why is AMD so secretive about 4x4?

[nyker96]

Every report I've read they seem to say AMD is guarding the 4x4 platform in secret. It seems to me that 4x4 is just a server platform that takes 2x CPUs without ECC requirements on the RAM. or are they doing anything special in 4x4?

 

[Conky]

I think they are guarded about it because it isn't even "two dual cores on one chip" but rather a "dual-dual core" motherboard which won't work on an AM2 motherboard which makes it weak even to the most diehard AMD fanboys.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Every report I've read they seem to say AMD is guarding the 4x4 platform in secret. It seems to me that 4x4 is just a server platform that takes 2x CPUs without ECC requirements on the RAM. or are they doing anything special in 4x4?

It's essentially that with Quad SLI support.

 

[Arkaign]

Because 4x4 is only for the (.02%?) of the PC market that is both into gaming and has a $5,000+ Budget for a PC?

Because 4x4 won't work with AM2?

Because it's a desperate stopgap measure against Kentsfield until they can get single-package quad-core and K8L out?

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting product, but I think it's so niche that AMD realizes that overhyping it would just piss off the large majority of AMD fans who can't afford it, and it's likely not all that great (for the money) anyway.

AMD has great times in the future for sure, but 4x4 will be nothing more than an interesting footnote.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I think they are guarded about it because it isn't even "two dual cores on one chip" but rather a "dual-dual core" motherboard which won't work on an AM2 motherboard which makes it weak even to the most diehard AMD fanboys.

Why would this make a difference? I really can't see having a dual-dual on one chip being an advantage...
It increases localized heat
It isn't any faster from a platform perspective (in fact it's a tad slower)
There's less room for upgrading
It has a lower max memory ceiling

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I think they are guarded about it because it isn't even "two dual cores on one chip" but rather a "dual-dual core" motherboard which won't work on an AM2 motherboard which makes it weak even to the most diehard AMD fanboys.

Why would this make a difference? I really can't see having a dual-dual on one chip being an advantage...
It increases localized heat
It isn't any faster from a platform perspective (in fact it's a tad slower)
There's less room for upgrading
It has a lower max memory ceiling

It's a ton cheaper?
Much easier to mfg on the mobo front (most P965/975 are compatible AFAIK)
Memory is insanely pricey right now, and there are precious few reasons yet to go beyond 2GB (let along 4GB, 8GB, etc)

Don't get me wrong, I concede that there will be a certain market for the 4x4 idea (and many already run 4x or higher Opteron/Xeon setups!), but this market for dual socket quad sli gamers is what? A few thousand people nationwide? 4 top end video cards, 4+GB of high-end ddr2, a mobo that will probably top $300, etc, etc.

Compare to AMD's future, and Intel's current solution of single-package quad-core, which gives a seamless upgrade path on normally-priced hardware.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Every report I've read they seem to say AMD is guarding the 4x4 platform in secret. It seems to me that 4x4 is just a server platform that takes 2x CPUs without ECC requirements on the RAM. or are they doing anything special in 4x4?

B/C it's an Intel Qcore killer and AMD wants to spank all the Intel Fanboys in one lumpsum and in one day. its eaiser on them intel lovers.
The Hypertransport sure is killing Intel's FSB("F"**ked "S"ystem "B"uss).

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: nyker96
why is AMD so secretive about 4x4?

Simply because its still not going to beat Intel...so they don't want their failing efforts to be prematurely crashed by the opposition and its supporters.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: nyker96
Every report I've read they seem to say AMD is guarding the 4x4 platform in secret. It seems to me that 4x4 is just a server platform that takes 2x CPUs without ECC requirements on the RAM. or are they doing anything special in 4x4?

B/C it's an Intel Qcore killer and AMD wants to spank all the Intel Fanboys in one lumpsum and in one day. its eaiser on them intel lovers.
The Hypertransport sure is killing Intel's FSB("F"**ked "S"ystem "B"uss).

LMFAO

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: nyker96
Every report I've read they seem to say AMD is guarding the 4x4 platform in secret. It seems to me that 4x4 is just a server platform that takes 2x CPUs without ECC requirements on the RAM. or are they doing anything special in 4x4?

B/C it's an Intel Qcore killer and AMD wants to spank all the Intel Fanboys in one lumpsum and in one day. its eaiser on them intel lovers.
The Hypertransport sure is killing Intel's FSB("F"**ked "S"ystem "B"uss).

:laugh:

Dude, you are as nutty as they come.

I hope you get your medication soon, lol.

 

[n7]

Likely because they know it's dead on its feet even now before it's come out.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

B/C it's an Intel Qcore killer and AMD wants to spank all the Intel Fanboys in one lumpsum and in one day. its eaiser on them intel lovers.
The Hypertransport sure is killing Intel's FSB("F"**ked "S"ystem "B"uss).

Dude, you need to call out Felix and have a cage match with him.

 

[Kur]

Why would AMD need to release any information? It's not done, they want to get it done right. They don't wanna have to resort to Intel's plan of being first to the market with glued and duck taped products. But I also think it's AMD's plan to build a big grand show of it, be like "WoW we with held all this and today we release it all!".

I'm an AMD fanboi, sue me.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Beachboy
I think they are guarded about it because it isn't even "two dual cores on one chip" but rather a "dual-dual core" motherboard which won't work on an AM2 motherboard which makes it weak even to the most diehard AMD fanboys.

Why would this make a difference? I really can't see having a dual-dual on one chip being an advantage...
It increases localized heat
It isn't any faster from a platform perspective (in fact it's a tad slower)
There's less room for upgrading
It has a lower max memory ceiling

It's a ton cheaper?

Is it really? Can you please quote me some prices so I can confirm this...

Much easier to mfg on the mobo front (most P965/975 are compatible AFAIK)
Memory is insanely pricey right now, and there are precious few reasons yet to go beyond 2GB (let along 4GB, 8GB, etc)

Frankly, anyone who would use either system for things like gaming is out of their mind...
They are both designed for workstations only, and for that scenario large amounts of memory is a major bonus and well worth the money.

Don't get me wrong, I concede that there will be a certain market for the 4x4 idea (and many already run 4x or higher Opteron/Xeon setups!), but this market for dual socket quad sli gamers is what? A few thousand people nationwide? 4 top end video cards, 4+GB of high-end ddr2, a mobo that will probably top $300, etc, etc.

Compare to AMD's future, and Intel's current solution of single-package quad-core, which gives a seamless upgrade path on normally-priced hardware.

Dual socket quad sli is actually the perfect design for a video workstation.
1. It allows for Torrenza based coprocessors
2. It allows for numerous screens when layering effects (imagine 8 different layers playing out simultaneously)
3. It allows for upgrade to dual quadcores
4. It will probably be faster for multitasking as the throughput on the AMD platform is quicker

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Because 4x4 is only for the (.02%?) of the PC market that is both into gaming and has a $5,000+ Budget for a PC?

Because 4x4 won't work with AM2?

Because it's a desperate stopgap measure against Kentsfield until they can get single-package quad-core and K8L out?

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting product, but I think it's so niche that AMD realizes that overhyping it would just piss off the large majority of AMD fans who can't afford it, and it's likely not all that great (for the money) anyway.

AMD has great times in the future for sure, but 4x4 will be nothing more than an interesting footnote.

QFT

I saw the demo at the G80 launch and while it might be nice to run WoW, a video encoding, an HD movie and another app all off the same system, how practical is that? Especially when they haven't demonstrated that you can do it without 4 x $600 graphics cards, 2 x 2GB memory and 2 x $700+ dual core CPUs on a non-AM2 socket. I'm very curious to see how this matches up to a single socket quadcore from Intel. Who cares if it's "duck taped together" it's still 4 cores for less than $1000, which isn't what you're likely to pay if you need two FX-series processors for 4x4.

I've also seen the argument that you can buy the base config and scale it out as needed. I'll believe that when they guarantee Socket F processor availability to more than 2 years......

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Because 4x4 is only for the (.02%?) of the PC market that is both into gaming and has a $5,000+ Budget for a PC?

Because 4x4 won't work with AM2?

Because it's a desperate stopgap measure against Kentsfield until they can get single-package quad-core and K8L out?

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting product, but I think it's so niche that AMD realizes that overhyping it would just piss off the large majority of AMD fans who can't afford it, and it's likely not all that great (for the money) anyway.

AMD has great times in the future for sure, but 4x4 will be nothing more than an interesting footnote.

QFT

I saw the demo at the G80 launch and while it might be nice to run WoW, a video encoding, an HD movie and another app all off the same system, how practical is that? Especially when they haven't demonstrated that you can do it without 4 x $600 graphics cards, 2 x 2GB memory and 2 x $700+ dual core CPUs on a non-AM2 socket. I'm very curious to see how this matches up to a single socket quadcore from Intel. Who cares if it's "duck taped together" it's still 4 cores for less than $1000, which isn't what you're likely to pay if you need two FX-series processors for 4x4.

I've also seen the argument that you can buy the base config and scale it out as needed. I'll believe that when they guarantee Socket F processor availability to more than 2 years......

I believe Henri Richard has already promised 2 things here...
1. The 2xDC FX chips will be available in a <$1000 package
2. The 4x4 is promised to be upgradeable to quad core when it's available

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Gaming isn't going to get any faster out there unless games become multi-threaded like crazy. Single-core is as good as quad-core in most, if not all games. Single-GPU->Dual-GPU gives you a much, much larger increase than 1 CPU Core -> 4 CPU Cores.

4x4 is for professional workstations: 3D Modeling, CAD, HD Video Editing etc. And I have a feeling it will be an even-fight against Core 2 Quad with no conclusive winner. Dual Quad-Cores in a single machine sounds awesome for those who need the power. I really don't get why AMD is promoting this as a gamer's dream machine: promote it as a high-end prosumer workstation solution and people will stop treating it like a stop-gap solution and giving it bad press.

And although I hate feeding trolls, I can't help but comment that OcHungry is purposely offensive to the vast majority of this forum to suggest everyone who bought a Core 2 system (as opposed to an X2) is a senseless fanboy (as he is). I don't own a Core 2 but it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that a $150 DS3+$180 E6300 = the mother of price/performance/overclockability.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Gaming isn't going to get any faster out there unless games become multi-threaded like crazy. Single-core is as good as quad-core in most, if not all games. Single-GPU->Dual-GPU gives you a much, much larger increase than 1 CPU Core -> 4 CPU Cores.

4x4 is for professional workstations: 3D Modeling, CAD, HD Video Editing etc. And I have a feeling it will be an even-fight against Core 2 Quad with no conclusive winner. Dual Quad-Cores in a single machine sounds awesome for those who need the power. I really don't get why AMD is promoting this as a gamer's dream machine: promote it as a high-end prosumer workstation solution and people will stop treating it like a stop-gap solution and giving it bad press.

And although I hate feeding trolls, I can't help but comment that OcHungry is purposely offensive to the vast majority of this forum to suggest everyone who bought a Core 2 system (as opposed to an X2) is a senseless fanboy (as he is). I don't own a Core 2 but it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that a $150 DS3+$180 E6300 = the mother of price/performance/overclockability.

This is the most sane post in the thread. I agree, the 4x4 plan will be amazingly capable, and very expensive, and be much more useful to the workstation set than to anyone else (due to price more than anything else).

 

[Makaveli]

pretty dumb question, why would they give out all the info about a coming product. Its like asking why Ford doesn't give out all the info about the next generation mustang.

 

[piddlefoot]

l own both intel and amd, right now them intel cpu's are awsome, 12 months ago it was amd's cpu's being the awsome ones, there much of a muchness, ld rather see some hype from a games company like LUCAS ARTS to start yelling, there coding games to 64 bit with multi core threading for physic's and sli coding to boot, now that would get the attention of all the cpu companies, and maybe some of the power they have given us in the last few years could finally be harrnessed, because right now my old old fx55 is still way fast enough for gaming, at single core, we need programmes code !