backtop

Hardware AMD 4x4 Named Quad FX
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - November 29, 2006 3:25 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Nov 30 at 1:43 PM

Image courtesy PC Watch
Four cores, four graphics cards, four hard drives, four everything

PC Watch has the scoop on AMD’s upcoming 4x4 enthusiasts platform. The article claims AMD dubbed its 4x4 platform Quad FX. The upcoming Quad FX platform is based around NVIDIA’s unannounced nForce 680a chipset with SLI compatibility. DailyTech previously revealed images of ASUS’ nForce 680a offering—L1N64-SLI WS. Initial Quad FX systems will be powered by AMD dual-core processors, though the platform should be compatible with AMD’s upcoming Stars processors.

AMD is expected to launch Quad FX with three processors initially—the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70. AMD is shipping the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70 in pairs at $999, $799 and $599 respectively. This undercuts Intel’s recently released quad-core Kentsfield Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor priced at $999.

The processors will utilize AMD’s socket F and feature a 125 watt TDP and manufactured using a 90nm SOI process. Unlike AMD’s workstation Opteron 2200 series processors, AMD Quad FX systems will not require registered DIMMs and function with regular unbuffered DDR2.

PC Watch has also posted benchmarks of the upcoming Quad FX platform as well. The early numbers do not favor too well against Intel’s Core 2 Extreme QX6700 though.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By mattsaccount on 11/29/2006 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 4
The x axis is labeled "Watt". Can anyone confirm what this graph is showing us?

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph...




By Nightmare225 on 11/29/2006 5:37:26 PM , Rating: 3
Holy... If that's what I think it is... AMD's getting it's butt kicked.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 3
I ran the page through Google's translation engine, and it seems clear that graph is showing idle power consumption, along with consumption with two loads. Google doesn't translate the image itself, so I don't know exactly what the top and bottom bar labels say (but obviously the top one must be idle power draw).

Clearly though, AMD's QuadFX power consumption is FAR higher than Intel's Quad Core. It's funny how fast the tables turn: a couple of years ago, AMD consumed less power, and Intel's most extreme offering couldn't catch AMD even with a big clock-speed advantage. Now Intel consumes less power, and AMD's most extreme (absurd?) offering can't catch Intel, even with a clock-speed advantage.


By aGreenAgent on 11/29/2006 9:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
It would be ironic, except it's to be expected. Intel Quad Core = 1 chip. QuadFX = 2 chips. So I wouldn't be surprised if QuadFX used almost double.

And the tables haven't turned more than expected. Intel has a performance lead. AMD releases a new generation, gets performance lead. Intel releases new generation, gets performance lead (currently). The tables won't turn until AMD can't beat Intel with their next gen processor.

Also, this isn't new chips or anything, it's a new platform. If I remember correctly, the only difference in the chips is that they've been worked for multiple chips.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By Furen on 11/29/2006 6:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising at all considering that the Nforce5 is the most power-hungry chipset in existence (talk about overly dramatic). This motherboard has two of them and two very power hungry chips.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By clayclws on 11/29/2006 6:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
NFORCE 5 Series? I think I read NFORCE 680a . I'm sure I am reading the same article...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
the nForce 600 series is based on nForce 500. Some would even argue the chips are nearly identical.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By clayclws on 11/29/2006 6:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
So...the chipset in the motherboard is using all that power? Is that what you mean? I thought it was the other components like the CPU...


By shabby on 11/29/2006 7:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
No no dont be silly, its the chipsets fault not amd's...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 7:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I have no idea is what using all of that power. I would assume it's the two CPUs and the chipset.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By Thorburn on 11/29/2006 7:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
It seems likely that its the two 125w TDP processors :)
The chipsets will most likely be in the 15-25w range, thats why they have SMALL heatsinks and the processors have BIG heatsinks....


By Furen on 11/30/2006 12:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
If you read my orginal post, I say that the problem is the fact that the motherboard has two very power-hungry chipsets (like 20W more than a comparable ATI alternative, and there are TWO 570s on this board, that's what the 680a entails) and two very power-hungry chips (CPUs). That's why I said it's hardly surprising we saw such a high power draw, an single ATI/VIA/SIS chipset would probably drop the overall power-draw by 40-50W but that's still far from what Intel can do.


By AnnihilatorX on 11/30/2006 3:56:28 AM , Rating: 3
On Y Axis from Top to Bottom:

When Idle

CineBench 95 - Multiple CPU Rendering

Video Encoding


Game performane not so shabby
By mlittl3 on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: Game performane not so shabby
By dashpot on 11/29/2006 11:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I would still be a bit cautious first with the "initial" version of 4x4 -- according to the inq, a new board may be needed to "let it fly"

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36...

Looks like "4x4+" may be in the works



RE: Game performane not so shabby
By dashpot on 11/29/2006 11:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
That is, assuming you have plans to move on to the 8 core sometime Ü



RE: Game performane not so shabby
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 11:41:49 PM , Rating: 1
At the really high resolutions, both systems are GPU bound. Therefore the small differences there are just your typical platform differences. It could also be that video drivers themselves may execute slightly better on AMD, so once things get GPU bound a little more efficiency in the driver makes the difference. Either way, comparing two systems at GPU bound resolutions and then making assumptions about the CPU's is not a good idea.

Second, you can't just say that the rumor is that the QuadFX mainboard will cost about $300, and then find one of the most expensive Intel SLI boards at $250 and declare the platforms equally priced. Even assuming the $300 price point for a QuadFX board is valid (something tells me the launch price will be over $300), there are plenty of good SLI boards for Intel down to $100. Those $100 boards have 95%+ of the performance and features of the $250 boards. On the other hand, by it's nature, there will be no 'value' boards for QuadFX. So compare $100 to $300.

Finally, regarding the power requirements, you can't just ignore the differences in pricing out a system. It looks like you'll need a 600 Watt power supply MINIMUM for AMD QuadFX, and the board shots I've seen so far show 24-pin + 8-pin power plugs which means a server-class power supply. The intel system needs good power too, but nothing exotic. All else being equal then, the power supply for the AMD system will cost about double what the Intel one does.

So, you can spend at least $350 more on the AMD QuadFX-74 system and get a bit less perfomance than the Intel QX6800 system would, or you can go cheap with the FX-70 processors and spend just the same as you would on the Intel QX6800, and get a lot less performance.

This is a bad deal!!!


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By Lakku on 11/30/2006 12:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
QX6700 requires a motherboard and power supply conforming to EPS standards, which includes the 8-pin aux. connector for CPU power.


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By Ganniterix on 11/30/2006 8:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
What's hilarious about his comment and most of the other 4x4 fans is that they keep mentioning the quad core as a replacement. It seems that AMD will be distributing these for free once they come out :)

If you want to take them into your account in your (... let's be kind ...) FLAWED comparision you have to include their cost (... let's be kind once again ...) which most probably will be in the range of $1000. Let's compare present with present ... and then compare future with future.

What happens couple of months or a year down the road ... when one of the CPU's fails (cause they are electronics after all) and maybe AMD thinks your model was too old and was already EOL'ed. AM2, AM2+, AM3, Socket F ... almost ran out of breath there. I wouldn't bet that Quad cores would be an easy direct replacement. And let's assume they will be! There is still the added cost to replace 2 cpu's.


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By johnsonx on 11/30/2006 1:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, lets also not forget that so far the QuadFX mainboards that have been spied are all E-ATX boards. So you can't put one in a regular size ATX case. While I will grant that there are some reasonably priced cases that will fit an E-ATX board, on a whole such cases are more expensive and there are fewer available.

None of this actually matters to me though, it's just amusing to watch the fanboys try to explain how QuadFX has some sort of advantage over QX6700. My 2 Athlon64 and 1 AthlonXP systems are serving me just fine, and if I were in an upgradin' mood, I certainly wouldn't spend any more than $200 on a CPU & mainboard.

BTW I see I got modded down above... did I say something factually wrong? Or was I just politically incorrect?


Shipping in pairs?
By MonkeyPaw on 11/29/2006 4:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
If they are selling them in pairs, that's pretty cool. Instead of buying one overpriced CPU, you get 2 SMP CPUs for what ends up being a more reasonable price. The 2.4ghz Socket F Opterons are selling for $460 alone! Still, energy consumption will be ridiculous, though I doubt the "slower" QuadFXs will actually consume 125W each, especially once we see 65nm K8s. Perhaps QuadFX would make a good server/workstation? I guess it all depends on how it compares to Core 2 Quad.




RE: Shipping in pairs?
By mlittl3 on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: Shipping in pairs?
By shabby on 11/29/2006 8:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Dont hold your breathe for 2 quadcore cpu's costing 1000 bucks.


RE: Shipping in pairs?
By Lakku on 11/30/2006 12:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well, first of all, you can't use those CPU's in any other consumer level motherboard but the socket F 4x4 boards. I'm going to assume you need to use them in pairs, otherwise they'd lose a lot of money if they could be used by themselves on one of these 4x4 boards or a server/workstation board. And I HIGHLY doubt they will release two quad cores for 1k, seeing as how they are doing this now to compete with Intel for quad cores. Once they get to one package, they will go back to 1k for 4 cores/1 CPU. Either way, Intel wouldn't be able to compete even if they did? I doubt it, because the last thing AMD needs to do is get into a price war with Intel, who has at least 3 or 4 times the manufacturing compacity of AMD, and probably multiple times the cash reserves. Intel would compete and most likely win in that situation.


Quad FX?
By JackPack on 11/29/2006 5:18:10 PM , Rating: 3
Quad FX?

I thought the final name would be Quad Faker.




RE: Quad FX?
By AstroCreep on 11/29/2006 6:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
It was going to be the Quad-Laser...
All shall bow down before the power...of the moon.


Slight D'oh
By oDii on 11/29/2006 4:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The upcoming Quad FX platform is based around NVIDIA’s unannounced nForce 680i chipset with SLI compatibility.


Shouldn't that be 680a, not i, given i corresponds to the Intel Platform?




RE: Slight D'oh
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 4:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that - fixed.


Quad FX sounds stealthy !!
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 11/29/2006 5:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is very interesting news. I would really love to see the real time performance utilizing 4cores,4 graphics cards, 4 hard drives and 4gigs of ram. I think this is where quad FX will make sense. When is this quad fx coming out? When is the offical launch date?




RE: Quad FX sounds stealthy !!
By clayclws on 11/29/2006 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
...4 DVD Burner, 4 HD-DVD Burner, 4 Bluray Burner, 4 12cm Fans, 4 Neon Lights, 4 PSUs, 4 Sound Cards, 4 Physics Cards, 4 Gigabit Ethernet, 4 Monitors, 4 Mice, 4 Keyboards, 4 Desks, 4 Chairs, 4 bigger holes in your pockets, 4 x etc...

...of course, this is 4 x not serious...yet...


By thereaderrabbit on 11/29/2006 5:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's wild that computers are heading in a direction where multi anything works on so many levels, but I don't see why they're going it here.

Quad drives = Server
Quad cores = Server & Enthusiast
Quad graphics = Enthusiast

So why pay absolute top dollar for a system that is overkill for any Server or Enthusiast application? I don't get it (and I'm an Enthusiast computer fan).




By cochy on 11/29/2006 5:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Quad Cores, gfx, and drives are certainly not exclusive to this QuadFX platform. So if you ask me it's nothing special at all. In fact, QuadFX suffers from a couple serious problems:

1) Total cost of ownership if you factor everything in will probably be very high (bigger case for e-atx, bigger power supply for 2 FX chips etc.)

2)As far as I know, when Vista comes out, only Ultimate Edition will support two sockets...ugh

Now, IF, AMD would have innovated a little more and come up with a multi socketed AM2 platform, where any two AM2 cpus could be used, now that would be something interesting and special. But as far as QuadFX is concerned now, it's basically a stripped hybrid Opteron platform suffering from an identity crisis.

This platform is pretty much useless to gamers, and the workstation segment is much better off with Opteron.


By yubastard on 11/29/2006 9:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is shipping the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70 in pairs at $999, $799 and $599 respectively.


is this true? 2 dual-core, high-end FX CPU's for $600?!? that's mighty cheap...




By cochy on 11/29/2006 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
You can get 1 E6600 for $310. So two FX-70 for $600 is nothing special. Don't buy into marketing bs. Just because someone puts an FX in front of something doesn't mean anything. It's all marketing. Wait until benchmarks are out.


By corduroygt on 11/29/2006 6:53:39 PM , Rating: 3
Quad damage baby!




Dont mean to be an AMD hater but...
By B166ER on 11/29/2006 5:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was a loyal AMD follower (NOT fanboy!) until it seemed like AMD just started... following. 125w TDP? 2 dual cores on one chip? And the early numbers still favour QX6700? C'mon AMD. Stop bringing up the rear and get in the lead! Hopefully things will be straightened out when Stars is dropped, but by then, think of the lead Intel will have.




Holding the fort...
By cscpianoman on 11/29/2006 5:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly see this as a stop gap with only very limited use in the future. AMD knows they can't best the Core 2 stuff at the moment, but they can get closer. It will take next-gen stuff from AMD to become competitive again. Sounds like Intel landed a winner on all fronts. This is like Intel hitting a grand slam in the top of the ninth. It's now AMD's turn, but their steam is in low supply. Good luck green!




By Heron Kusanagi on 11/29/2006 6:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Whenever Barcelona comes, I believe AMD's Quad FX platform can directly have it inside, making it 8 X 4.

The ability to expand is in Quad FX...well, I do hope AMD can get Barcelona out faster.




4x what?
By walk2k on 11/29/2006 8:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
How does 2 dual core chips equal 4 x 4?

Shouldn't it be 2 x 2?

Or are these quad-core chips? But even then it would be 4 x 2. Unless there's 2 more cpu sockets on the underside of the board we can't see in the photo?? :)




RE: 4x what?
By mlittl3 on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
By lemonadesoda on 11/29/2006 9:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
... that setup looks noisey. Very noisey.





Yah well...
By Phenick on 11/29/06, Rating: -1
RE: Yah well...
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 6:04:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Intel tried t ocalled their initial dual cores that when it was just 2 dice on the same package


That was not dual core because.....?

Seems to me if you plug one chip package into one socket, and you get 2 full CPU cores, then that's dual core.

By your logic then, the Core2Extreme QX6700 isn't Quad Core, because Intel put two dual-core dies on the same package?

What if AMD implements Quad Core the same way? Then there won't be any quad cores at all? Or if AMD does it, will that make it a wise choice chosen for manufacturing flexibility and yields?


RE: Yah well...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 6:31:50 PM , Rating: 5
AMD's original roadmaps last year showed the company was working on 65nm processors with two dice on the same package. This project seemed to have gone to the wayside due to K8L -- the native quad-core design.

Of course the argument on whether or not a dual/quad chip is glueless is ridiculous. I have never seen a single solid argument as to why a multi-die package should not be considered multi-core.


RE: Yah well...
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 10:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Kristopher,

The solid argument is that Intel did it with two dies, which is therefore wrong, while AMD did it right with a single dual-core die. Doing multi-core with multiple dies will not become correct until AMD does it, at which point it will be correct because of the *special way* AMD does it. Indeed, at that point, if Intel is using a single die that will become wrong.


RE: Yah well...
By Marcus Pollice (blog) on 11/30/2006 12:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
What people seem to forget is that Smithfield was one single die. Only with Presler they simply combined 2 Cedar Mills as they can achieve better yields that way.

The only argument one can bring up is the way the cores communicate with each other. Since Intels "FSB-hampered" MCMs don't scale considerably worse than a "native" dual-core (we have yet to see if that applies to quad-core as well), you cant argue its not multi-core. As long as performance scaling is there it doesn't matter how it is done.


RE: Yah well...
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 11/30/2006 12:47:10 AM , Rating: 3
Anyone notice that the Intel system in the test had 2X1GB RAM modules and the AMD system had 4X1GB RAM modules (2X1GB per CPU) total? And they were still defeated in benchmarks where memory bandwith counts, interesting.

-------
Chillin


RE: Yah well...
By edpsx on 11/29/2006 6:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you put two cores on one die doesnt make it "true" dual core. The original design only allowed for one core to talk to anything at any one time, essentially leaving one core sitting idle till either the system bus was done or the other cpu was done doing whatever. I dont know if they changed it since then or if the die shrink alone added this performance. AMD's dual core allows for both cores to work simultaneously together or seperate allowing for a much more effecient working process. Im not a fanboy by any means but in the long run it just seems to me that AMD's design will eventually win out. Intel is just a powerhouse due to the amount of capitol they have.


RE: Yah well...
By cochy on 11/29/2006 9:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually if you do research there are pro's and con's to both AMD's method and Intel's method. Also if you do research you will see that both methods do not any raw performance benefits over the other. Maybe there are theoretical ones, but we all live in the real world for the time being at least.


RE: Yah well...
By zsdersw on 11/29/2006 9:56:33 PM , Rating: 1
Oh please.. not this "true" multi-core crap again. Two cores in one processor package is "dual-core".. period. Four cores in one processor package is "quad-core".. period.

Aside from that, your comments about the "long run" are also totally ridiculous. Apparently you've never heard of Intel's Nehalem; four cores on one piece of silicon. Where did you get the idea that two pieces of silicon on one chip package is going to be the be-all-end-all of how Intel does multi-core chips?


RE: Yah well...
By DallasTexas on 11/29/2006 7:12:57 PM , Rating: 4
Who cares how the sausage is made? You plug in one chip in one socket and the OS sees 4 cores. Seems like a 4 core solution to me.

This "true 4 core" argument doesn't hunt. It's you and AMD fanboys feeble attempt to deflect the fact that Intel's microarchitecture at this point in time is better.

Instead of just getting accepting it and moving on, you dwell on stupid sausage making recipes instead of enjoying the final product deliverables - performance.


RE: Yah well...
By Targon on 11/29/2006 9:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
While you have a right to insult those who don't have a solid argument, there is a solid argument about why AMD has the better system design that you may not have thought about in your "anti-fanboy" rants.

If a processor is designed to be either dual-core or quad-core, there is no need to go through the main system bus for the cores to talk together. As a result, performance will be better if the processor is a "true dual or true quad core processor". I hope you can understand that concept about why the initial dual-core Intel chips(Pentium D), and initial quad-core chips are inferior by design to a true dual/quad core design.

Now, Intel has the advantage on a core to core comparison at this point in time, and most AMD fans do not deny this fact. So, with that fact not being a part of current discussions, the discussion moves on to the overall system architecture. Remember that when AMD releases their K8L based chips, even if performance matches that of Intel's best at that point, you can then look at the system architecture as a reason for one being faster than the other.

The Quad FX concept then is a good idea, even if the Core 2 Duo holds the lead in performance because of that core to core advantage. That's what the whole thing comes down to, what makes for a good system architecture, not just CPU. K8L will be able to be dropped into a Quad FX system, and you will hopefully see at that point that what you were bashing in November/December of 2006 will end up being the basis for a system you envy in Aug/Sept of 2007.


RE: Yah well...
By Lakku on 11/29/2006 11:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but I'll stick to what Valve had to say on a single die solution of dual/quad core compared to two packages 'glued' together to make multi-core, and they said the performance difference was "not enough to matter". Perhaps it will make a difference in server applications, but in terms of home use, I doubt there will be much of a difference. Why is it assumed K8L will be a chip of envy? What if Nehelem beats it like Core 2's beat Athlons now? Either way, I don't care. I would MUCH rather have a single socket and single chip (and thus a single heatsink and a single intense thermal area) then having two hot runnig chips side by side. That looks like a total of 5 to 6 fans (2 heatsinks, 3-4 aux.) for this QuadFX compared to 1 fan for the Kentsfield.


RE: Yah well...
By DallasTexas on 11/30/2006 11:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
"..If a processor is designed to be either dual-core or quad-core, there is no need to go through the main system bus for the cores to talk together. ..."

Yes, I agree that's an interesting sausage recipe. I'll write that down.

"..Now, Intel has the advantage on a core to core comparison at this point in time, and most AMD fans do not deny this fact..."

Acually, most AMD fans counter with the hypertransport red herring. The fact that HT is not a limitation in real world applications vs FSB is tally dismissed. What do you expect them to say? yeah, Intel is faster? Doubtful, it's all about religion here.

".. the discussion moves on to the overall system architecture. Remember that when AMD releases their K8L based chips, even if performance matches that of Intel's best at that point, you can then look at the system architecture as a reason for one being faster than the other..."

It's great to hypothesize the what if and when if some future processor compares to another. I like to point out that for 3 years, integrated mem controller and hypertransport was some "overall system architecture" panacea and here we have Intel kicking AMD's butt every which way and it has NEITHER technology! Explain that one. Now the ball shifts to some future conjecture of who's better because you know when having an argument on future speculation, you can always place AMD ahead or on equal footing with Intel. The future is AMD's safe haven to keep their followers in church.

"..The Quad FX concept then is a good idea, even if the Core 2 Duo holds the lead in performance because of that core to core advantage.>."

It's just an amazing phrase above. Read it again. I'll dig deep and give you the benefit of the doubt. You're saying buy this AMD 4x4 Hummer because it will scale for a long long time. Never mind it is an energy hog, costs a fortune and will be obsolete in 6 months. Let's invest a few $1000 in DDR2 memory in it although DDR3 is now sampling. So basicaly, you have a pretty nice system for the winter. Is that a good deal? Ask yourself that.


RE: Yah well...
By Phenick on 11/29/2006 8:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
Core 2 is a better product for sure right now... Which I own and use and enjoy... But the Core 2 Quad is a joke and a waste in my opinion... I am not an AMD fanboy in the least I just do not understand how people cannot see the benefit of a dual cpu setup... If not for any reason other then... It's fun... I used to run dual Xeon systems and it was a blast... However the lack of enthusiast level hardware support made it a less powerful system for games and so I never went dual cpu again... If roadmaps don't change for Intel or AMD for a year.... This time next year I will own an 8 core Quad FX system... I will bet money when that happens, Intel won't have similar performance numbers.... Right now Core 2 Extreme is fine for me... 2 Core2 dice on one package doesn't interest me for the price, the performance just does not impress me at all... and it isn't any more fun to play with.... Freaking power hog...


RE: Yah well...
By ShapeGSX on 11/29/2006 8:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
So 2 AMD chips on a motherboard is fun, but 4 Intel cores in one package is a "power hog?" Huh?

Did you miss this graph?
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph...

Which one is the power hog, again?


RE: Yah well...
By Phenick on 11/29/06, Rating: -1
RE: Yah well...
By ShapeGSX on 11/29/2006 9:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't innovation. This is a server platform. It has been done for years.

Have you seen the threads on xtremesystems that show the overclockability and performance of the Intel Core 2 Quad parts? They still blow the AMD stuff right out of the water. They don't seem to be having problems with having the two dies sitting in the same package. Intel doesn't have a problem doing this.

Of course, AMD is stuck on 90nm at the moment, so they don't have that option.

Funny that the company that trumpeted their power savings over the competition just 9 months ago is now releasing a power hungry platform like this.


RE: Yah well...
By Steve Guilliot on 11/29/2006 9:54:38 PM , Rating: 3
Have some more koolaid to wash down that helping of hyper-bole.

The superior performance and overclockability of C2Q vs. 4x4 belie all that blustering you just subjected us to. The situation may change next year after AMD launches K8L, but then you are just replacing inaccuracies with speculation; equally useless.


RE: Yah well...
By cochy on 11/29/2006 9:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
lol well if it's fun for you then do it. But you are confused in that the current trend in the cpu industry is to more cores in a single package. Guess you won't be having fun to much longer ;)


RE: Yah well...
By cochy on 11/29/2006 9:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can buy the Quad FX motherboard and use only 1 cpu in it and add in another later


How can you do that when the QuadFX chips are sold in pairs?

hmmmmm

Upgradability on this platform stinks, just for the sole reason that AMD needs to release specific chips for a specific socket for QuadFX to work. If AMD ever decides that QuadFX isn't catching on or for ever reason decides that their real quad core chips won't be available on this platform (socket), then you're stuck.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki