QUAD CORE AMD coming in a month! Motherboard showing off today

[Tetrahedron]

Shhhhhh don't bring up costs!

Two $1000 processors
Dual Socket dual 16X PCI-E motherboard
Dual DCGPUs Video cards
At least a 600W PSU by PC Power & Cooling might need a 1000W one made by others.
Being able to afford this, "Priceless".

sounds like your jealous to me.. no offense though, just that is how things are... I cant afford a Ferrari as much as I would like to (one can dream) but I can afford this setup.. mmm.. though I waiting for, or least trying to hold out until the K8L drops... maybe just maybe there will be a K8L 4-way mobo. YES! 4-QuadCore CPUs... yummy! Sure its more than one needs (48 - 64Ghz of power) but so is a Ferrari, but that doesnt stop people from wanting and purchasing them now does it.

 

[Donnie27]

sounds like your jealous to me.. no offense though, just that is how things are... I cant afford a Ferrari as much as I would like to (one can dream) but I can afford this setup.. mmm.. though I waiting for, or least trying to hold out until the K8L drops... maybe just maybe there will be a K8L 4-way mobo. YES! 4-QuadCore CPUs... yummy! Sure its more than one needs (48 - 64Ghz of power) but so is a Ferrari, but that doesnt stop people from wanting and purchasing them now does it.

Fat chance LOL! For what it costs, and NOT even tested yet, man you sure act like you know what it is going to do performance wise. Ferrari, if I sound jealous, you sound like a Fan wishing for AMD to strike back at the Evil Dark empire of Intel I can afford a nice Dual Socket WS Mobo with two DC Opterons if I wanted to, not this hyped marketing gimmick. It seems as if AMD thinks most Gamers has more money than Brains. This will be a hard sale=P Any idiot knows there are no quad thread games and not that many Dual thread ones. Ferrari LOL! No offense. Conroe E6600 or Bust!

 

[Tetrahedron]

Fat chance LOL! For what it costs, and NOT even tested yet, man you sure act like you know what it is going to do performance wise. Ferrari, if I sound jealous, you sound like a Fan wishing for AMD to strike back at the Evil Dark empire of Intel I can afford a nice Dual Socket WS Mobo with two DC Opterons if I wanted to, not this hyped marketing gimmick. It seems as if AMD thinks most Gamers has more money than Brains. This will be a hard sale=P Any idiot knows there are no quad thread games and not that many Dual thread ones. Ferrari LOL! No offense. Conroe E6600 or Bust!

hehhe... ok man... not all of us are concerned about quad threaded game support.

No I dont know how it is gonna perform. but again let me use the whole Ferrari analogy... in less that a decade Ferrari will make the F70 (70 years of ferrari, just like th F40, F50 and Enzo (F60)) and I am 100% positive that there are people that are going to buy one no matter what or how it performs. Why? Cause it is Ferrari.. they dont care about the cost, they just want the product. Which is kinda like this situation.. some people dont care about cost or performance... they want it cause they want it. Personal consumer choice.

 

[FLECOM]

There are no $-Threaded games and very few that are Dual Threaded.

FYI, there is no such thing as dual threaded, its either multithreaded, or not... but some applications scale across processors better than others...

 

[fhpchris]

The added latency of buffered memory is more than offset by the doubled memory bandwidth (two memory controllers) and the doubled CPU cores. You are drawing blanks here. Esspecially considering that with with 4x4, the buffered memory excuse no longer applies as 4x4 uses faster, cheaper unbuffered DDR2 modules.

Top of the line DDR2 is nothing but cheap.

Each CPU will have the same bandwith it has now, not that the extra bandwith actually helps much -- we all know latency matters more.

Let me say it again. 4x4 is a step up. It means cheaper, faster parts for all of us. I still don't understand why you want to bash it.

It will be expensive, not cheaper -- Cheaper than a dual S940 (not am2) solution mabye -- because of the fact it does not use the expensive registered DDR1 that S940 does.

I bash it because it isnt the architectural solution (OOR buffer, more bandwith L1 and L2 cache, 128 bit FPU units, more decoding power, etc) that AMD actually needs to be faster than Core. Adding more CPUs does not make single threaded tasks faster -- thats why it is getting bashed.

I asked you if you wanted to make a claim about average speed, across most enthusiast workloads. Last I heard, SuperPi is not an enthusiast workload. In fact, it is a toy and not work at all.

Look @ hexus, Conroe at slow speeds(less than 3 ghz) beat A64 into a pulp in everything except Crypto (A64 can address faster than Core can). We are not talking little 10 fps changes in things like quake -- we are talking 50+ fps in games and huge 20% increases in performance in encoding and the like -- at similar clockspeeds. What do you think a 4 GHZ conroe does on air to a 2.8 quad core in single threaded apps? It KILLS it.

So, will you make the claim? Let's here it: tell me right now that you think the Conroe XE at the planned 2.93GHz (max speed until years end) will ouperform an AMD 4x4 system with two FX-64s at 3.0GHz (fastest FX AMD will sell this year) on average across most enthusiast workloads (games, encoding, encryption, compression, photoshop, CAD, backups, etc.).

. Lets see, It will use 200W less power or so, it will cost THOUSANDS LESS... It is a stop gap solution. The conroe XE will be faster in single threased apps, which means the quad core intel solution will rip this apart -- It might even be cheaper!

Think about this, in a single threaded app, like PI, the SSE2 power of core can easily be seen. As of this date, a x6800 @ 5GHZ runs PI in less than HALF the time ANY AMD can. No dobut that this new AM2 will be fast at things, however, it has some serious drawbacks -- and it isnt going to be a clear winner, regardless of power used or Cost.

If you can't make that claim, then at least stop bashing 4x4 for no reason. Some people just like to be mean I guess...

And some people want real solutions Dual CPU systems will not be compeditive against single CPU ones. AMD has not said that this will work with single core or even sub-FX62 cpus -- Only FX62 and FASTER!

What will you think happens when the 3 GHZ woodcrest and Dampsey stuff is released? If a single, Dual core, conroe can compete with this, what happens when It is 4 cores vs 4 cores? What happens when Intels quad core costs less and uses less power?

 

[Yashu]

there aren't even many home-ready OSs that can support 4+ cores...

you have windows XP64, and the server versions of windows. so really the only solution is xp64 since users can't be expected to buy a server 2003 lisense.

AMD is always trying to be ahead of the curve... they are first with consumer 64bit and now trying to be first at consumer quad core...

but we are only just now seeing 64bit apps... how long until you gamer guys can load a truly multithreaded quake5 or HL3?

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

you have to have xp professional to support it. It is more than one chip. If it was quadcore than it would work on home, however because its actually 2 chips you have to have professional.

 

[visaris]

I bash it because it isnt the architectural solution (OOR buffer, more bandwith L1 and L2 cache, 128 bit FPU units, more decoding power, etc) that AMD actually needs to be faster than Core. Adding more CPUs does not make single threaded tasks faster -- thats why it is getting bashed.

Adding more cores doesn't make single threaded tasks faster, but adding more AM2 sockets does. 4x4 can read/write to both memory controllers at the same time and deliver all this bandwidth to a single thread. This will not be a night and day difference, but at least it's a nudge forward. Again, I don't understand why progress should be bashed.

It will be expensive, not cheaper -- Cheaper than a dual S940 (not am2) solution mabye -- [. . .] And some people want real solutions Dual CPU systems will not be compeditive against single CPU ones.

I have a dual-socket, dual-core Opteron setup right now and I love it. It is easy for me to understand that people would love to be able to get their hands on a high-end quad core system, and 4x4 makes this cheaper than current s940 or socket-F systems. This isn't a huge leap or anything, but it is progress and as such I don't understand why you are bashing it.

Further, you implying that a four-core system isn't a "real solution" sounds just as silly as all the people who claimed that a dual-core chip wasn't a "real solution" either.

huge 20% increases in performance in encoding and the like -- at similar clockspeeds.

4x4 will get more than a 20% increase in encoding from the two additional cores; encoding threads very well.

It is a stop gap solution.

True. It is a stop gap. However, it will be around through 2008 according to AMD's roadmaps; they said 4x4 would eventually support two quad-core chips. Interesting.

The conroe XE will be faster in single threased apps, which means the quad core intel solution will rip this apart --

Not really. AMD's platform with HT scales up better. AMD gets more of a boost out of additional cores than Intel because of Intel's slower, shared FSB.

No dobut that this new AM2 will be fast at things, however, it has some serious drawbacks

I don't see the drawback. How is AMD lowering the price of a dual-socket system through a new product introduction a "drawback". This is a small step which fills a small niche in the consumer market. Again, why bash?

-- and it isnt going to be a clear winner, regardless of power used or Cost.

You are right there.

What will you think happens when the 3 GHZ woodcrest and Dampsey stuff is released? If a single, Dual core, conroe can compete with this, what happens when It is 4 cores vs 4 cores? What happens when Intels quad core costs less and uses less power?

I have read many Opteron vs. Woodcrest benchmarks. The lead Intel holds over AMD in the 2-core space is much larger than Intel's lead in the 4-core space. 4x4 brings AMD just a tiny bit closer.

 

[pxc]

there aren't even many home-ready OSs that can support 4+ cores...

you have windows XP64, and the server versions of windows. so really the only solution is xp64 since users can't be expected to buy a server 2003 lisense.

Windows XP and Server are segmented by socket support, not number directly numbers of cores. When Kentsfield comes out in Q1'07, even XP Home should see all 4 cores.

XP Home can use 1, 2 or more cores as long as it's in one socket.

XP Pro can use up to 2 sockets (up to 4 cores with dual core chips and up to 8 cores with quad core chips).

XP Pro x64 has the same socket support as XP Pro: 2.

Server 2003 standard can run up to 4 sockets. Server 2003 Datacenter supports from 8 to 32 sockets on the 32-bit version and 8 to 64 sockets on the 64-bit version.

 

[fhpchris]

Adding more cores doesn't make single threaded tasks faster, but adding more AM2 sockets does. 4x4 can read/write to both memory controllers at the same time and deliver all this bandwidth to a single thread. This will not be a night and day difference, but at least it's a nudge forward. Again, I don't understand why progress should be bashed.

At the end of the day, it does not matter how many memmory controllers the machine has, what matters are the execution engines. Keeping them fed with data to work on matters. Things like an Out of Order execution engine, more Complex Decoders, and 128 bit FPUs are what matters. The architecture needs to change -- K8L looks like it will be very promising, however this is a pile.

Why is it a pile?
1) cost
2) power consumption
3) performance is lacking

I have a dual-socket, dual-core Opteron setup right now and I love it. It is easy for me to understand that people would love to be able to get their hands on a high-end quad core system, and 4x4 makes this cheaper than current s940 or socket-F systems. This isn't a huge leap or anything, but it is progress and as such I don't understand why you are bashing it.

There are people at 2CPU that are very proud of the dual 1.6 Xeon systems they have, and they get mad when other people come in from XS with very powerful dual core stuff that tears them apart. From the day that this system gets launched, that will happen.

The fast 3.3 ghz conroe XE is out before the year's end, and Quad core "Core" is out 1Q07. Heck, the X6800 will be out in less than a month. This platform will use twice the power and cost twice as much, but it will not be faster in gaming. It will be faster in something like Encryption or encoding possibly -- but not many current games can use two full threads, let alone four.

Adding two CPUs will not increase single core performance.

Further, you implying that a four-core system isn't a "real solution" sounds just as silly as all the people who claimed that a dual-core chip wasn't a "real solution" either.

I am not bashing a "four core" system, only bashing a "TWO CPU" system to compete with a single CPU one. Why?

1) cost
2) power
3) single threaded perfomance blows

4x4 will get more than a 20% increase in encoding from the two additional cores; encoding threads very well.

Indeed adding a second CPU will increase performance by alot more than 20%, but almost DOUBLING clockspeed will also increase performance a similar ammount -- and that is the problem.

True. It is a stop gap. However, it will be around through 2008 according to AMD's roadmaps; they said 4x4 would eventually support two quad-core chips. Interesting.

I do not even want to know what that will cost in initial investment or power. 2008 is a long way away to be speculating that you will have the same platform around.

Not really. AMD's platform with HT scales up better. AMD gets more of a boost out of additional cores than Intel because of Intel's slower, shared FSB.


I don't see the drawback. How is AMD lowering the price of a dual-socket system through a new product introduction a "drawback". This is a small step which fills a small niche in the consumer market. Again, why bash?

I hate the stupid shared FSB as much as you do, but it matters not how fast you keep your execution units fed, if they are half as slow to start with. This is a BAD thing because single threaded performance is going nowhere, where costs and price rises.

If you really wanted this performance today, make a CLUSTER, screw one off platforms that are using expensive, slow hardware -- Like my 1.6 LV Xeon Analogy.

You are right there.

I can count

I have read many Opteron vs. Woodcrest benchmarks. The lead Intel holds over AMD in the 2-core space is much larger than Intel's lead in the 4-core space. 4x4 brings AMD just a tiny bit closer.

AMD has a huge advantage of HT and an integrated memmory controller, but Intel has really hacked away at the latency of the shared bus, taking it to the point of what S939 has with DDR400 @ 2-2-2-5(~39NS ish). Core uses less power, its cheaper, it has a serious out of order execution engine, it is just better in every way -- except it cannot address as fast as A64, and it will not scale well in the 4+ CPU arena.


http://rufus.hackish.org/~rufus/amd/big.html

Reading the presentation, you can tell AMD cares about that 4+ CPU arena and Blades, not about the gamers.

I just wish that AM2 can at least provide ample competition for Intel, keeping the prices low for all of us

 

[visaris]

I just wish that AM2 can at least provide ample competition for Intel, keeping the prices low for all of us

I think we mostly agree. 4x4 is no revolutionary answer to Conroe. It does however fill a niche and is fun and interesting product; I look forward to more details. Also, I think we will see more out of AM2 over it's lifetime than you expect.

 

[Lolento]

I remember some news on AMD network platforms some time ago regarding to coprocessor development.

I believe opening up another socket for application specific processor like a PPU would be a better idea. At least better than the current physX implementation using the PCI slot...

 

[Tutelary]

AMD has been reduced to a really pathetic state with this announcement. This is desperation in action.

 

[Tutelary]

I remember some news on AMD network platforms some time ago regarding to coprocessor development.

I believe opening up another socket for application specific processor like a PPU would be a better idea. At least better than the current physX implementation using the PCI slot...

how about 2 cores and a ppu on die

 

[dotK]

I'll pass. Why spend $1,000 on CPUs when a $300 E6600 will still be better for games as games are often not multithreaded or if they are it doesn't always provide a very large benefit. Also, when considering that the Conroes are overclocking beasts it's a no brainer.

The A64 was nice but AMD loses this round. I'm sure they'll have better luck with the K8L, but that's not coming out until the middle of 2007.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

What round. This is last round + DDR2. It's makes things a tad cheaper that's all.

 

[dotK]

What round. This is last round + DDR2. It's makes things a tad cheaper that's all.

The late July 2006 to whenever K8L is released round.

 

[Donnie27]

FYI, there is no such thing as dual threaded, its either multithreaded, or not... but some applications scale across processors better than others...

OK!

 

[Donnie27]

hehhe... ok man... not all of us are concerned about quad threaded game support.

No I dont know how it is gonna perform. but again let me use the whole Ferrari analogy... in less that a decade Ferrari will make the F70 (70 years of ferrari, just like th F40, F50 and Enzo (F60)) and I am 100% positive that there are people that are going to buy one no matter what or how it performs. Why? Cause it is Ferrari.. they dont care about the cost, they just want the product. Which is kinda like this situation.. some people dont care about cost or performance... they want it cause they want it. Personal consumer choice.

Whatever you say, just don't mention AMD as if it was made by Enzo as well , not when it was made in Saxony LOL! Only someone with Green Arrow glasses on could mention Ferrari of any kind and AMD LOL! People buy paintings worth millions that doesn't mean Amd IS A WORK OF ART lol!

Sure some folks will buy, that doesn't mean they will or will not buy the Kludge of a Quick fix from AMD. Again, it is marketed to the wrong market. There are no games than show different performances with more cores=p If they did, FX-57 and etc.. wouldn't have a market. Even if there were NO Intel, X2 would have killed it by now.

 

[noobtech]

<Crazyness>The Conroe train is now boarding, "All Aboard!"... Get on now cause the 4X4 Train is going to cost an arm and a leg. HAHA...

I have enjoyed AMD for the past few years, but this is funny. I just hope Intel keeps prices affordable so we can all ride the Conroe train and watch it fly.</Crazyness>

 

[DeadlyAura]

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8we.html

???

So whats the point again? I'm guessing this is AM2, wow what a great benefit....

I'm confused AM2 is 940 pin and uses DDR2. That mobo says it supports 940 pin and regular DDR.

 

[Tetrahedron]

Whatever you say, just don't mention AMD as if it was made by Enzo as well , not when it was made in Saxony LOL! Only someone with Green Arrow glasses on could mention Ferrari of any kind and AMD LOL! People buy paintings worth millions that doesn't mean Amd IS A WORK OF ART lol!

Sure some folks will buy, that doesn't mean they will or will not buy the Kludge of a Quick fix from AMD. Again, it is marketed to the wrong market. There are no games than show different performances with more cores=p If they did, FX-57 and etc.. wouldn't have a market. Even if there were NO Intel, X2 would have killed it by now.

umm it was an analogy.. not a definitive comparrison, I know AMD is not Ferrari. Never said it was... but considering there is only a few processor makers, Intel, AMD, Via, SiS... I rank AMD is my favorite and so do many others.. biased or not.. irrelevant.. just like there are many upon many car manufacturers... some people feel (as do I) that Ferrari is the best, most elegant, most superior car available.. so maybe it is a definitive comparrison.. so sue me.

AMD is a work of art.. since art belongs to the eye of the beholder.. i guarantee we wouldnt agree on what we think art we like, art is a personal reflection, it is very internally based.. it cant be benchmarked.. though it is critized. Cars, Processors CAN be art as well, they can be benchmarked and are critized and/or praised. So what art i perfer, or what car I perfer and even what processor I perfer is a personal choice and a personal decision that can be reflected and choosed many ways.. one being with money, but yet it doesnt always necessarily have to based on performance either, but still can be.

Yeah so AMD's marketing platform for 4x4 is flawed.. does that make the product any or less more? Why do you care... it is about the technology or the marketing campaign? The tech isnt quite new, no, since AMD already has a solution for dual socket DC Opterons as we well know.. but hey this is not that product now is it?

Do I think the Conroe is weak, sorry ass CPU cause Intel makes it? NO! Will I ever buy one? NO! I dont care if it could run laps around AMD so fast it made the flagship AMD CPU look like a 386 comparred to 3.4Ghz P4 (or whatever). I will make do with what I got from AMD, make it the best I can.. its my money, why rag on people who want to spend their money on what they want? You are losing anything?

So I am thrilled that AMD is coming out with this solution and look forward to all of AMD's innovations and products and wish and hope the best for them and support them by purchasing their products. thank you.

I would rather push a Chevy (or Ferrari) than drive a Ford.. err I would rather have a lackluster AMD proc over a Intel proc.

I guess that makes me a !!!!!!... OH NOES!!! I am a fan of the San Francisco 49ers too.. even these past years of losing seasons.. I dont jump on the bandwagon and route for the best team in the league... so maybe you are a wagon jumper.. I am not, no worries though.. You can be whatever you want fine by me.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

AMD, release an inverse hyperthreading driver, and Ill use it, the rest is silly, nothing beyond a few applications take advantage of a dual core, let alone 2 or more dual cores.

 

[pxc]

AMD, release an inverse hyperthreading driver

It's not going to be a driver. I thought reverse hyperthreading was a post-K8L feature.

edit: yeah, it is: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Apr/bch20060417035855.htm

Reverse HyperThreading from AMD
AMD's follow-on chip after the K8L may contain an interesting technology.

 

[dr_dirtnap]

AMD, release an inverse hyperthreading driver, and Ill use it, the rest is silly, nothing beyond a few applications take advantage of a dual core, let alone 2 or more dual cores.

I kind of agree with the above post. 4x4 would appeal to me if the whole "reverse hyperthreading" theory was implemented. I wonder if one of the "coprocessors" may accomplish this.... If so, the announcement makes sense, I don't see the point in buying 2 FX processors when quad-cores are right around the corner.

 

[pxc]

I kind of agree with the above post. 4x4 would appeal to me if the whole "reverse hyperthreading" theory was implemented.

Look 2 posts up.

 

[dr_dirtnap]

Look 2 posts up.

LOL beat me by 2 minutes.

4x4 is supposed to be out before K8L, so my theory would be that if, and a big IF, AMD had the automagical reverse hyperthreading technology, that they can implement it with a coprocessor until K8L was released, where it may or may not be done on the core.

 

[fhpchris]

<Crazyness>The Conroe train is now boarding, "All Aboard!"... Get on now cause the 4X4 Train is going to cost an arm and a leg. HAHA...

I have enjoyed AMD for the past few years, but this is funny. I just hope Intel keeps prices affordable so we can all ride the Conroe train and watch it fly.</Crazyness>

Going to be on the Conroe Train ^^, Keeping my FX 60 as a File server most likley

 

[Serge84]

AM2 x 2 or 4x4 was thought of along time ago. All amd is doing is saying to the Mother board makers. "Hay make us a 2 socket mobo cus our AM2's are capable of useing more then one cpu socket." To AM2's its nothing special since they do have the same socket capabilites of opteron 940's. Ever think of useing 2 semperons... Oh boy... thats a real smart move AMD. AM2 could always do this if ya all didn't know that. You can even buy a PCI-E AM2 socket for a 2nd cpu. Shouldn't be a surprise to any of you all they can make dual socket AM2's like they have dual 940's. The socket capabilities tho arn't the same. AM2's socket is much better for future speeds and pritty much anything they thought up of until 2009. Don't think the socket is even close to its limit, its rediculess to even say anything when 1st of all its not a limited socket 939. We don't even know what its spec limit is. Mostly its part of the cpu more then anything that would have a limit, but it doesn't, has all the same freatures a current opteron does so why not?

AMD thought of this in advance all they need to do is get the Mother board makers to do exactly what they want and anything is possible. They could have thought of this a year ago and talked to the motherboard makers for all we know. Impossible to say. The mobos come out in july and thats the last of it.

The cheapest dual socket ever made. Thats bloody freaken awesome. 2 cpus are better then one. Doesn't matter how good 1 cpu is. Its IMPOSSIBLE to be ahead of 2 with one.

2 FX-62's vs 1 conroe. lol A conore is only 20% better at best agenst one in BENCHING not real world. Its not even out yet. But where does the 80% magicly come form with conore? This is something intels socket cant do. Even 2 semprons OCed would be better then buying a single dual core at the molment because they are so cheap and OC like its not even funny.

But amd never made AM2 to combat conore in the 1st place. They could care less at the molment. All AM2 is now is to use DDR2. But this doesn't mean they can't do whatever they want to make the socket better. A new socket has unknown limits as well as the CPU's such as when the new arc comes out K8L. Who knows what could happen its all speculation. But what is not is if I buy some kick ass Opterons on a dual socket 940 and vs conore. Ta hahahaha good luck benching agenst ppl with 2 cpus on 4 cores in all with your preshis conore. Much less the new socket F quad sockets. lol Conore isn't a god, even conore has its "limits".

 

[tHoM]

everyone buys new cpus for superpi, what other use do they have?

 

[savantu]

Damn...hi's back.

 

[Tutelary]

lots of blah blah blah

The difference is that only the most power hungry users would currently need 4 cores, and it will be what essentially amounts to 4 times the comparable price.
Conroe wins.

 

[visaris]

When talking about the FX line or the XE line, one does not typically put too much importance on price. Price is always an issue, but as has been said many times, there will always be people who want the best.

I would be very surprised if a single Conroe XE would outperform two FX-64s across the board. This puts the 4x4 platform as the best money can buy on the desktop. Conroe may still have the best price/performance ratio, and this may be even more true of lower clocked models, but the FX and XE lines are not about being the best price/performance. These lines are all about being the best performers.

It sounds to me like a lot of Conroe fans are upset because AMD just changed the rules. Too bad; Intel should have thought of it first. 4x4 is a little hackish, it is a stopgap, but it's an interesting idea that can bring some powerful results to a small group of people. Only time will tell if there is much interest in the area (though AMD did say this was something a lot of customers were interested in).

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

If money is no object then why not get woodcrest. By your estimation this is so much better (they will both be out around the same time). As for cost, its appearant since you made money is of no consequence, you opened another door. Its not that its a bad idea, its that unless they allow other amd processor it seems pointless. Woodcrest is suposed to be 850 at piece at 3.0. So its not am2 dual processor verse conroe it ends up being am2 fx dual processors verse woodcrest. So really which one will take the cake. Fb dimms are expensive yes, however if you pay 2 k or 1700 on processors alone, then fb dimms are probably not that much of a problem. Also with 16 memory slots you have the ability to get just about any size sticks you want.

Also, as for the motherboard I don't remember them talking about prices, if I missed it then ops.

I don't think its a bad Idea but personally if I am going to spend that kind of money I would rather get an the Operaton, or Woodcrest line. I think we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, however I do respect your opinion. btw I am anything but mad, or jelous about 4x4, and this is where I base my opinion on.

 

[/dev/null]

there aren't even many home-ready OSs that can support 4+ cores...

you have windows XP64, and the server versions of windows. so really the only solution is xp64 since users can't be expected to buy a server 2003 lisense.

AMD is always trying to be ahead of the curve... they are first with consumer 64bit and now trying to be first at consumer quad core...

but we are only just now seeing 64bit apps... how long until you gamer guys can load a truly multithreaded quake5 or HL3?

I'm pretty sure xp pro 32-bit will support 2 sockets and 4 cores. Anyone else comment? I also use FreeBSD at home and I know for sure it will support 4 also.

 

[thecoldanddarkone]

xp pro supports 2 sockets.

 

[Ockie]

When talking about the FX line or the XE line, one does not typically put too much importance on price. Price is always an issue, but as has been said many times, there will always be people who want the best.

I would be very surprised if a single Conroe XE would outperform two FX-64s across the board. This puts the 4x4 platform as the best money can buy on the desktop. Conroe may still have the best price/performance ratio, and this may be even more true of lower clocked models, but the FX and XE lines are not about being the best price/performance. These lines are all about being the best performers.

It sounds to me like a lot of Conroe fans are upset because AMD just changed the rules. Too bad; Intel should have thought of it first. 4x4 is a little hackish, it is a stopgap, but it's an interesting idea that can bring some powerful results to a small group of people. Only time will tell if there is much interest in the area (though AMD did say this was something a lot of customers were interested in).

I don't think the conroe fans are upset, I think it's a matter of keeping it logical. If you want the best, then you go quad opteron or even higher with quad sli... it's not really rocket science.

This is also not a new concept, we all know that a quad dual core opteron 885 would rape any FX/Conroe solution, but the idea comes in that at some point that you have to draw the line with physical processors in a box to consider them enthusiast vs server/workstation.


From reading this thread you'd swear this is the first time any company has placed more than one processor on a board. Also, this isn't the cheapest solution and it seems as if people tend to forget really quickly, I guess no one remembers the Abit BP6 or the MP boards that you could use cheap XP's on with a simple L5 mod that you sometimes didn't even need to perform.

 

[NulloModo]

AM2 x 2 or 4x4 was thought of along time ago. All amd is doing is saying to the Mother board makers. "Hay make us a 2 socket mobo cus our AM2's are capable of useing more then one cpu socket." To AM2's its nothing special since they do have the same socket capabilites of opteron 940's. Ever think of useing 2 semperons... Oh boy... thats a real smart move AMD. AM2 could always do this if ya all didn't know that. You can even buy a PCI-E AM2 socket for a 2nd cpu. Shouldn't be a surprise to any of you all they can make dual socket AM2's like they have dual 940's. The socket capabilities tho arn't the same. AM2's socket is much better for future speeds and pritty much anything they thought up of until 2009. Don't think the socket is even close to its limit, its rediculess to even say anything when 1st of all its not a limited socket 939. We don't even know what its spec limit is. Mostly its part of the cpu more then anything that would have a limit, but it doesn't, has all the same freatures a current opteron does so why not?

AMD thought of this in advance all they need to do is get the Mother board makers to do exactly what they want and anything is possible. They could have thought of this a year ago and talked to the motherboard makers for all we know. Impossible to say. The mobos come out in july and thats the last of it.

The cheapest dual socket ever made. Thats bloody freaken awesome. 2 cpus are better then one. Doesn't matter how good 1 cpu is. Its IMPOSSIBLE to be ahead of 2 with one.

2 FX-62's vs 1 conroe. lol A conore is only 20% better at best agenst one in BENCHING not real world. Its not even out yet. But where does the 80% magicly come form with conore? This is something intels socket cant do. Even 2 semprons OCed would be better then buying a single dual core at the molment because they are so cheap and OC like its not even funny.

But amd never made AM2 to combat conore in the 1st place. They could care less at the molment. All AM2 is now is to use DDR2. But this doesn't mean they can't do whatever they want to make the socket better. A new socket has unknown limits as well as the CPU's such as when the new arc comes out K8L. Who knows what could happen its all speculation. But what is not is if I buy some kick ass Opterons on a dual socket 940 and vs conore. Ta hahahaha good luck benching agenst ppl with 2 cpus on 4 cores in all with your preshis conore. Much less the new socket F quad sockets. lol Conore isn't a god, even conore has its "limits".

Ignorance is the mind-killer.
Ignorance is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my ignorance
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the ignorance has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

DeadlyAura -

The reason that board is regular DDR is because it's an Opteron 2xx board, Opteron 2xx and 8xx chips are a 940 pin socket.

 

[fan_83]

visaris: if what you are saying is true and that price is not the issue and some will only want the best, then all intel has to do is to create dual dual core with teh conreos and d series and make amd eat their pie.

if amd can do it, why not intel, and if you really think that 4 cores is such a great solution and a step forward no matter hte cost, then intel iwll do so as well with the conroes and infact it will be better and cheaper. or if intel wanna poke the stick in deeper, then can do it with teh d series and make amd see stars and sit down to cry.

the problem with the quad core is that its not new tech, its a stop gap measure and its benefits can only be seen on a vary limited amount of programs/tasks and those are only done by a very limited amount of people. and htose people will have already have a more professional version of the quad core.

from what i can see, teh quad core of am2 is a desperate attempt to prevent it being slaughtered by intel

also: conroe is already on the market: ebay is selling the 6700 for around 300quid. so its not a paperlaunch, although the amd believers will call it engineering samples.


we do want to see quad core, but we want ot see it implement in such a way and fashion and time that there are an array of programs that can support it and utilise it. until then, its a pointless expensive piece of tech. theres a time and place for everything.

its like owning your own f16, but until the govt allows you to fly it commercially, its nothing more than a photo piece and a waste of good money

just my 2c

 

[Donnie27]

Yeah so AMD's marketing platform for 4x4 is flawed.. does that make the product any or less more? Why do you care... it is about the technology or the marketing campaign? The tech isnt quite new, no, since AMD already has a solution for dual socket DC Opterons as we well know.. but hey this is not that product now is it?....................

Do I think the Conroe is weak, sorry ass CPU cause Intel makes it? NO! Will I ever buy one? NO! I dont care if it could run laps around AMD so fast it made the flagship AMD CPU look like a 386 comparred to 3.4Ghz P4 (or whatever). I will make do with what I got from AMD, make it the best I can.. its my money, why rag on people who want to spend their money on what they want?..................

I would rather push a Chevy (or Ferrari) than drive a Ford.. err I would rather have a lackluster AMD proc over a Intel proc.

I guess that makes me a !!!!!!... OH NOES!!! I am a fan of the San Francisco 49ers too.. even these past years of losing seasons..

You're the type of person who's bad for not only the Processor market but to even AMD Fans. If they were all like you, AMD would still be selling AthlonXPs.

No it is not like cheering for the San Fran 49ers. The best way to be a 49ers Fan is to step away. Then they'd get better players. Cheering for a loser is not only stupid but counter-productive. If I need work done I get the best tool to do that work. Not take longer because I have some missed placed love for company like AMD or Intel. Neither gives me anything free. If you’re not a stock holder or employee, then your blind love for AMD is Crazy!

Sorry I'd rather push nothing. I want a working car for safe transportation and don't give flying flickering f@#$ who made it. I do like Chevy BTW LOL! Yet, if Chevy sucks I'm moving to something else. Like most folks here I own both Intel and AMD products and don't plan to buy second rate from either company out of some stupid loyalty.

I'm buying Conroe this time and if K8L kicks ass when I do to upgrade next time I'll buy it. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. I have an AMD based Gamer Rig and HTPC that’s Intel based downstairs in my Den. I’ am a Bandwagon jumping fence sitting Fan of my wallet.