AMD 4x4 Preview

[Furen]

Here.

Interesting info, though some of it seems to be in conflict with what we've heard before.

The pricing looks particularly interesting. If the 2.6GHz parts are indeed $599 then 4x4 could be quite a decent alternative to Kentsfield. The motherboards will, obviously, still be a bit more expensive (understatement of the year) than on the Intel side but the one Asus motherboard that we've looked at screams extreme high-end. I wonder if we'll ever see a cheaper alternative with a more-pedestrian chipset.

Another interesting thing is that an AMD EMEA representative is calling RevB/K8L K10. I suppose it doesnt matter what the damn thing is called since its specs are already set but I wonder just WHEN did it become K10, since its beginning or rather recently?

 

[RichUK]

Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor.

Not only was AMD first with dual-core, they were first by much longer than a month. Interesting article, though. I wonder why there were no benchmarks?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor.

Not only was AMD first with dual-core, they were first by much longer than a month. Interesting article, though. I wonder why there were no benchmarks?

Ummm folks???? Wasn't Intel was first to market with Dual Core CPU's?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Furen
Here.

Interesting info, though some of it seems to be in conflict with what we've heard before.

The pricing looks particularly interesting. If the 2.6GHz parts are indeed $599 then 4x4 could be quite a decent alternative to Kentsfield. The motherboards will, obviously, still be a bit more expensive (understatement of the year) than on the Intel side but the one Asus motherboard that we've looked at screams extreme high-end. I wonder if we'll ever see a cheaper alternative with a more-pedestrian chipset.

Another interesting thing is that an AMD EMEA representative is calling RevB/K8L K10. I suppose it doesnt matter what the damn thing is called since its specs are already set but I wonder just WHEN did it become K10, since its beginning or rather recently?

From the article:
"AMD has told us that the platform will not be more expensive than Intel's quad-core. Since both nForce 680i SLI and 680a SLI use similar chipsets, there won't be much difference in motherboard pricing"

So I imagine that it mobos will run on par with the 680i. We need to also remember that the only Asus board out so far is a WS (workstation) class mobo...

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor.

Not only was AMD first with dual-core, they were first by much longer than a month. Interesting article, though. I wonder why there were no benchmarks?

Ummm folks???? Wasn't Intel was first to market with Dual Core CPU's?

No. Though, technically, Intel paper launched the Pentium Ds about a month before the X2s. You couldn't buy a PD until a month after the X2s were launched though. The X2s were available within days of their official launch.

 

[nyker96]

interesting article but not too much new info on the 4x4.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: nyker96
interesting article but not too much new info on the 4x4.

Not technically, but price wise there is...

"AMD explained that the new Quad FX processors will be retailing in packages of matched pairs, the most expensive of which (the FX-74) will correspond in price to Intel's QX6700. So for around the same money you could either buy one Intel processor with four cores, or get two AMD ones with a pair of cores each"

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Viditor
From the article:
"AMD has told us that the platform will not be more expensive than Intel's quad-core. Since both nForce 680i SLI and 680a SLI use similar chipsets, there won't be much difference in motherboard pricing"

So I imagine that it mobos will run on par with the 680i. We need to also remember that the only Asus board out so far is a WS (workstation) class mobo...

Having two sockets and an eATX design will increase the price, no questions about it. You also need to route the two memory controllers which increases the trace-count massively. Even if the 680a is $300 bucks (which would be pretty good), there's still the fact that you can throw a Kentsfield onto a $100 motherboard, so this is a big drawback to the AMD platform. I really do hope we see some cheaper motherboards later on but as of right now (with only one motherboard in production) Intel motherboards will be cheaper, significnatly.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: RichUK
Quote from the article:

Just as Intel beat AMD to dual-core by a month or so,

Huh, it was my understanding that AMD produced the first dual core processor.

Not only was AMD first with dual-core, they were first by much longer than a month. Interesting article, though. I wonder why there were no benchmarks?

Ummm folks???? Wasn't Intel was first to market with Dual Core CPU's?

No. Though, technically, Intel paper launched the Pentium Ds about a month before the X2s. You couldn't buy a PD until a month after the X2s were launched though. The X2s were available within days of their official launch.

Exactly, but the INtel marketers and the fanboys like the claim!!! Plus their dual core was not a native 2 core and was a real POS!!!!

 

[The-Noid]

Am I the only one that thinks this screams "ridiculous." This may be the biggest niche computer part ever created.

 

[Duvie]

I agree with the 4 video cards, but i like the idea of being ready to run 8x4 platform with the opteron based on K10 comes on in 1H of 07!!!! Read the Quadfather part 2 segement of the article

 

[lopri]

Even after the delay I can't help but think this platform is rushed out. Like the reviewer suggests, separate memory pool for each CPU will cause a performance loss when a CPU needs data from the other CPU's memory. Besides, if I'm not mistaken dual-channel works in minimum of 2 DIMM slot configuration? Then the 4x4 in current form (2 memory controllers / 2 separate memory channel) will require users to fill all 4 memory slots to enjoy dual-channel performance. If you plug only 2 DIMMs, each CPU will be fed data via its own single-channel memory.. What if a user install 2 sticks on one CPU side only? I'm guessing a performance loss there, too. So you need at least 2 memory sticks for each CPU, and this brings up another practical issue: Many people buy 2 x 1GB memory kit these days, and many use 32-bit Windows. So unless you fill all 4 slots with 512MB sticks, having 4 GB of memory naturally exclude the possibility of running 32-bit OS. (Well, it does run but one ought to be smarter than that)

It is my understanding from what we've heard so far. If my understanding is wrong, please enlighten. Pricing information is, if true, refreshing but I think AMD needs to be even more aggressive. $600 (2 x FX70)~$800 (2 x FX74) maybe?

 

[Duvie]

As far as I know 4gb runs fine in WinXP pro.....Also filling 4 slots to run each cpu dual channel is not anything new to those of us that have bought dual opteron boards....My Iwill board had 4 slots per cpu but still needed 2 per each cpu to effectively have dual channel...NO big deal..None of these are the big issues....

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Viditor
From the article:
"AMD has told us that the platform will not be more expensive than Intel's quad-core. Since both nForce 680i SLI and 680a SLI use similar chipsets, there won't be much difference in motherboard pricing"

So I imagine that it mobos will run on par with the 680i. We need to also remember that the only Asus board out so far is a WS (workstation) class mobo...

There can be hardly any similarity at all between the two chipsets, aside from peripheral functions (USB, SATA, etc.). The bulk of the performance difference between the two will come from a completely different underlying technology - FSB versus HT, chipset memory controller versus ODMC.

The author of the article obviously isn't very qualified.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: Viditor
From the article:
"AMD has told us that the platform will not be more expensive than Intel's quad-core. Since both nForce 680i SLI and 680a SLI use similar chipsets, there won't be much difference in motherboard pricing"

So I imagine that it mobos will run on par with the 680i. We need to also remember that the only Asus board out so far is a WS (workstation) class mobo...

Having two sockets and an eATX design will increase the price, no questions about it. You also need to route the two memory controllers which increases the trace-count massively. Even if the 680a is $300 bucks (which would be pretty good), there's still the fact that you can throw a Kentsfield onto a $100 motherboard, so this is a big drawback to the AMD platform. I really do hope we see some cheaper motherboards later on but as of right now (with only one motherboard in production) Intel motherboards will be cheaper, significnatly.

Some very good points Furen...I agree. However, I beleive that the cost of the chipsets is less than $100 (which actually further strengthens your points...).

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: lopri
Even after the delay I can't help but think this platform is rushed out. Like the reviewer suggests, separate memory pool for each CPU will cause a performance loss when a CPU needs data from the other CPU's memory. Besides, if I'm not mistaken dual-channel works in minimum of 2 DIMM slot configuration? Then the 4x4 in current form (2 memory controllers / 2 separate memory channel) will require users to fill all 4 memory slots to enjoy dual-channel performance. If you plug only 2 DIMMs, each CPU will be fed data via its own single-channel memory.. What if a user install 2 sticks on one CPU side only? I'm guessing a performance loss there, too. So you need at least 2 memory sticks for each CPU, and this brings up another practical issue: Many people buy 2 x 1GB memory kit these days, and many use 32-bit Windows. So unless you fill all 4 slots with 512MB sticks, having 4 GB of memory naturally exclude the possibility of running 32-bit OS. (Well, it does run but one ought to be smarter than that)

It is my understanding from what we've heard so far. If my understanding is wrong, please enlighten. Pricing information is, if true, refreshing but I think AMD needs to be even more aggressive. $600 (2 x FX70)~$800 (2 x FX74) maybe?

If this was for a mid-line system, I would agree with your assessment lopri...but as Duvie points out, this is just fine for platforms at this level. In fact, my only problem with the platform at this point is that there should actually be 8 memory slots (and this may still happen on other mobos) so we can bump the memory up to 16GB...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Viditor
From the article:
"AMD has told us that the platform will not be more expensive than Intel's quad-core. Since both nForce 680i SLI and 680a SLI use similar chipsets, there won't be much difference in motherboard pricing"

So I imagine that it mobos will run on par with the 680i. We need to also remember that the only Asus board out so far is a WS (workstation) class mobo...

There can be hardly any similarity at all between the two chipsets, aside from peripheral functions (USB, SATA, etc.). The bulk of the performance difference between the two will come from a completely different underlying technology - FSB versus HT, chipset memory controller versus ODMC.

The author of the article obviously isn't very qualified.

I don't know...as the comment was made with respect to costings, it could be that the functions (USB, SATA, etc...) are what drive the price. If that's the case, then the article is correct...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: lopri
Even after the delay I can't help but think this platform is rushed out. Like the reviewer suggests, separate memory pool for each CPU will cause a performance loss when a CPU needs data from the other CPU's memory. Besides, if I'm not mistaken dual-channel works in minimum of 2 DIMM slot configuration? Then the 4x4 in current form (2 memory controllers / 2 separate memory channel) will require users to fill all 4 memory slots to enjoy dual-channel performance. If you plug only 2 DIMMs, each CPU will be fed data via its own single-channel memory.. What if a user install 2 sticks on one CPU side only? I'm guessing a performance loss there, too. So you need at least 2 memory sticks for each CPU, and this brings up another practical issue: Many people buy 2 x 1GB memory kit these days, and many use 32-bit Windows. So unless you fill all 4 slots with 512MB sticks, having 4 GB of memory naturally exclude the possibility of running 32-bit OS. (Well, it does run but one ought to be smarter than that)

It is my understanding from what we've heard so far. If my understanding is wrong, please enlighten. Pricing information is, if true, refreshing but I think AMD needs to be even more aggressive. $600 (2 x FX70)~$800 (2 x FX74) maybe?

If this was for a mid-line system, I would agree with your assessment lopri...but as Duvie points out, this is just fine for platforms at this level. In fact, my only problem with the platform at this point is that there should actually be 8 memory slots (and this may still happen on other mobos) so we can bump the memory up to 16GB...

It could but it will have to be an EATX form like most of the dual and quad opteron boards now...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Duvie


If this was for a mid-line system, I would agree with your assessment lopri...but as Duvie points out, this is just fine for platforms at this level. In fact, my only problem with the platform at this point is that there should actually be 8 memory slots (and this may still happen on other mobos) so we can bump the memory up to 16GB...

It could but it will have to be an EATX form like most of the dual and quad opteron boards now...[/quote]

Agreed...but with 4 PCIe slots, I was pretty much expecting that.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Duvie


If this was for a mid-line system, I would agree with your assessment lopri...but as Duvie points out, this is just fine for platforms at this level. In fact, my only problem with the platform at this point is that there should actually be 8 memory slots (and this may still happen on other mobos) so we can bump the memory up to 16GB...

It could but it will have to be an EATX form like most of the dual and quad opteron boards now...

Agreed...but with 4 PCIe slots, I was pretty much expecting that.[/quote]



Except if you notice you get nothing else!!!! They basically substituted out all th eregular pci slots for more pci-e slots...

the EATX is going to move this board further to the right and then they likely go with a cpu high left and ram below that, with ram high right and a cpu below that...very similar to my Dk8x mobo...

 

[ProSlayer]

So, two CPU coolers are required for this?

 

[Duvie]

Yep!! think pairs....pair of cpus...pair of pair of memory for dual channel...and pair of pair of video cards for quad SLI....


What I wonder is how are they going to get the quads cores to run the quad SLI with anything more then just using one core and then ofcourse being the bottleneck....Games dont use multithreading enough to use dual core let alone to be even warranted for quad cores...I would think a Nice F@H box but that being said 3ghz of FX power is like only a 2.66hz C2D in most apps but seems it is even less in F@H that may unfairly favor INtel cpus (that is for another rant)

bottomline I think it is a niche market as stated above

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Duvie
It could but it will have to be an EATX form like most of the dual and quad opteron boards now...

Isn't it EATX already? Part of the reason why this motherboard lacks more DRAM slots is, I believe, because they crammed so much freaking IO into it. 4x 16x PCIe slots takes a lot of motherboard real estate. The same can be said about the 12 SATA ports, who knows how many USB headers, etc.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

amd really should have made a glued quad core rahter than this POS.
i love amd and hope they survive (cuz other wise intell would never give us good product or pricing) but this is ridiculous.

nobody wants to hear how bad non-native quad cores are dumb asses. a single kentfieild system will cost less, oc more, perform better, and fit in a ATX case. winner kentsfield