Is AMD 4x4 going to be significantly faster than Kentsfield?

L

loafer87gt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
486
I went down to the local computer shop I usually deal with today to check if they had any Asus P5W boards in stock yet, and got chatting with their techs about Intels Core Duo chips. I told them one of the main reasons I was going Intel for my next build was because I really wanted to be able to upgrade to quad core as I use my machine primarily for 3d rendering. They told me that if I was going to be using the machine for rendering, that I should be waiting for AMD 4x4 chips to come out this fall instead. Apparently, their AMD rep told them they are going to be almost twice as fast as the Kentsfield in most applications as they were designed for 4 processor operation from the start, and are not a hacked together solution like Intels offering. I have seen some early Kentsfield benchmarks, and it seems like a pretty damn fast chip. I haven't, however, been able to dig up any early benchies for the 4x4 processors. Has anyone got any links to some benchies of the upcoming 4x4 chips that I could compare to the Kentsfield previews?Before I commit myself to Intel by buying the P5W board, I would kind of like to see what AMD's offering brings to the table and if it is as fast as it is rumored to be.

Thanks in advance for any info.
 
You haven't seen any benchmarks b/c I don't think it will be out for a while. When AMD pulled it out of their asses, NOONE had heard of it, normally board manufacturers have heard of and been working on things LONG before press releases to the public. With 4x4 this was not the case, which shows just how last minute it was.

Basically they are brining a server / workstation product to the gamer market. If you want an idea of what it will do, look for a dual socket opeteron board with 2 dual core chips in it. That's basically what it is. AMD's implementation where each processor has a direct connection to the ram and each other and the "FSB"/NB is what makes it very fast, but I SERIOUSLY doubt it will be twice as fast.

Look at the Alienware or Apple dual processor Woodcrest system those are Intel versions of basically what AMD is pushing for as a gamer's platform. Someone tested / benchmarked the Apple ProMac with 2 x quadcores, I just don't remember where.
 
I highly doubt it is going to match Kentsfield at all , except Sandra Memory tests. :p

Consider other things :

-4x4 needs new mobo with limited options while Kentsfield uses regular Conroe motherboards

-you need 4 sticks of RAM for optimal performance for 4x4 ( 8 is the other option ) while only 2 for K

-120w thermal envelope for Kentsfield and 190w for 4x4

Unless you are

1) son of Bill Gates and
2)AMD fanatic and
3)fool

Kentsfield is the only viable option.
:)
 
savantu said:
1) son of Bill Gates and

:)
Click to expand...

What does Bill Gates' son has to do with AMD's 4x4. If you mean the price, I bet Amd will set a competitive price.
 
The original documentation on 4x4 was that it would require 2 FX class chips. I don't know if that's been relaxed to AMD X2 in general, but 2 FX would cost at least as much as 1 Core 2 Quadro Extreme.

As to some of the comments in the original post, 4x4 is at least as hacked together a solution as Kentsfield is. Kentsfield is 2 dual core chips in a single package. 4x4 is 2 separate dual core chips on one motherboard. But the Kentsfield will at least be a drop in replacement on most Core 2 Duo compatible boards, whereas 4x4 requires investment in a new motherboard in addition to buying at least 1 additional processor, assuming you already have a 4x4 ready processor. plus the kentsfield is based off of hte Core 2 microarchitecture which benchmarking shows to be superior to the current X2/FX architecture. 4x4 will be using that same X2/FX arch.

I wil lgrant that in certain applicatations the 4x4 will likely perform better than Kentsfield, due to the improved memory performance. I don't know whether your rendering application would be one of these. But what the salesperson/AMD rep told you seems like at least 80% FUD to me.
 
Aganerral said:
As to some of the comments in the original post, 4x4 is at least as hacked together a solution as Kentsfield is. Kentsfield is 2 dual core chips in a single package. 4x4 is 2 separate dual core chips on one motherboard.
Click to expand...

LMAO... as much as I find this "it's not native quad core" argument funny, it really is getting old. Let me break this down for you.....

1 Socket 2 Cores = Dual Core
1 Socket 4 Cores = Quad Core
2 Socket 2 Cores per CPU = Dual Core, Dual Processor
2 Socket 4 Cores per CPU = Quad Core, Dual Processor

Is this really that hard to figure out? This 4x4 crap is nothing but a DP system... wait for this... MARKETED towards the average user/gamer. That's it.... nothing more. 4x4 isn't hacked together... neither is Kentsfield. "4x4" has been around for a VERY long time, it's just been called DP and Kentsfield is NEW technology. Show me an AMD cpu with 4 cores PER socket.... can't find one? Yea, I didn't see one either.
 
Ahh, good to hear. I think I am going to go with my original plan and go for the intel build. Being as my old dually Xeon rig still has quite a bit of life left in it, I am going to wait till next November when the Kentsfield is released and try to piece together a G80 / Q6700 build. Motherboardwise, I am torn between the P5W Deluxe or the P5W64 WS Pro. The 975XBX2 also sounds like a sweet board, but from what I have been able to find there is no estimates when it is going to be released. Thanks for the info guys.
 
loafer87gt said:
Ahh, good to hear. I think I am going to go with my original plan and go for the intel build. Being as my old dually Xeon rig still has quite a bit of life left in it, I am going to wait till next November when the Kentsfield is released and try to piece together a G80 / Q6700 build. Motherboardwise, I am torn between the P5W Deluxe or the P5W64 WS Pro. The 975XBX2 also sounds like a sweet board, but from what I have been able to find there is no estimates when it is going to be released. Thanks for the info guys.
Click to expand...
Do you really have a NEED for quad core? Will you truely benefit from the gains in encoding? If you won't, or mainly game, then I would suggest against quad core, at least at the moment. IMHO... for most users it's overkill and with the increases in power not worth it. I wouldn't run quad core myself, and I've had one for months and it's a drop in with my current system. Get a Core 2 Duo and enjoy the 65watt CPU. :D
 
Well I used my machine for about 85% 3DS Max / Rendering work and 15% gaming so I think QuadCore would really suit my needs. If I could cut my rendering times in half it would make my work day a heck of a lot easier. Right now I am running dually 3.2 Xeons, so going to a single Q6700 Kentsfield should give me quite a performance boost.
 
4x4 anything set up right will be a lot faster than end user machines right now. As to the kentsfield being a direct drop in for current boards I'm going to wait and see. Even with announcements I'm going by Intels track record and it hasn't exactly been upgrade friendly as far as cpu sockets go.
Until I see benchmarks I'm not going to say which will be faster. I think either solution will be viable for anybody. As far as the amd 4x4 need ing a stick for each, so be it, 4 1 gig sticks won't be all that expensive, roughly 400 for ddr2. For now unless you plan on 3d rendering, video editing, graphics, you won't be needing 4x4 for atleast a year, or until 16x16 comes out lol. This is pretty much just an Epenis move by both intel and amd, this is pretty much teh same marketing as the ghz wars of a couple years ago, and now we all know that while ghz does figure into the performance of a cpu it's not everything, just like cores aren't everything, espoecially if you can't use them all at once.
 
Poncho said:
LMAO... as much as I find this "it's not native quad core" argument funny, it really is getting old. Let me break this down for you.....

1 Socket 2 Cores = Dual Core
1 Socket 4 Cores = Quad Core
2 Socket 2 Cores per CPU = Dual Core, Dual Processor
2 Socket 4 Cores per CPU = Quad Core, Dual Processor

Is this really that hard to figure out? This 4x4 crap is nothing but a DP system... wait for this... MARKETED towards the average user/gamer. That's it.... nothing more. 4x4 isn't hacked together... neither is Kentsfield. "4x4" has been around for a VERY long time, it's just been called DP and Kentsfield is NEW technology. Show me an AMD cpu with 4 cores PER socket.... can't find one? Yea, I didn't see one either.
Click to expand...

I think you might have misunderstood me Poncho. I wasn't getting into the Native quad core thing. I agree that Kentsfield is native quad core and 4x4 is not. I was going back to the comment that the OP cited about "Intel's offering being hacked together'. I was just saying that If Intel's option is considered hacked together, than 4x4 should also be considered as such.

Incedentally, someone could go get a dual Woodcrest system right now that has dual FSB and 2 dual core processors. or a dual Opteron. How either of these is different from 4x4, I have no idea.
 
loafer87gt said:
Well I used my machine for about 85% 3DS Max / Rendering work and 15% gaming so I think QuadCore would really suit my needs. If I could cut my rendering times in half it would make my work day a heck of a lot easier. Right now I am running dually 3.2 Xeons, so going to a single Q6700 Kentsfield should give me quite a performance boost.
Click to expand...

I agree... you sound like one of the few people that would actually benefit from quad core, though you may want to look into a DP solution as well. Right now if you were to get a Dual Woodcrest platform, you would see a significant increase in performance, as well as have the capability for a drop in of 2 quad core CPUs in the future. Also you would get added stability from a server/workstation and since it seems that you rely on your system for money, you might like that added piece of mind. It may cost you a bit more... but it very well could be worth it.
 
Aganerral said:
I think you might have misunderstood me Poncho.
Click to expand...


You are right.... I think I might have misunderstood you though my post was directed at everybody who has made the "native quad core" statement.... even AMD. :D My apologies to you though.

Aganerral said:
Incedentally, someone could go get a dual Woodcrest system right now that has dual FSB and 2 dual core processors. or a dual Opteron. How either of these is different from 4x4, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

QFMFT.... somebody gets it. :D
 
Poncho said:
LMAO... as much as I find this "it's not native quad core" argument funny, it really is getting old. Let me break this down for you.....

1 Socket 2 Cores = Dual Core
1 Socket 4 Cores = Quad Core
2 Socket 2 Cores per CPU = Dual Core, Dual Processor
2 Socket 4 Cores per CPU = Quad Core, Dual Processor

Is this really that hard to figure out? This 4x4 crap is nothing but a DP system... wait for this... MARKETED towards the average user/gamer. That's it.... nothing more. 4x4 isn't hacked together... neither is Kentsfield. "4x4" has been around for a VERY long time, it's just been called DP and Kentsfield is NEW technology. Show me an AMD cpu with 4 cores PER socket.... can't find one? Yea, I didn't see one either.
Click to expand...

LoL. Nicely said.


bigbadgreen said:
4x4 anything set up right will be a lot faster than end user machines right now. As to the kentsfield being a direct drop in for current boards I'm going to wait and see. Even with announcements I'm going by Intels track record and it hasn't exactly been upgrade friendly as far as cpu sockets go.
Until I see benchmarks I'm not going to say which will be faster. I think either solution will be viable for anybody. As far as the amd 4x4 need ing a stick for each, so be it, 4 1 gig sticks won't be all that expensive, roughly 400 for ddr2. For now unless you plan on 3d rendering, video editing, graphics, you won't be needing 4x4 for atleast a year, or until 16x16 comes out lol. This is pretty much just an Epenis move by both intel and amd, this is pretty much teh same marketing as the ghz wars of a couple years ago, and now we all know that while ghz does figure into the performance of a cpu it's not everything, just like cores aren't everything, espoecially if you can't use them all at once.
Click to expand...

By the way.... I dunno. if it's a 4x4... I wouldn't spend the money for a power supply powerful enough to run those two processors, along with the sticks of RAM, and the damn motherboard that'd be expensive as hell. (plus, i just don't like AMD :) :D )

The kentsfield is a drop in on the LGA 775 socket boards. Intel's jammed in the maximum amount of CPUs while keeping efficiency at 65nm. Now they can slide into 45nm and make 8 cores. 975X chipset motherboards and some select 965 chipset motherboards are kentsfield supported as of now.
 
StealthyFish said:
LoL. Nicely said.




By the way.... I dunno. if it's a 4x4... I wouldn't spend the money for a power supply powerful enough to run those two processors, along with the sticks of RAM, and the damn motherboard that'd be expensive as hell. (plus, i just don't like AMD :) :D )

The kentsfield is a drop in on the LGA 775 socket boards. Intel's jammed in the maximum amount of CPUs while keeping efficiency at 65nm. Now they can slide into 45nm and make 8 cores. 975X chipset motherboards and some select 965 chipset motherboards are kentsfield supported as of now.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing all this talk of "drop in replacement" for lga775..... When was there ever a drop in for 775? All new chips that have been released on the socket have required a new board geared to it's power requirements.

Drop in? lga775? they dont belong in the same sentence.
 
StealthyFish said:
LoL. Nicely said.




By the way.... I dunno. if it's a 4x4... I wouldn't spend the money for a power supply powerful enough to run those two processors, along with the sticks of RAM, and the damn motherboard that'd be expensive as hell. (plus, i just don't like AMD :) :D )

The kentsfield is a drop in on the LGA 775 socket boards. Intel's jammed in the maximum amount of CPUs while keeping efficiency at 65nm. Now they can slide into 45nm and make 8 cores. 975X chipset motherboards and some select 965 chipset motherboards are kentsfield supported as of now.
Click to expand...

As far as power goes, the Core series of processors is much more more efficient than NutBurst, and more efficient than the A64/X2 as well. While a dual Woodcrest system will draw a lot of power, as any duallie would, it is a lot better than whatever the dual Xeon pre-Woodcrest was (Presler was decent, I can't remember the name for the chip before that), and still better than a dual Opteron system, not to mention the much higher performance.
 
Don't leave out the 45watt LV Woodcrest CPUs @ 2.33/1333fsb. Those things are just dead sexay. :D I built a system recently with CPUs that were passively cooled. That's right.... NO fans on the CPUs. LOVE these CPUs.
 
What is up with these speculations and fan-boy whoring? AMD guys are on here saying the opposite of Intel guys. How about admitting that its all speculation and rooting for your team won't change the outcome? :confused:
 
Aganerral said:
Incedentally, someone could go get a dual Woodcrest system right now that has dual FSB and 2 dual core processors. or a dual Opteron. How either of these is different from 4x4, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
I guess we will find out once 4x4 is launched and available.
Dethred said:
What is up with these speculations and fan-boy whoring? AMD guys are on here saying the opposite of Intel guys. How about admitting that its all speculation and rooting for your team won't change the outcome? :confused:
Click to expand...
But company A is better than company B, because I have company A's system right now and don't want to give my money to the evil, deceitful company B, whose engineers cannot even untie their own shoes, much less solve complex challenges, such as building a great CPU. For this reason, I shall take every rumor that puts company A into a good light and company B into a bad light as gospel and dismiss every rumor or fact going into the opposite direction as untrue, biased and f4nboi talk.
 
loafer87gt said:
Ahh, good to hear. I think I am going to go with my original plan and go for the intel build. Being as my old dually Xeon rig still has quite a bit of life left in it, I am going to wait till next November when the Kentsfield is released and try to piece together a G80 / Q6700 build. Motherboardwise, I am torn between the P5W Deluxe or the P5W64 WS Pro. The 975XBX2 also sounds like a sweet board, but from what I have been able to find there is no estimates when it is going to be released. Thanks for the info guys.
Click to expand...

I'd get an e6400 + Asus P5W DH now..... that by itself will be significantly faster than your dual Xeon system. Crank it up to 3.2Ghz...... wait until early next year when there are a few quadcore models to choose from and possibly a cooler stepping (better for overclocking), and then get one.
 
People, get this straight:

4x4 is two relabeled Opterons (FX!!11oneonelol), which use regular DDR instead of registered/ECC memory. That's it, period, stop, end of story.

So, put a current dual-Opteron system against the pre-relase Kentsfield benchmarks. There's your comparison.
 
InorganicMatter said:
People, get this straight:

4x4 is two relabeled Opterons (FX!!11oneonelol), which use regular DDR instead of registered/ECC memory. That's it, period, stop, end of story.
Click to expand...
May I ask where you got this information from? While it is quite likely that you are correct, until the 4x4 platform ships, there is no certainty, hence no "that's it, period, stop, end of story"...

And given that the memory is different, the system performance of the 4x4 platform could be better or worse than the current dual-otpy solutions. Who knows what chipset will be used, because using the nForce pro is likely to make the 4x4 platform prohibitively expensive.
 
Peoples need to free ourselves of the "AMD is BETTER THAN INTELZ ZOMG" mentallity. Frankly, I'm freaking happy intel got with the program and released the Core 2 Duo.

Reason? Even if you still like AMD's chips, What happened? AMD Halved there price points. Competition is what allows the Consumer to Win.

Also, Choices are great to have. We should root for both, not one or the other. I'll root with my hard earned. IF someone can convince me what I need 4 cores in a Processor for...... :p
 
Thunderclez said:
Peoples need to free ourselves of the "AMD is BETTER THAN INTELZ ZOMG" mentallity. Frankly, I'm freaking happy intel got with the program and released the Core 2 Duo.

Reason? Even if you still like AMD's chips, What happened? AMD Halved there price points. Competition is what allows the Consumer to Win.

Also, Choices are great to have. We should root for both, not one or the other. I'll root with my hard earned. IF someone can convince me what I need 4 cores in a Processor for...... :p
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm a self proclaimed Intel zealot (I bought shitloads of their stock when it was in the 17s....), yet last week I STILL bought a Socket AM2 w/ sempron for my girlfriend's computer....

sometimes a good deal is just worth way way more than any faux loyalties you may have to a company, and that sub $100 AM2 system was too sweet to pass up.


Now at the total opposite of the spectrum, sometime in 2007, I will most definately be looking for at least a 4 core *minimum* computer for myself.... reason? Well I am almost *constantly* recording TV on my computer, and by the time I buy, multithreaded games should be more common.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
Now at the total opposite of the spectrum, sometime in 2007, I will most definately be looking for at least a 4 core *minimum* computer for myself.... reason? Well I am almost *constantly* recording TV on my computer, and by the time I buy, multithreaded games should be more common.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the Alan Wake demos? Crazy.
 
Thunderclez said:
Peoples need to free ourselves of the "AMD is BETTER THAN INTELZ ZOMG" mentallity. Frankly, I'm freaking happy intel got with the program and released the Core 2 Duo.

Reason? Even if you still like AMD's chips, What happened? AMD Halved there price points. Competition is what allows the Consumer to Win.
Click to expand...
Wait, when was AMD ever better than Intel? :confused:


















:p :D
 
I might be wrong on this, but I thought the 4x4 platform required quad-sli to get the 4x4 name. I could use 4 cores easily just transcoding DVDs, but personally I have no need for quad-SLI, or even regular SLI for that matter.
 
4 cores and quad SLI...

Being AMD wouldn't it be quad CrossFire, if such a thing were to come around?

I can see it now, power companies everywhere having to install a 220 line for your computer.

I guess on the bright side you'll never have to turn on your heater...
 
Seems you people fail to have looked at the picture files from amd showing how its setup.

It requires the FX processors for the increased Hypertransport pus links a la Operation 2xx.

There will be 4 cores and 4 channels of memory feeding two processors that communicate DIRECTLY through a hypertransport link, Not a already bottlennecked FSB.

this means you could have two northbridges or a giant suped up northbridges with two seperate hypertransport links from each processor setup. means true quad video cards.

This is essentially a quad channel memory setup and dual northbridge setup that supports 4 cores and 4 vid cards.


Correct me if I'm wrong but its a lot more advanced than you all make it out to be.

EDIT: Think of this as the advent of dual channel memory. Except its Dual channeling a (cpu, memory, and video card)
 
Unoid said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but its a lot more advanced than you all make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll correct you...... You're wrong! :p Don't believe all the PR hype!

Its not that much more advanced. They just reworked the HT lanes, but its still basically just a fancified dual socket / Opteron 2x5 series motherboard that takes non-ECC ram, and will be available with more PCIe lanes. It will be NICE when you can drop in 2 quad processors, but they already have that same type set up available with Intel processors.

Apple, Alienware & a few other people are selling these dual woodcrest systems. That you'll be able to drop in quad cores later.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Ok, I'll correct you...... You're wrong! :p Don't believe all the PR hype!
Click to expand...
thanks people need to say that more often. Maybe it should be mandatory, just like the "it's on the inq :rolleyes:" post.


chrisf6969 said:
Its not that much more advanced. They just reworked the HT lanes, but its still basically just a fancified dual socket / Opteron 265+ series motherboard that takes non-ECC ram
Click to expand...

most likely that is how it's going to be.

chrisf6969 said:
It will be NICE when you can drop in 2 quad processors, but they already have that same type set up available with Intel processors.

Apple, Alienware & a few other people are selling these dual woodcrest systems. That you'll be able to drop in quad cores later.
Click to expand...
Doesn't 2P Woodcrest require FB-DIMMs? How much do they cost?
 
drizzt81 said:
Doesn't 2P Woodcrest require FB-DIMMs? How much do they cost?
Click to expand...

Yes... and they are just about the same price (for 533mhz) as Registered DDR2 DIMMs. I believe the 667mhz FBDIMMs are a bit more.... but not horribly so. Of course... all of these are more expensive than Un-Registered DIMMs. But even at that.... until you get to the larger capacity FBDIMMs (2gb+) the cost isn't terribly high.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Wait, when was AMD ever better than Intel? :confused:

:p :D
Click to expand...

I'd argue that in the Northwood days AMD was better than Intel in the sub 80 dollar per processor range.... those Barton 2500's were just too cheap to pass up....

these days too... in the sub $50 range, those Sempron AM2's are unbeatable.....

from time to time AMD *does* seem to have some excellent super cheap processors
 
Poncho said:
LMAO... as much as I find this "it's not native quad core" argument funny, it really is getting old. Let me break this down for you.....

1 Socket 2 Cores = Dual Core
1 Socket 4 Cores = Quad Core
2 Socket 2 Cores per CPU = Dual Core, Dual Processor
2 Socket 4 Cores per CPU = Quad Core, Dual Processor

Is this really that hard to figure out? This 4x4 crap is nothing but a DP system... wait for this... MARKETED towards the average user/gamer. That's it.... nothing more. 4x4 isn't hacked together... neither is Kentsfield. "4x4" has been around for a VERY long time, it's just been called DP and Kentsfield is NEW technology. Show me an AMD cpu with 4 cores PER socket.... can't find one? Yea, I didn't see one either.
Click to expand...

True, but both approaches are valid.

I do believe that the AMD rep is wrong though. Kentsfield is a fine chip... so fine I'd love to have one... ;-)

At that point, AMD won't be the performance leader, but they will have a setup that will be plenty fast. It might be interesting to tinker with it, too. :cool:
 
Poncho said:
Yes... and they are just about the same price (for 533mhz) as Registered DDR2 DIMMs. I believe the 667mhz FBDIMMs are a bit more.... but not horribly so. Of course... all of these are more expensive than Un-Registered DIMMs. But even at that.... until you get to the larger capacity FBDIMMs (2gb+) the cost isn't terribly high.
Click to expand...
from newegg: cheapest 1GB FBDIMM $162.99
chepest 1GB DIMM (DDR2) $109
almost a 50% premium.

Josh_B said:
I do believe that the AMD rep is wrong though. Kentsfield is a fine chip... so fine I'd love to have one... ;-)
Click to expand...

indeed, I think the best option would be to wait and see how the two of them compare
 
drizzt81 said:
from newegg: cheapest 1GB FBDIMM $162.99
chepest 1GB DIMM (DDR2) $109
almost a 50% premium.



indeed, I think the best option would be to wait and see how the two of them compare
Click to expand...

Well technically you're not comparing REGISTERED ram to the FB-dimm which is what you should compare for a closer apples to apples comparison.

So it would be more like this:
Crucial ddr2 533 1GB FBDIMM $162.99
vs.
Crucial DDR2 533 1Gb ECC $138.99

So about $160 vs about $140, = less 15% premium
 
chrisf6969 said:
Well technically you're not comparing REGISTERED ram to the FB-dimm which is what you should compare for a closer apples to apples comparison.

So it would be more like this:
Crucial ddr2 533 1GB FBDIMM $162.99
vs.
Crucial DDR2 533 1Gb ECC $138.99

So about $160 vs about $140, = less 15% premium
Click to expand...
Correct. Woodcrest goes against Opteron, and 4x4 goes against Kentsfield. Comparing the memory prices of Woodcrest (a server solution) to 4x4 (a desktop solution) is unfair since even the most "xxtreme 1337 3dition" gaming hardware still costs less than server stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top