AMD 4x4 to support normal X2 CPUs?

That article makes me think that you will have to use fx cpus, it quite clearly states

Quote:

---

The hardware itself consists of two dual core CPUs and four GPUs, hence the 4X4 moniker. AMD said there is not going to be just one 4X4, there will be a range of 4X4s, including at least two with a price under $1,000. It will also be branded FX in one way or another.

This is in stark contrast to the current FX line, or at least the current FX chip. These are only sold in the highest speed bin, and there is only one at a time. With the 4X4 line, it will be physically different, so there will be no pesky "an FX-57 is different from a straight A64, how?" questions, it is different.

---

Your quote makes it sound like they dont have to be FX CPUs to me?

2 CPUs for <$1000 screams "not FX" to me...

also the fact that the 4x4 plan "is in stark contrast to existing FX"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VulgarHandle

i like them showing how 3dmark '06 started on the FX-62 first, but finished on the '4x4' first...lol

---

it would make 3dmark06 obsolete als a GFX benchmark, the cpu test screws the score hard, showing you a wrong image of the gfx performance.

It sounds like to me fx only. But it sounds like they are going to make new fx's just for this board probably with locked multi's except for the highest, who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

LOL. I don't need my ass whooped, but 4 cores, I cant even think of a game that supports 2 cores, or any software. So yeah... Its kinda wierd. But I still cant wait for them to come out!

~Mike

---

QFT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scimitar

My copies of Deep Junior and Deep Fritz use many many cores / processors. They have been run on 128 processor systems.

Not that I would buy a new setup for chess analysis for anything, but computer chess tournaments are pretty fun, in a geek kind of way. :)

---

Lol, Fritz FTW...:banana: :banana: :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecoldanddark

It sounds like to me fx only. But it sounds like they are going to make new fx's just for this board probably with locked multi's except for the highest, who knows.

---

Why would they do that if they could get 10x more sales for 4x4 if they allowed the usage of non-FX chips which make up less than 1% of AMD sales

IMO there's going to be "4x4 capable" AM2's and non-"4x4 capable" AM2's, exactly as there were 1-way capable and 2-way capable (and 8-way capable) Opterons. With pricing to match (ie: 2.4GHz 1MB cache 2-way AM2 would cost pretty much the same as a 2.4GHz 1MB cache 2-way S940 Opteron). I think it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to stick two existing AM2 CPUs (or 1-way only CPUs) into the board and have them work together. The "pair for $1K" somewhat supports this, as if you could stick a couple of low-end AM2's in there it'd be much lower.

How such CPUs will be branded I don't know ... it'd make most sense for them to be Opterons (similar to the S939 Opterons), though they could "extend" the FX numbering down and have more than one FX on sale.

who smartass (site) came up with only fx for the 4x4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

What software that we use and really are desperately in need for needs 4 cores ?

Intel and AMD are forcing 4 cores down our throats too soon. Not many desktop apps need 4 cores, when multitasking hardly anyone does a game whilst ripping a cd and downloading a new demo because even though all the 4 cores can do it we humans tend to concentrate on one thing a time.

Regards
Andy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

I think it is just a marketing ploy to distract from Conroe and steal some of the thunder.

Regards

Andy

---

Completely agree Andy, i'm not terribly excited about 4x4. More sockets, more mess. And the extra cores are getting ridiculous, we still have hardly anything that's multithreaded... more cores don't help the average user very much at all without real multithreading. And i'm not buying much into the reverse hyperthreading stuff either...

please quit shoving 'multi-threading' blah blah blah down our throats, even AMD dosn't push that aspect of it AS MUCH as the multi-TASKING part of it

this is xtremesystems, and benchmarks are king, but we're talking about benefits of a system here, and those benefits are clear, if not, all multi-cpu servers would be thrown out for C2D's if you were so right

btw, does one physical processor (i mean using only one socket) work with 4x4? that'd be good to test both processors in overclocking capabilities. like testing each ram stick.

Only Low Power X2 CPU's (65W) will be compatible with 4x4 platform!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Only Low Power X2 CPU's (65W) will be compatible with 4x4 platform!

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

btw, does one physical processor (i mean using only one socket) work with 4x4? that'd be good to test both processors in overclocking capabilities. like testing each ram stick.

---

a true dual core would be 2 phsyical processors, if you had a Pent4 w/ HT it would be 1 physical, 1 logical. hyperthreading is considered a logical processor.

~Mike

fx theory is flawed cause you can get dual core opteron 2xx series and the 4xx series. Also ppl assume 4x4 isn't needed why is there 2xx and 4xx series dual core opteron?? I was planing to get dual core 2xx to 4xx series long time ago but find out there is no oc features also the cpu cost lots more than 1xx series of the same performance. Yes that means you can get 2 socket dual core for 4 cores or 4 socket dual core for 8 cores when the first opteron dual core came out last last so years.

The initial (legit) press release by AMD demonstrated a 4x4 system "under" 1000.00

There is no way that is possible with two FX processors unless AMD slashes prices prior to the 4x4 release. They also quoted a system, not two processors or motherboard and processor upgrade meaning it will be very affordable.

Also, whoever thinks more cores will not benefit a system more than linear processing capability needs to get there heads checked. Added processing bandwidth is simply more beneficial than linear processing given the nature of windows multithreaded environment.

The messy second socket statement was also funny.
Since when is a second socket messy? has anyone ever complained about the second or fourth mem sockets on motherboards? nonesense, sockets would be a welcome upgrade path on any system imo. Nice to have and even better to make use of!

Big changes ahead, we should welcome them with open arms and look forward to the benefits.

The one thing that sounds fishy about using existing X2 CPU’s for 4X4 is that yes the X2’s have an open direct connect path but isn’t that being used by the cores on the CPU so they can talk to each other?
From reading up on the Opteron processors you need a direct connect path open for each CPU. Unless there is more then one open direct connect path on the existing X2 chips, or they are using the one direct connect path for double duty (if its even possible). Then won’t they need to either make new chips with multiple direct connect paths open? Or will they be using there new connection to ATI and creating a sort of north bridge connection for the CPU’s to share resources?
From a financial standpoint the only way it makes sense is if AMD uses existing X2 CPU’s with there single direct connect path and take the small hit in performance. Because if they do create the new chips with multiple direct connect paths enabled then they will be killing the Opteron market. From what I can tell the number of direct connect paths enabled and the binning is the only difference between Opterons and there other chips. (yes of course there is some technical differences but nothing a large business would really understand well enough to pay x2 to x10 times as much for a CPU)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

a true dual core would be 2 phsyical processors, if you had a Pent4 w/ HT it would be 1 physical, 1 logical. hyperthreading is considered a logical processor.

~Mike

---

ok, mistake, but that doesn't answer my question.

having one socket filled with 4x4: possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kargren

The one thing that sounds fishy about using existing X2 CPU’s for 4X4 is that yes the X2’s have an open direct connect path but isn’t that being used by the cores on the CPU so they can talk to each other?
From reading up on the Opteron processors you need a direct connect path open for each CPU. Unless there is more then one open direct connect path on the existing X2 chips, or they are using the one direct connect path for double duty (if its even possible). Then won’t they need to either make new chips with multiple direct connect paths open? Or will they be using there new connection to ATI and creating a sort of north bridge connection for the CPU’s to share resources?
From a financial standpoint the only way it makes sense is if AMD uses existing X2 CPU’s with there single direct connect path and take the small hit in performance. Because if they do create the new chips with multiple direct connect paths enabled then they will be killing the Opteron market. From what I can tell the number of direct connect paths enabled and the binning is the only difference between Opterons and there other chips. (yes of course there is some technical differences but nothing a large business would really understand well enough to pay x2 to x10 times as much for a CPU)

---

Lets think about this, All AM2 cpus have atleast one working 16bit Hypertransport link, that has the ablity to split into 2 8bit hypertransport connections. You would only need a full 16bit if you wanted max performance. :banana::banana::banana::banana: Even $55 Sempies should be FULLY supported..

Your right I was under the impression that the core communicated via there own special links not just the HyperTransport links. ??? So then what makes the Opterons special? Just more HT links?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

That article makes me think that you will have to use fx cpus, it quite clearly states

---

Absolutely, like AMD officialy stated a month ago. the_INQ is full of BS anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kargren

Your right I was under the impression that the core communicated via there own special links not just the HyperTransport links. ??? So then what makes the Opterons special? Just more HT links?

---

Basicially yeah, and a tittle bit more Cache (except when compared to standard 1Mbx2 models)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kargren

Your right I was under the impression that the core communicated via there own special links not just the HyperTransport links. ??? So then what makes the Opterons special? Just more HT links?

---

Yup ... or rather more coherent HT links. All S939/S754 CPUs have only one HT link (for I/O) and it is not coherent. If if you somehow rigged up a system to tie two CPUs together with this link they'd be unable to work together.

All S940 chips have three HT links. In 1xx Opterons, none of these have coherency enabled so two 1xx Opterons cannot be used together. 2xx Opterons allow a single link to be used for coherent HT, so you can at best tie two of them together. For 8xx Opterons, all three links can be used in coherent mode so you can tie up to 8 physical packages together (limited by the CPU configuration ability, not the lack of CHT links). IIRC, the S940 FX's were slightly different in that they only had a single HT link enabled (not coherent).

The differences between A64's and Opterons (excluding S939 Opterons which are simply rebadged A64's) are mainly in the packaging and how they are configured (with the internal fuses). And binning of course.

The HT capabilities of the AM2 socket are unknown at this point in time as AMD has not un-NDA'd the AM2 functional data sheet. There might, in fact be
two HT links in the socket, in which case everything works quite nicely: basically exactly the same as S940 in that you have CPUs with varying HT/CHT configurations. IMO this is the most logical approach for AMD to take as it does not require any additional work. If there's only one HT link, then they'd have to do that HT link splitting thing they've been talking about. This would not be entirely stupid either, as then they can price the 2-way capable AM2 CPUs at below the 2-way capable S940/S1207 CPUs due to slightly lower performance (though they'd still be pricier than the 1-way capable AM2 CPUs that are being sold at the moment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kargren

Your right I was under the impression that the core communicated via there own special links not just the HyperTransport links. ??? So then what makes the Opterons special? Just more HT links?

---

yeha, special link! It has to be coherent HT link!