Author Topic: AMD's 4x4 (Read 2051 times)

Schutt · « **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:23:11 AM »

Ok... maybe i missed it but what is the diffrence between a 4x4 system and current dual opteron systems?

handy169 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:25:43 AM »

4x4 is 2 dual-core opteron's giving it 4 cores. also gives gives you 4 graphic PCIe lanes.

handy169 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:35:50 AM »

posted from a review site ..

both AMD and Alienware had the very same demonstration loaded up on their 4x4 system as is pictured here in this slide. Specifically the machines had two instances of City of Heroes running, two HD video streams playing, including a Battlefield 2142 trailer, and a video conversion going on, all at the same time. As you can see all four cores are pegged at 100% utilization but in fact there was plenty of horsepower left to navigate around Windows XP and launch other applications.

http://www.hothardware.com//viewarticle.aspx?page=2&articleid=891

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:37:19 AM »

Most folks don't even need 2, let alone 4 PCIe x16 slots. The best single-slot card is only a hair slower than the best 2-card setup. Your returns start diminishing quickly, and you pay more and more money. You could spend $2,000 on 4 of the BEST PCIe cards, and still only perform 20% better than any one of those cards running by itself.

It's like selling a car, and claiming one of your best features is 20 cup holders placed throughout the cabin. Well most folks only have X amount of people in the car at one time, and only need X amount of cup holders. Same goes for video cards and multiple slots. My $0.02 on the matter.

As for the Intel/AMD 4-core situation, having all the cores on 1 chip has a benefit and advantage, in that they communicate with each other faster. As has been mentioned nobody's going to benefit from having 4 cores any time soon, but if this is based on the recent Conroe architecture, and AMDs is based on older chips (used together), then the better of the two will most likely be the Intel chip. It will overclock far better, with far less heat and power consumption (based upon Conroe performance). Don't get me wrong, I have respect for both AMD and Intel lines of chips, but Intel has clearly pulled a rabbit out of the hat, and will continue to do so for a while until AMD catches up. AMD lumping 2 of their older chips together is a stop-gap marketing method (again, nobody needs 4 cores right now, regardless of who makes 'em!). If they actually redesign a chip or make a new chip, which could take years if they started now, then they'd give Intel some competition.

For now, Intel's got AMD on the ropes, including the 4-core arena. That's my take on the matter.

Krusty · « **Reply #19 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:42:09 AM »

Hrm... you're going to need an extra long case to prevent IDE cables from your CD-ROMs and HD from getting in the way of the second cooling fan, over the second socket. Are they lining up new cases with an extra air intake over the extra CPU?

handy169 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:48:32 AM »

you havent been reading the reviews krusty. most experts speculate intels Quad core chips will not prefrom as well do the the single bus the 4 cores have to communicate on, as apposed to the 2 buses the AMD's quad core will operate on. thats twice the bandwidth AMD has to work with then intels counterpart. as far as having 4 graphic pci express lanes. so what. if you only use 1 you have 3 if you ever deside you want to use them. and again when AMD comes out with quad-core chips is just a matter if switching out chips without any hardware changes. granted anyone using anything more then a single core chip to begin with has to have a need to use them. otherwises its a mute point. but if your gonna build a system this day and age, why not build a system that will expend if you ever need it too. right now at this time the best system for power is the high-end conroe chip i concede that, but once that 4x4 is released that is subject to change and at the same cost if not cheaper then the top conroe offering. why pay for 2 when you can get 4

handy169 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:50:42 AM »

i am sure when you by a 4x4 your gonna want to spring for a new case too. and most people will be using SATA drives with the system as there is only 1 EIDE port..

handy169 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:55:41 AM »

keep in mind that most people will never have a need for anything more then a high end single core PC to play this game.. this system is srictly for people that want to have a kick-ass over the top system. and compared to what your gonna pay for intels top conroe offering right now. the 4x4 is gonna stomp it into the ground at the same price

handy169 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:57:42 AM »

4x4:
3.0GHz
Four memory channels
Support for up to four video cards
Lots of room for expansion
Upgradable to eight core system next gen
High to very high power consumption

Kentsfield:
2.66GHz
Two memory channels
Support for up to two video cards
Medium room for expansion
Smaller upgrade potential (stuck at four cores)
Medium-low to high power consumption

Skuzzy · « **Reply #24 on:** November 02, 2006, 11:59:07 AM »

You assume the Conroe prices will be the same when AMD finally ships the product.

Intel had announced a few months ago, Conroe prices will be dropping as they are poised to release a faster Conroe at the beginning of 2007.

Comparing prices of CPU's available today against those which have not been released is rather pointless.
----
Handy, you have any idea what a motherboard will cost which has 2 physical memory busses? It's going to be very expensive. That is a ton of real estate.

handy169 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 02, 2006, 12:02:33 PM »

actually skuzzy .. the 4x4 has dual memory busses.. so kev is very right.. and our are so very wrong in that matter. each chip will be able to access one of the 2 banks of memory up to 2GB each.

Schutt · « **Reply #26 on:** November 02, 2006, 12:02:47 PM »

Thanks... i somehow missed that information. Looks like 4000Dollars for a whole computer.

handy169 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 02, 2006, 12:09:17 PM »

the kits for 4x4 are stated to start at under 999 .. conroe is 987.50 with just 2 weeks before sceduled release. and motherboards cost money weither its single socket or dual socket , etc.. i can go buy a single socket 939 mb and pay up to 200 for one. or get a cheap one for 60.. i dont think anyone going into buying a new system is gonna expect not to have to ante up for the best thats being offered. noone is gonna go into any store with 300-400 dollars and expect to walk out with a top of the line system.

when i built mine i spent just under 400.00 for a 3000+ athlon 64/1 gig memory, 160 gb HD. 7300 GS 256MB video card, DVD-RW, and AM2 MB and my system runs just fine with AH2

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Aug/bch20060803037681.htm

The 4x4 platform is an answer to Intel's upcoming quad-core platforms. The system will consist of two closely coupled dual-core processors that, through the form of coherent HyperTransport in use, will act as a single quad-core system. Not many details beyond that have been given thus far, but it is believed that when quad-core processors come out the 4x4 platform will allow an instant upgrade from dual-processor dual-core to dual-processor quad-core, allowing a total of 8 cores on a single machine. And, with an entry level price for motherboard + processors of under $1,000, many the Geek might find it very appealing.

according to that link AMD is stating MB and chips under 1000.00 compared to the high end conroe at almost 1000 for just the chip alone

Krusty · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2006, 12:44:55 PM »

Whoa, there! Might wanna get a shot for those rabies

Skuzzy's a fairly smart guy. He's paid to be. I also think he's got a point or two. I'm going to wait until they're actually out and have been reviewed, before I agree that the 4x4 is better than the Kentsfield.

handy169 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 02, 2006, 01:05:26 PM »

well i am a A+ certified tech with almost 20 years of experience, and i to was paid to know things. and the info i am basing anything on is from people that are probably 10 times smarter then me in reguards to analysing chips and cpu performance, so it not like i am just spurting out random numbers without any kind of substantial knowledge. and logic would state that kentsfield arcutecture is inferior to 4x4's , 4 cpu accessing 1 pipeline is gonna be slower then 2 cpus accessing 1 pipeline. now as future need evolve if 4 cores is gonna have a problem. what you think 8 cores are gonna do? granted when AMD moves to quad core they will have the same problem .. but will also have them split between 2 pipes. thats of course thinking intel will keep with the single socket concept.