AMD 4x4 Named Quad FX
Anh Tuan Huynh
November 29, 2006 3:25 PM
comment(s) - last by
Image courtesy PC Watch
Four cores, four graphics cards, four hard drives, four everything
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.
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
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
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.
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.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Yah well...
11/29/2006 9:10:24 PM
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...
11/29/2006 11:52:34 PM
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...
11/30/2006 11:02:24 AM
"..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.
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton
AMD 4x4 Motherboard Details Unveiled
November 20, 2006, 3:31 PM
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM
Intel Officially Announces Quad-core Products
November 14, 2006, 1:08 AM
AMD Opteron 10/30/2006 Price Cuts
October 10, 2006, 8:03 PM
AMD Q4'06 Dual-Core Roadmap
October 3, 2006, 8:23 AM
Hackers Steal Roughly $1 Billion From Banks Using Malware RAT
February 17, 2015, 9:30 AM
NVIDIA Kills Mobile GPU Overclocking, Robs Customers Who Paid For It
February 16, 2015, 8:59 AM
Apple Offers Refurbished 5K Retina iMacs for $2,119 Online
January 16, 2015, 12:37 PM
SanDisk Unveils Pricey iXpand USB 2.0/Lightning Drive to Expand iPhone, iPad Storage
November 13, 2014, 2:29 PM
HP's 15.6" Omen Gaming Laptop is Incredibly Thin, Powerful
November 4, 2014, 10:34 AM
Tim Cook Touts Apple’s Product Portfolio, Performance in Letter to Employees
October 21, 2014, 8:05 AM
Most Popular Articles
Windows 10 Adds USB 3.1 for Dual-Role Peripherals, External Display Support
February 27, 2015, 11:39 AM
FCC Bans Data Discrimination, Defies Comcast, Adopting Net Neutrality Regulation
February 26, 2015, 4:03 PM
Australian Engineers Successfully Developed 3D-Printed Jet Engines
March 2, 2015, 11:08 AM
Samsung is Bringing Sexy Back w/ Launch of Razor-Thin Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge
March 3, 2015, 2:25 AM
Lenovo Vows to Drop "Adware" and "Bloatware" From Its PCs
February 27, 2015, 3:09 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information