Anyone thinking about getting the quadfx(4x4)

[BaronMatrix]

So thats what he meant....

What I meant is really neither here nor there. The point is that I will be getting QFX and you can either laugh or cheer depending on what certain benchmarks look like.

 

[dasickninja]

Do what you like. Its your money.

 

[RandMcnally]

I think that many people don't get the concept of quadFX because AMD hasn't done any marketing on it. And I don't think they've done any marketing on it because the fx's that are coming out aren't going to be fast enough. I think that when the new architecture comes out and is fast enough to compete with Intel's high end processors, it will then be that AMD will be marketing it.

Here's the thing, when you go to four video cards, you are using a TON of memory bandwidth. There is a lot of data moving with video. I think that this is where we find our problem. As graphics processing units become faster and faster they are constantly being limited by the cpu. I think this is where AMD's 4x4 will be out Intel on the high end(and maybe not now, but I do believe eventually), because it's not a cheap way to counter Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, it's a way to counter high end gaming, and take back the high end gaming segment. It's not a cheap, dumb, drunken idea, I think it's a very smart move. Because video is out pacing the processor, two processors will better be able to handle so much data. Let me just use a simple representation.

Say that you can run 4mbit/s through one processor(just video), and each video card uses 3.5mbit/s. One video card is fine for one processor, but then you move up to two video cards, and that's 7mbit/s of data a second, but because the cpu can only handle 4mbit/s per second, the cards can only run at 2mbit/s for each card, and then say you add four video cards, then the cards can use 14mbit/s of bandwidth, but the cpu can only use 4mbit/s so the video cards are severly underused. Then say we add two processors(and this isn't even giving an advantage to the Hyper Transport link to each video card from the processors). Now you have 8mbit/s of video bandwidth that can be used, and this better utilizes two and four video cards. This is where QuadFX will hold an advantage. And also there is a hyper transport link to the video cards from each processor which increases that memory capability of the cpu. Along with HT links to the memory it's a data streaming powerhouse.

 

[joset]

What I meant is really neither here nor there. The point is that I will be getting QFX and you can either laugh or cheer depending on what certain benchmarks look like.

:lol:

Sorry, I'm already laughing! Not at you, mind it! I guess your words just showed a bit more of yourself.


Cheers!

 

[joset]

(...) I think that when the new architecture comes out and is fast enough to compete with Intel's high end processors, it will then be that AMD will be marketing it.

And, you're implying Intel'll stay put, meanwhile.

(..) because it's not a cheap way to counter Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, it's a way to counter high end gaming, and take back the high end gaming segment. It's not a cheap, dumb, drunken idea, I think it's a very smart move. Because video is out pacing the processor, two processors will better be able to handle so much data. (...)

Not cheap, indeed! And, what if a C2Q will not be hampered by the lack of an IMC & HT, as 'everyone' expects it to be? According to any arithmetics, one will be left with an insultuously expensive quad-core and, two sockets later, overwhelmed by a single, insultuously cheap quad-core chip, comparatively speaking.
By the way, never mind four graphics cards; they'll bottleneck any option, given the oportunity.


Cheers!

 

[RandMcnally]

I'm not implying anything, I'm merely saying that NO ONE KNOWS.... no one has owned it yet(I was going to regard benchmarks, but they don't say much for everyones personal uses of a computer). And when the dual quads in 4x4 comes out, then it will not be the same as one quad, if you're going for high end, I think you'd take the two quad over the one? I don't think in high end people usually go for the cheap.

Don't use the label everyone, because then I'll start saying things that'll really annoy you extremists like, "Amd's processors are a million times better than Intel's." Read Candide by Voltaire. Done.

 

[joset]

I think that when the new architecture comes out and is fast enough to compete with Intel's high end processors, it will then be that AMD will be marketing it.

Ok. I didn't mean to be harsh, but seems you've taken my words as such.
Your previous statement does imply, though not directly, the other contender will stay put; true, AMD hasn't come out yet with a new u/arch but, [high] probability is that its direct contender will not be toothpicking, meanwhile.

(...) And when the dual quads in 4x4 comes out, then it will not be the same as one quad, if you're going for high end, I think you'd take the two quad over the one? I don't think in high end people usually go for the cheap.

What about a single octo? And, "cheap/expensive" are relative to the comparison, not an absolute metric.

Don't use the label everyone, because then I'll start saying things that'll really annoy you extremists like, "Amd's processors are a million times better than Intel's." Read Candide by Voltaire. Done.

Generalizations are dangerous; that's why I've put 'everyone' between comas (intention: the most of the interested).
You might as well have a read on Karl Popper's work, specifically, on what concerns affirmations like your example; I'm not sure Voltaire would appreciate it.


Cheers!

 

[clue69less]

I come here to not think so much.

At this task, you excel.

 

[turpit]

I think that many people don't get the concept of quadFX because AMD hasn't done any marketing on it. And I don't think they've done any marketing on it because the fx's that are coming out aren't going to be fast enough. I think that when the new architecture comes out and is fast enough to compete with Intel's high end processors, it will then be that AMD will be marketing it.

Here's the thing, when you go to four video cards, you are using a TON of memory bandwidth. There is a lot of data moving with video. I think that this is where we find our problem. As graphics processing units become faster and faster they are constantly being limited by the cpu. I think this is where AMD's 4x4 will be out Intel on the high end(and maybe not now, but I do believe eventually), because it's not a cheap way to counter Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, it's a way to counter high end gaming, and take back the high end gaming segment. It's not a cheap, dumb, drunken idea, I think it's a very smart move. Because video is out pacing the processor, two processors will better be able to handle so much data. Let me just use a simple representation.

Say that you can run 4mbit/s through one processor(just video), and each video card uses 3.5mbit/s. One video card is fine for one processor, but then you move up to two video cards, and that's 7mbit/s of data a second, but because the cpu can only handle 4mbit/s per second, the cards can only run at 2mbit/s for each card, and then say you add four video cards, then the cards can use 14mbit/s of bandwidth, but the cpu can only use 4mbit/s so the video cards are severly underused. Then say we add two processors(and this isn't even giving an advantage to the Hyper Transport link to each video card from the processors). Now you have 8mbit/s of video bandwidth that can be used, and this better utilizes two and four video cards. This is where QuadFX will hold an advantage. And also there is a hyper transport link to the video cards from each processor which increases that memory capability of the cpu. Along with HT links to the memory it's a data streaming powerhouse.

I would disagree with you. I think we do get the point.

AMD enjoyed a healthy and well earned performance lead for 3 years. Intel moronically insisted on pushing a poor Uarch. AMD became complacent with Intels ineptitude and wrongly expected it to continue unabated. Intel became tired of their own lack of performance and finally got of their butts to do something about it. AMD, complacent in its superiority, was caught with its pants down. AMD had nothing in works or on the boards to compete with the Core2 Uarch. AMD could not stretch its current Uarch any further to compete with the Core2 Uarch and felt it needed to do something to regain the performance crown. AMDs execs and engineers, in a pot induced haze that would do a Berkeley grad proud, dreampt up the only way they could compete with Core2 at 90nm....going to 4 cores. When they sobered up, they realized there was no logical or legitmate way to cut a four core die out of a 90nm wafer. Thus was born 4x4...an illconceived attempt by AMD to take back the performance crown from Intel.

All the PR about an enthusiast system, 4 video cards, 8 sticks of ram, bandwidth, etc etc etc, was just Spin Control and PR crap.

The only real question is, who bought off on the crap and who didnt.

 

[dasickninja]

Evening Mr Turpit. Just a brief comment before moving on to other threads....







THE QUADFX DEBATE IS STILL ALIVE???? WHAT THE HELL????

 

[turpit]

Evening Mr Turpit. Just a brief comment before moving on to other threads....

Good evening Ninja. I trust all is well in your world. 😀

THE QUADFX DEBATE IS STILL ALIVE???? WHAT THE HELL????

What else is there to talk about?
Its cold outside....Okay, thats settled, now back to QFX

Im just sitting here thinking about what the Intel Execs/Engineers are doing now that QFX is out and the benchs are rolling in. I cant help but imagine that they are doing the same thing that the AMD Execs and Engineers did every time Intel dropped a new heatburst CPU on the market: Rolled on the floor laughing their arses off.

Conversely, the AMD Execs/engineers are probably doing the same thing the Intel folks did....consoled each other and tried to convince themselves "no no, they're not laughing at us, they're laughing with us"

 

[dasickninja]

I've always said that the QuadFX resembled Netburst too much for my liking. Guess I'm not the only one that thinks so.
That being said, to who ever came up with this idea, wag of the finger to you.

 

[hondacr123]

Come on guys you dont want to drop twice the amount on processors, video cards, and ram? I mean it sounds like fun to me. Especially when I get the same performance as a c2d lol.

 

[dasickninja]

If you mean, do I want to get rapped by buying a SLi server, no. I don't. I was never particularly fond of penetration, especially by multinational corporations.