its whats the best
September 23, 2007 7:34:57 AM

I don't think the word 'true' is accurate. Both company's have quad cores.

AMD's design does have advantages such as:

- Slower
- Beat to market by 10 months
- Low Yields
- Paper Launch
- Still no desktop quad core
- Bankruptcy
September 23, 2007 7:38:04 AM

the whole "true" thing will haunt amd for many many years!

mark my words!
September 23, 2007 8:29:23 PM

nickc07 said:
maybe this is a stupid question but what do you need that much power for?


That's just what I was wondering.