AMD 4x4 to support normal X2 CPUs?

Taken from TheInq report:

"Basically, the chips will be standard A64 X2s with at least 1 ccHT link not turned off so they can talk. If there is any special sauce, AMD did not talk about it , and I would not expect any earth-shattering jumps in performance on single- or low-threaded games. AMD also said the concept will carry over to eight cores, two quad-core chips, but they won't be called 8X4."

Source: http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=33268

Thats a reporter from The Inquirer, and his words, not an official AMD line. Assuming he was at the meeting, and saw what was shown with his own eyes...it might actually be true?

K

didnt we know already that this platform was for normal X2's/singlecores? thats the whole cool thing about it, just get two INSANELY cheap x2-3800's and well, assuming they do 2,8-3,0ghz, thats some quadcore power i say :)

Really interesting part of Charlie's civerage:

Quote:

---

Again, with 4X4, you end up with double the memory bandwidth, so this is far less of a problem. With clever software you can partition it so the game gets all the CPU it needs, and no less than a normal CPU's worth of bandwidth. Could this be the 'special sauce' I keep hearing about?

---

:)

I agree with biohead here. There would be no point in 4x4 if you had to get special processors. You might as well have got some opterons.

Uhm, isn't the 4x4 only limited to FX CPU's?!?


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3509

that would make absolutely no sense and would be absolutely retarded. enthusiasts aren't just filthy rich kids hello? :stick:

There would be no profit on 4x4 if it was just for FX. How many people buy a single FX? Not many in the gand scheme of things. SO you'd need to pay double on processors and then thers the motherboards as well

Yeah but if it is not FX only then surely it steals FX sales ? That was the theory behind it being only FX.

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

Regards

Andy

Don't forget the fact that the up coming quad cores support 4x4 and allowing Cheap 8 core setups :D a year before Intel could put one out

Can someone explain this to me....how is 4x4 any different from Opteron?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanborn

Can someone explain this to me....how is 4x4 any different from Opteron?

---

1) Mobos are able to Overclock
2) aren't made to be Servers
3) no registered Ram required
4) SCSI is no where to be found onboard

and #5! pci-e instead of pci-x :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozzimark

and #5! pci-e instead of pci-x :toast:

---

and what I am dreaming of getting here soon is HTX slots :slobber: PCIe gets its ass handed to itself when it comes to latency :D

mmm. HTX

~Mike

This goes for Kentsfield as well ...

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

For us, would it not be better to have a much more overclockable really fast and cheap dual core whether it be Brisbane or Core2 ?

It seems to me that the majority of desktop software is just moving over from single core and yet 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.

I might be a bit of a Luddite but give me a dual core which has one core for OS and one for the app I am running and make it half as cheap as 4 core and half as much money to run. Then I am happy.

Intel and AMD have made people go multi core crazy just so they can charge more as they lower the process from 90 to 65 to 45.

Hold on this is XS ... I need a :slapass: :D

Regards
Andy

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

I was under the impression that FEAR was dual threaded, and got some better FPS when you had a dual core.

I'm not jumping on the multi-core platform bandwagon till I find out where this is going to level out, and what the 'standard' is, if there is one. Maybe quad core will level off and be the champ for a while. 8 cores... useless.

Ryan

zakelwe, us Distributed Computingers would LOVE 4 cores on desktop, much less 8 *drools*

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

---

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. :)

it's just the fact that you always have spare cores left to do other stuff, i don't necessarely need all cores to do the same thing. even though it's all programmable, it wasn't the initial intention anyway. Four cores, yummy. eight cores. Encoding lots of stuff at the same time. And playing a game. JUM-HEE!!!

well it would definately be a hell of alot more fun for all of us. For example I have one of my Cores dedicated to my music, Evilplayer gets realtime priority and exclusive use of the second core :D
Which is Ironic Considering it is the Lightest Media player on Earth :p:

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

yeah, I play a MMO, and I load one instance on one core, and the other instance on the other core... works good. I couldnt imaging having 4 instances running.. LOL

~Mike

Quote:

---

If there is any special sauce

---

mmm...'eatable' sources.






yes im aware

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!

I'm hoping for the best as far as 4x4 goes, having 2 X2 3800+ would be nice. However, for now this blog seems to sum up what I think 4x4 will be:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3552

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CPLB

I'm hoping for the best as far as 4x4 goes, having 2 X2 3800+ would be nice. However, for now this blog seems to sum up what I think 4x4 will be:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3552

---

Yeah, defently having non FX cpus would be a plus, and would make it a better seller... Hopfully they see it like we do.

~Mike

I have done some research on the subject but I cant seems to find out, what exactly is the difference between coherent and non-coherent HT links?

Just to toss out this picture from an AM2 CPU
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...p2/Iwonder.png
for a larger view

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Just to toss out this picture from an AM2 CPU
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...p2/Iwonder.png
for a larger view

---

NN, curious as to what cpu that is taken from???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Just to toss out this picture from an AM2 CPU
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...p2/Iwonder.png
for a larger view

---

1 16bit HTT and 2 8bit HTT links?

^^
Yup has me baffled...

Guys

are't the new opty's capable of doing 4X4? I had thought they had pushed the 2x1mb cache to the opty line, charge a little more and make em the choice for 4x4....?

Im sure i read that somewhere....????

This is AM2 were all tlaking here right?
the 939's will get advantages from 4X4?
Or is this a dream?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosophy

This is AM2 were all tlaking here right?
the 939's will get advantages from 4X4?
Or is this a dream?

---

4 x 4 will be AM2 only.

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plywood99

NN, curious as to what cpu that is taken from???

---

A 100% standard AM2 3000+

Hey nn-step do the AM2 cpu's have some of the HT links enabled? Im not sure what that looks like on a 939... How does it differ from the one to the other?(939 to AM2)

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

A 100% standard AM2 3000+

---

Cool.:toast:

Things are looking up for 4x4 then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Just to toss out this picture from an AM2 CPU
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...p2/Iwonder.png
for a larger view

---

kinda similar to a skt 939 chip, it still shows three HT links :shrug:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9...infoik4.th.jpg

I've known from Day 1 in April that 4x4:

- Isn't a dual cpu solution
- Won't require a special AM2 cpu
- Has an SLI function...meaning you'll be able to use a 4x4 mobo with one cpu then add another at your discretion.

If anyone actually cared to read the 4x4 release info that was out on SO many sites...we wouldn't have a 3 page thread on "NO WAY DUDE !!"

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

- Won't require a special AM2 cpu

---

Does this mean any AM2 cpu or any dual core AM2 cpu, would be awesome if it wasnt only for dual core, 2 semprons anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldrick

Does this mean any AM2 cpu or any dual core AM2 cpu, would be awesome if it wasnt only for dual core, 2 semprons anyone?

---

Yup. The whole purpose of the price cuts is so that allt he 2MB Cache processors end up Opterons and the 1MB processors are desktop...AMD wouldn't risk making a whole new line of processors after reorganizing their production lines.

Perkam

This will be sweet... I cant wait for this.

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xbitlabs.com

AMD said that it will not only offer systems running two of its dual-core processors with system integrators, such as Alienware or VoodooPC, but will also offer bundles of two processors in one package, making the 4x4, or Quad-Father, technology available in the do-it-yourself (DIY) markets. The pricing on such bundles will start from approximately $1000, according to AMD’s Pat Moorhead.

It is currently unclear whether typical AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, which pricing varies from $152 to $301, AMD Athlon 64 FX chips, which are usually priced in between $800 and $1100, or a new series of desktop-oriented processors will serve the Quad-Father platforms. The company at this time reviews possibilities to enable “step by step” 4x4, where end-users could get only one chip initially and then add another one some time later.

---

That sounds pretty crappy. Why is this so great? What if it turns out that "step by step" isn't feasible? Starting at $1000? Why would anybody go "Quad-Father" unless you are a total AMDroid? You could get Core 2 Xeons for less than that and they would smack the crap out of these chips.

They need to bring something else to the table with this.

@CBONE..please can you provide price details on a Xeon setup...you`ve made a claim, not ya have to back it up :)

:)

K

The point of this thread is to provide evidence that normal (read as..cheap) X2 chips will work, and the evidence seems to be mounting. If AND make this only for the most expensive chips, you`re right..its pointless.

well, from what I've read so far, 4 x 4 is about 15% faster than C2D.....

I doubt its going to start at 1000 dollars... I think a mainboard in the 200 range, 2 3800+'s in the 160ish range.... or hell maybe even just one at a time.. put in another one later... I dont know.

This will not be crappy, thats for sure.

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

@CBONE..please can you provide price details on a Xeon setup...you`ve made a claim, not ya have to back it up :)

:)

K

---

I'd like to see results aswell.

~Mike

Quote:

---

The pricing on such bundles will start from approximately $1000, according to AMD’s Pat Moorhead

---

Bundles being "two processors in one package"

2 processors for 1000 dollars at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

well, from what I've read so far, 4 x 4 is about 15% faster than C2D.....

I doubt its going to start at 1000 dollars... I think a mainboard in the 200 range, 2 3800+'s in the 160ish range.... or hell maybe even just one at a time.. put in another one later... I dont know.

This will not be crappy, thats for sure.

~Mike

---

15% my ass :D. In multithreaded apps it will be a lot more than that (even the cheapest 2 x X2 3800 should outperform the X6800) and in singlethreaded games it will be slower. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

I've known from Day 1 in April that 4x4:

- Isn't a dual cpu solution
- Won't require a special AM2 cpu
- Has an SLI function...meaning you'll be able to use a 4x4 mobo with one cpu then add another at your discretion.

If anyone actually cared to read the 4x4 release info that was out on SO many sites...we wouldn't have a 3 page thread on "NO WAY DUDE !!"

Perkam

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBone

Bundles being "two processors in one package"

2 processors for 1000 dollars at least.

---

According to Perkam. 4 x 4 WILL NOT require special CPU's so your package deal is out the window. This means, you can use any AM2 CPU. Which CPU's "in a package" run 1000 dollars? I calculate about 360 dollars for 3800's and on and on..

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alayashu

15% my ass :D. In multithreaded apps it will be a lot more than that (even the cheapest 2 x X2 3800 should outperform the X6800) and in singlethreaded games it will be slower. :)

---

I remeber reading a site, they said it was a 15% gain on Conroe. We just have to wait tho.

~Mike

@CBONE again :) I was under the impression that "package deal for $1000" included the mobo, and with current pricing, 2x4600+ chips with a mobo should fit that

Current pricing at flickerdown.com for a 2.33 GHz Xeon 5140 1333 MHz FSB is $532.15

I can't see a dual-socket super enthusiast board being offered for the same price or cheaper as current single socket enthusiast boards. I'm guessing 300+. I'm still waiting for info on some cheaper Xeon boards other than the Tyan board that is priced at $360 currently.

FB-DIMMs would be required for the Xeon system, but they are about $100 per stick for 512 MB DDR2-667, where regular DDR2-800 is about $50 a stick.

I think this tech needs to bring more to the table to succeed. Those compatible chips better be hella cheap or this will fail (given the current information, of course).

$200 Mobo + $320 for two 3800 X2s = $520...though I would not call it quad core in any sense of the word. This isn't dp and its not in one die...so expect very limited yields vs one well oced 5000+...which, with a $200 mobo, also costs $500 :)

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

According to Perkam. 4 x 4 WILL NOT require special CPU's so your package deal is out the window. This means, you can use any AM2 CPU. Which CPU's "in a package" run 1000 dollars? I calculate about 360 dollars for 3800's and on and on..

~Mike

---

It's not my package deal. I'm just quoting the xbitlabs article which quoted Pat Moorhead. I hope it does do well. If this drops dual socket prices, everyone wins. There is no reason that these dual socket boards need to include the stupidest SCSI options and other worthless things to keep the prices jacked up. You can almost hear the fapping when word comes out about a cheap dual socket board with some enthusiast features. Then it gets killed for one reason or another or turns out to be :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty and expensive. They used to be cheap back in the day. Now they are a rip on both the Xeon and Opteron sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBONE

Current pricing at flickerdown.com for a 2.33 GHz Xeon 5140 1333 MHz FSB is $532.15

I can't see a dual-socket super enthusiast board being offered for the same price or cheaper as current single socket enthusiast boards. I'm guessing 300+. I'm still waiting for info on some cheaper Xeon boards other than the Tyan board that is priced at $360 currently.

FB-DIMMs would be required for the Xeon system, but they are about $100 per stick for 512 MB DDR2-667, where regular DDR2-800 is about $50 a stick.

I think this tech needs to bring more to the table to succeed. Those compatible chips better be hella cheap or this will fail (given the current information, of course).

---

How will it fail, Im sure tons of people will buy this... dual socket finally made for the main stream market... Im all over it.. your super work station there will defently cost more than 4 x 4.

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

How will it fail, Im sure tons of people will buy this... dual socket finally made for the main stream market... Im all over it.. your super work station there will defently cost more than 4 x 4.

~Mike

---

If the story I quoted was factual, yes, that setup would be more than the lowest end, cheapest 4x4 system. But I only picked the Xeons that are around $500 each. The cheapest 51XX Xeon is priced at around $260.