AMD's Quad FX: Technically Quad Core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 30, 2006 1:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
AMD is going to have a very tough sell with Quad FX; although the CPUs are priced competitively, if the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS ends up just shy of the $400 mark it's a platform that is simply too expensive at no benefit to the end user. When only running one or two CPU intensive threads, Quad FX ends up being slower than an identically clocked dual core system, and when running more threads it's no faster than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700. But it's more expensive than the alternatives and consumes as much power as both, combined.
There is the upgrade path argument, that eventually you will be able to put a total of eight cores in this Quad FX platform, but we can't help but wonder if the market for someone who wants a non-workstation 8-core setup for desktop use is a very small one. Although to AMD's credit we were able to create a scenario where even four cores won't cut it, making a case for the need for 8-core setups in the future. But the promise of eight cores in the future doesn't do a great job of justifying the Quad FX purchase today.
For those users who won't migrate to eight cores, once AMD's new micro-architecture debuts next year with native quad-core support, this expensive Quad FX platform will be notably slower than cheaper single socket systems. Quad FX is simply a very niche product, and in the era of power efficiency and performance per watt, AMD has released the proverbial SUV of high end desktops.
AMD hopes to sell more Quad FX processors than any FX processor in the past, which to us means that either AMD sees much more opportunity in this platform than we do, or that the previous FX processors simply didn't sell very well. Either way you slice it, there's only one AMD CPU we're really interested in and we won't get it until the middle of next year. Luckily for AMD, Intel doesn't appear to be doing anything huge between now and then either, so it looks like the CPU wars will cool down for a while after a heated few months.
Prepare to revisit this discussion in less than a year's time, and next time AMD will hopefully be much better prepared, armed with a new architecture and a cooler, smaller 65nm process. Until then, there's always Quad FX but you're better off with Kentsfield.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
BikeDude - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - link
Could the reason be that 1GB per memory node is simply too little?On a configuration like this, you'll easily see one of the nodes with only 256MB or so left...
So, put in some more memory! At this point 32-bit XP will be limiting, even for 32-bit apps. (XP won't address more than 2^32 Bytes, some of this will be masked by PCI and PCIe devices, and additionally each process only has a 2GB address space for code&data unless you upgrade to 64-bit Windows) Also be aware that nVidia ForceWare 80.00 and newer lost PAE support. You'll experience crashes and non-working games if combined with a PAE aware 32-bit OS (such as Win2003). ForceWare 79.11 works fine though.
(BTW: MSFT added NUMA support in XP SP2)
Kiijibari - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - link
Hi Ananand,sounds credible, because there is some extra cache snooping traffic going on, anyways, please keep us posted if there is a new BIOS version available, and if it would "do" something :)
Windows schweduler differences between XP and VISTA would be interesting, too.
So far there were only Win32 XP vs. Win Vista64 comparisions, not possible to draw a fair conclusion with that data.
Thanks a lot
Kiijibari
mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
One important question:Are those new FX-7x CPU identical or is there some differentiation employed ???
Kiijibari - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - link
identical to what ?If you meant Socket-F Opterons, then yes, they are identical, if the BIOS allows it, then normal Opterons should be able to run in 4x4 boards, too.
cheers
Kiijibari
mino - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - link
Thanks that info(if correct) pretty much clears the FUD.Griswold - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - link
How so? The 2P+ Opteron IMC wants buffered RAM, while these FX types do not. I dont think a simple BIOS hack can circumvent that.Kiijibari - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - link
*gasp*Du you really think AMD engineers, tests, validate, etc. a CPU for a niche market ??
There are maybe only a few thousand 4x4 CPUs, that are sold worldwide per month ... it would be economical ridiculous.
But if you dont know anything about business, maybe that will convince you:
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?i...">http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?i...
cheers
Kiijibari
lollichop - Sunday, February 26, 2017 - link
All idiots talking about old CPUs here :D Fast forward 11 years, Ryzen will be out in a week's time.