AMD 4X4 review

[Makaveli]

The only thing I don't like about the Xbit lab testing is they complain about the high latency of the memory subsystem, yet they don't show any tests of the latency compared to the other platforms.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Don't any of the reviews actually USE the 4 QSLI slots??

Maybe most reviewers don't have 1 Kilowatt PSUs to play around with.

 

[Maximilian]

Come on, who seriously had high expectations for this? Theyre still 90nm A64's basically, theres nothing particularly new here. Plus cant you already get dual dual core? Dunno if they made dual core's for socket 940 but i got a dual cpu 940 board here, maybe i can make my own outdated 4x4

Nothings gonna change until K8L comes around. Even then nothing might change, we'll see.

 

[blank98]

Is it just me or is the 4x4 kinda pathetic, lets see the Kensfield beats the hell oit of it in most of the benchmarks is a lot cheaper and used half the power. Also it takes up half the motherboard lol. Oh and it can't overclock worth ******.

 

[tylerw13]

Originally posted by: blank98
Is it just me or is the 4x4 kinda pathetic, lets see the Kensfield beats the hell oit of it in most of the benchmarks is a lot cheaper and used half the power. Also it takes up half the motherboard lol. Oh and it can't overclock worth ******.

i just cant believe the power consomption on that thing its nuts...amd totally needs there 65 nm stuff its worthless to even buy it really....just wait till they come out with 65nm stuff and somthing that can overclock and not run so hot and so much power!!! i just think that is nuts...freakin amd i dont know about any of you guys but i think is a waste to have even come out with this thing..what do you guys think?

 

[swtethan]

someone will buy this, just not anyone here.

 

[nyker96]

Like I said before, if you want to go 8core later get this. But if not stay away. I wished AMD would just slap 2xdual core together and make a fake quad like Intel too, this way they don't need anything special to run it and probably similar results w/o the high power need.

 

[blank98]

Litterally it makes 0 sense to buy this. AMD has totally lost it if you ask me.

 

[n19htmare]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Don't any of the reviews actually USE the 4 QSLI slots??

http://hardware.thgweb.de/2006/11/30/am...fx74_quadcore_vierkern_cpu/page18.html

Look at the last graph, but i think "mit 4 Grafikkarten (4x4)" means with four graphics cards..... 943W!!!!!!!!
I chuckled a lil.

 

[HurleyBird]

I'm withholding final judgment until Vista testing.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: Accord99
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx.html

Just been looking at that - the FX74 is awful compared to Intel's offerings

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Like I said before, if you want to go 8core later get this. But if not stay away. I wished AMD would just slap 2xdual core together and make a fake quad like Intel too, this way they don't need anything special to run it and probably similar results w/o the high power need.

The power requirements would be just as bad if they put the chips in one package. It's so high because they are still using 90nm chips for this.

 

[Mr Vain]

I think that many here are not looking at the future potential offered by this platform.

:disgust:

 

[Canai]

Hey, at least it will double as a 500-1000 watt space heater!

 

[tylerw13]

Originally posted by: Mr Vain
I think that many here are not looking at the future potential offered by this platform.

:disgust:

i see a total future potential...i would love to see more dual processor non server boards that you could put two kentfeilds or other processors in, but you have to be resonable with the power draw....all i am saying is dont come out with worthless 90 nm process chips for something that would be SO much better if it were based on something less power hungry and heat creating....it would be much more enthusiest friendly....it just doesnt make sence to come out with something like that when in 6 months they "should" have 65 nm processors...if i were a head of the amd company there is no way i would waste my money on this.

anyone that would buy this without waiting for the 65nm processor that will be coming out needs to get their head checked

 

[DrMrLordX]

Anandtech has their own review up, and the quad FX gets beaten pretty soundly across the board in their benches. Is anyone surprised?

Sure, 4x4 has future potential, but it's a lame pig right now. There is no reason to adopt it until AMD puts some better CPUs out there.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: nyker96
Like I said before, if you want to go 8core later get this. But if not stay away. I wished AMD would just slap 2xdual core together and make a fake quad like Intel too, this way they don't need anything special to run it and probably similar results w/o the high power need.

The power requirements would be just as bad if they put the chips in one package. It's so high because they are still using 90nm chips for this.

There are several reasons why its so high:

First, the CPUs are highly overclocked. They have a default vcore of 1.475v, that's pretty much my limit when overclocking AMD's 90nm chips and it's stock for these. AMD CPUs draw significantly more power as you raise the clock speed beyond 2.6GHz, too, so these things look like a leakfest. I doubt they even fit their 125W TDP, since AMD's original specs called for a 1.35-1.4v stock vcore. For reference, two Opteron 280s (2.4GHz) draw 265W at full load, with DDR1, and these are full-blow 95W parts.

Second, the motherboard does not help. Each of those two chipsets (there are basically two Nforce570s on this motherboard) draws something like 30W at idle and close to 50W at full load.

I think AMD had good intentions with its 4x4 platform, it wanted to give comparable performance to Intel's QX6700 (which, for the most part, it achieves) and a platform that gave users all kinds of expansion capabilities. This would have made 4x4 a compelling platform. The problem is that it went to the extreme with this and ultimately ended up making the platform absolutely horrible. 400W at idle is just sick, you could actually drive more than two complete systems with that.

 

[Mr Vain]

Originally posted by: tylerw13

Originally posted by: Mr Vain
I think that many here are not looking at the future potential offered by this platform.

:disgust:

i see a total future potential...i would love to see more dual processor non server boards that you could put two kentfeilds or other processors in, but you have to be resonable with the power draw....all i am saying is dont come out with worthless 90 nm process chips for something that would be SO much better if it were based on something less power hungry and heat creating....it would be much more enthusiest friendly....it just doesnt make sence to come out with something like that when in 6 months they "should" have 65 nm processors...if i were a head of the amd company there is no way i would waste my money on this. anyone that would buy this without waiting for the 65nm processor that will be coming out needs to get their head checked

You need to crawl before you can walk!

Hey they got the platform out with some not so good CPU?s (what did you expect)?
It can only get better from here on; you should be applauding them for initiating innovation and a future proof platform that offers more promise for the enthusiast.

That?s more that what Intel is doing at the platform level.

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: nyker96
Like I said before, if you want to go 8core later get this. But if not stay away. I wished AMD would just slap 2xdual core together and make a fake quad like Intel too, this way they don't need anything special to run it and probably similar results w/o the high power need.

The power requirements would be just as bad if they put the chips in one package. It's so high because they are still using 90nm chips for this.

There are several reasons why its so high:

First, the CPUs are highly overclocked. They have a default vcore of 1.475v, that's pretty much my limit when overclocking AMD's 90nm chips and it's stock for these. AMD CPUs draw significantly more power as you raise the clock speed beyond 2.6GHz, too, so these things look like a leakfest. I doubt they even fit their 125W TDP, since AMD's original specs called for a 1.35-1.4v stock vcore. For reference, two Opteron 280s (2.4GHz) draw 265W at full load, with DDR1, and these are full-blow 95W parts.

Second, the motherboard does not help. Each of those two chipsets (there are basically two Nforce570s on this motherboard) draws something like 30W at idle and close to 50W at full load.

I think AMD had good intentions with its 4x4 platform, it wanted to give comparable performance to Intel's QX6700 (which, for the most part, it achieves) and a platform that gave users all kinds of expansion capabilities. This would have made 4x4 a compelling platform. The problem is that it went to the extreme with this and ultimately ended up making the platform absolutely horrible. 400W at idle is just sick, you could actually drive more than two complete systems with that.

I do agree that 90nm is hot and making a slap-together quad out of them will be pretty hot as well. However, Kensfield isn't doing twice TDP as two C2D system combined. It actually just added about 60 Watt to a non-quad C2D system for the 2 additional cores. I think the heat problem with 4x4 is everything is doubled. It's just a brute force design. So 4x4 literally is = 2xsingle dual core system including board and everything. Although AMD might laugh at Intel for a brute force chip design in Kensfield, its brute forced system design in 4x4 is even more ludicrous.

 

[coldpower27]

Do keep in mind when you move to Dual Quad Cores processors on this platform that power consumption is unlikely to be decrease by much if at all, since basically all the power savings created by the 65nm process goes to adding 2 additional cores.

I don't think 4x4 was ever meant to be power economical in any sort of mind.

I mean later on you will have something like 2 Quad Core K8L/K10's for maybe 225-250W combined. As well as Quad SLI which will consume 300W+ on it's own as well, add to that the relatively hot chipsets Nvidia tends to produce for their high end platforms and your basically stuck with high power consumption anyway you slice it.

Though at least the power consumption can then be justified later as the performance of that platform should be pretty good overall, if all goes according to plan of course.

 

[tylerw13]

You need to crawl before you can walk!

Hey they got the platform out with some not so good CPU?s (what did you expect)?
It can only get better from here on; you should be applauding them for initiating innovation and a future proof platform that offers more promise for the enthusiast.



that makes no sence at all why bring out innovation with a half a$$ piece of hardware that ppl arent even going to buy till you come out with another and better system...you are just spinning your wheels and wasting money on a product that wont sell and that will be replaced in 6 months anyway....how do you even make sence of that....of course you can only get better....they cant get any worse than this....i would hope not anyway...i like amd but dang that is just sickening what they came out with, its as simple as that


Edit: one more thing this really isnt innovation...they have had multi processor boards for quite some time....just not in boards other than server boards

 

[Cooler]

At least now AMD has no room to state that Intel two cores on one package is cheap work around true quad core. Two CPU on two different sockets is even a worse idea for ocing and Watts used. I really Hope K8L is C2D level in profromance so that will force price cuts for Intel.

 

[Mr Vain]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Do keep in mind when you move to Dual Quad Cores processors on this platform that power consumption is unlikely to be decrease by much if at all, since basically all the power savings created by the 65nm process goes to adding 2 additional cores.

I don't think 4x4 was ever meant to be power economical in any sort of mind.

I mean later on you will have something like 2 Quad Core K8L/K10's for maybe 225-250W combined. As well as Quad SLI which will consume 300W+ on it's own as well, add to that the relatively hot chipsets Nvidia tends to produce for their high end platforms and your basically stuck with high power consumption anyway you slice it.

Though at least the power consumption can then be justified later as the performance of that platform should be pretty good overall, if all goes according to plan of course.

Don?t forget that the new AMD 4Core CPU?s, should be able power down individual cores when not in use, decreasing power consumption.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Mr Vain

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Do keep in mind when you move to Dual Quad Cores processors on this platform that power consumption is unlikely to be decrease by much if at all, since basically all the power savings created by the 65nm process goes to adding 2 additional cores.

I don't think 4x4 was ever meant to be power economical in any sort of mind.

I mean later on you will have something like 2 Quad Core K8L/K10's for maybe 225-250W combined. As well as Quad SLI which will consume 300W+ on it's own as well, add to that the relatively hot chipsets Nvidia tends to produce for their high end platforms and your basically stuck with high power consumption anyway you slice it.

Though at least the power consumption can then be justified later as the performance of that platform should be pretty good overall, if all goes according to plan of course.

Don?t forget that the new AMD 4Core CPU?s, should be able power down individual cores when not in use, decreasing power consumption.

I was talking in terms of load power consumption not idling. Idling should see some benefits yes, as you should have working Cool'n'Quiet as well as the ability to power individual cores.

 

[Mr Vain]

Originally posted by: tylerw13
You need to crawl before you can walk!

Hey they got the platform out with some not so good CPU?s (what did you expect)?
It can only get better from here on; you should be applauding them for initiating innovation and a future proof platform that offers more promise for the enthusiast.



that makes no sence at all why bring out innovation with a half a$$ piece of hardware that ppl arent even going to buy till you come out with another and better system...you are just spinning your wheels and wasting money on a product that wont sell and that will be replaced in 6 months anyway....how do you even make sence of that....of course you can only get better....they cant get any worse than this....i would hope not anyway...i like amd but dang that is just sickening what they came out with, its as simple as that


Edit: one more thing this really isnt innovation...they have had multi processor boards for quite some time....just not in boards other than server boards

In case you don?t know the new to be released AMD 4Core Barcelona CPU?s are capable of running on this platform giving you the 4x4 that should give it more traction and less wheel spin.
Bringing a server platform to the desktop counts as innovation in my book.
I'm no AMD or Intel Fan boy; I respect people or companies that try to better themselves.