How is AMD 4x4 gonna help gamers??

[thilanliyan]

click

How could this possibly help most games which are GPU limited ??

And limited to FX processors?? Bad move.

Seems like they are grasping..cause I doubt performance will increase THAT much...definitely not justifying the price.

 

[potato28]

Think about physics, not the graphics.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: potato28
Think about physics, not the graphics.

But it's been said many times that a general purpose processor like a CPU would not be good with physics...i don't know if it's technically feasible but that thought has beed echoed on these forums before.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Well, the point is you could slap any sort of coprocessor in there that you want - think about gaming... what if you just added a chunk of pixel shaders in there, or just a full-blown video processor: then you could put on a regular ol' CPU heatsink, crank up the power, and shoot the processed frames out to a small output card.... or, like was said before, make a _dedicated_ physics coprocessor (NOT just another Opteron/general purpose processor).

EDIT: Oh, wait... that's the "Torrenza" thing; they're probably related though.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Oops....

 

[the Chase]

That's the thing that excites me about all of this. Torrenza. Sounds like a Toyota model. I think it's a ways off but this 2 (or 3 or 4 in the future) socket thing will have some cool stuff we will be able to do with it.(Co-processors). But yeah- in it's initial state- well wait a minute- was going to say thumbs down here, but hell might as well wait and see what this actually runs and performs like. Who knows what this will be like to use. But the expense kills it for me to ever consider it.

 

[thilanliyan]

About the 4x4 thing, AMD says it's for the enthusiasts which I guess means gamers...and to me this is definitely NOT helping gamers...I mean who has $2000 to spend JUST on the processors??

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: thilan29
About the 4x4 thing, AMD says it's for the enthusiasts which I guess means gamers...and to me this is definitely NOT helping gamers...I mean who has $2000 to spend JUST on the processors??

People who already spend $1000 on just a processor.

 

[Greenman]

I'd call this clutching at straws. A product that no one needs, at a price very few can afford, with no real benifit to those who buy it.
AMD needs to put away the glue gun, pull it's socks up, and build a cpu that can go one on one with Conroe.
It's a shame, I like AMD, but when it comes time to upgrade if Conroe is more bang for the buck then Conroe is what I'll buy.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

conroe will offer way more bang for the buck (if the previews are true). lets face it. amd screwed up. they sat on there ass for 3 years and created nothing. now that conroe is in sight there shitting in there pants. oh well I LOVE competition.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Greenman
I'd call this clutching at straws. A product that no one needs, at a price very few can afford, with no real benifit to those who buy it.
AMD needs to put away the glue gun, pull it's socks up, and build a cpu that can go one on one with Conroe.
It's a shame, I like AMD, but when it comes time to upgrade if Conroe is more bang for the buck then Conroe is what I'll buy.

QFT. This is the point I was getting at. This is like when Intel was throwing GHz at the problem...now AMD is throwing more cores at the problem (even though games have only started becoming multithreaded), except I think this is worse cause the costs are stupendously high. I guess we've yet to see any benchmarks of the system but I doubt they'll be that impressive at higher resolutions.

 

[Munky]

A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

 

[MaceX]

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MaceX

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

Even the newest games only take advantage of dual cores right now. Just like dual core, it's probably best to wait for the actual applications to show up and then take the plunge. However, this would be sweet for a distributed computing junkie . (que Homer Simpson) Mmmm...Folding@Home with four instances running in one box....mmmmmm

 

[akugami]

I know what they're claiming but I doubt you have to buy $1000 processors on this thing. I'm sure that it will fit any AM2 dual core processor in there. Obviously they're hyping it with FX chips for now but unless they lock it out specifically in the BIOS to only accept FX chips there's not reason it can't work with any AM2 CPU. If you do that not many are going to be able to afford these things and you can watch it die a quick death.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: MaceX

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

It may use dual cores, but I havent noticed any difference in performance if I set affinity to just one core.

 

[Acanthus]

Conroe sees substantial increases over AMD64 in most games, save very graphics card limited situations (ultra high res + AA or HDR)...

 

[sandorski]

Will have to wait and see what it does.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MaceX

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

Even the newest games only take advantage of dual cores right now. Just like dual core, it's probably best to wait for the actual applications to show up and then take the plunge. However, this would be sweet for a distributed computing junkie . (que Homer Simpson) Mmmm...Folding@Home with four instances running in one box....mmmmmm

If a game is properly multithreaded it should scale with cores.

 

[Barkotron]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MaceX

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

Even the newest games only take advantage of dual cores right now. Just like dual core, it's probably best to wait for the actual applications to show up and then take the plunge. However, this would be sweet for a distributed computing junkie . (que Homer Simpson) Mmmm...Folding@Home with four instances running in one box....mmmmmm

If a game is properly multithreaded it should scale with cores.

Oblivion does scale with the cores to some extent - it just doesn't change the fact that if you crank up the graphics details/resolution/AA etc., you're still going to find yourself GPU-limited in most situations in the game, whatever card you're using.

 

[n7]

This is not gonna help us gamers anytime soon.

For those of you who run at 1280x1024 or lower, sure then it might help since you're CPU limited.

But who buys something that expensive to run at low resolutions & settings?!

Even looking at the review Hexus did showed that at 16x12 with settings maxed (the case for my monitor), i will see almost no benefit for me to switch from my Opty @ FX-60 to a Core 2 Duo.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Will have to wait and see what it does.

Hell just look at Core vs AMD, let alone Core2.

The Pentium-M has always been strong in gaming.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Barkotron

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MaceX

Originally posted by: munky
A quad core cpu will not help gamers with the games currently available. And I doubt Conroe will either. The fact remains that games are gpu-limited when running at high quality settings.

Doesn't oblivion use all cores? I know it does on the xbox and I heard it uses both cores on pc's with dual cores.

Even the newest games only take advantage of dual cores right now. Just like dual core, it's probably best to wait for the actual applications to show up and then take the plunge. However, this would be sweet for a distributed computing junkie . (que Homer Simpson) Mmmm...Folding@Home with four instances running in one box....mmmmmm

If a game is properly multithreaded it should scale with cores.

Oblivion does scale with the cores to some extent - it just doesn't change the fact that if you crank up the graphics details/resolution/AA etc., you're still going to find yourself GPU-limited in most situations in the game, whatever card you're using.

I agree and to this extent Conroe isnt going to be of much help either.

 

[StrangerThanFiction]

It might be a good thing for game modders--people that want to make content and then put it into a game and then see their work with the settings cranked up. It seems like a compromise between workstation and game hardware. Game performance may be more dependent on GPU power, as pointed out by others but I would expect Photoshop and 3D rendering to run nicely with two dual cores, especially with plenty of RAM and a 64 bit OS.

Am I mistaken?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Greenman
I'd call this clutching at straws. A product that no one needs, at a price very few can afford, with no real benifit to those who buy it.
AMD needs to put away the glue gun, pull it's socks up, and build a cpu that can go one on one with Conroe.
It's a shame, I like AMD, but when it comes time to upgrade if Conroe is more bang for the buck then Conroe is what I'll buy.

QFT. This is the point I was getting at. This is like when Intel was throwing GHz at the problem...now AMD is throwing more cores at the problem (even though games have only started becoming multithreaded), except I think this is worse cause the costs are stupendously high. I guess we've yet to see any benchmarks of the system but I doubt they'll be that impressive at higher resolutions.

This wont do sh*t for games, well right now anyways.

What interests me is what will happen when u can get co-procesors for this thing, like encoding. Cause really a co-processor will blow both athlons and conroe in the task it was designed to do, because its ONLY MEANT FOR THAT task, just like gpus, before graphics were done by the cpu.

I think this will have great use for workstation and uses where u need multiple processors on the cheap. In multiprocessor systems amd is still supreme, there is no use having a really fast cpu when the rest of the system bottlenecks it (FSB)

But for gamers those implications dont exist just chuck in conroe in ur system and it should be good. But remember games are not everything.