Dvorak in love with Quad FX

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
in short i like more memory :lol:

Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
 

sirheck

Splendid
Feb 24, 2006
4,659
0
22,810
9
in short i like more memory :lol:

Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.

well what ever you get sell the rest to me for really cheap :lol:

or just ship it to me in okla.
ill pay for the shipping from ny :lol:
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
0
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
-- John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

Well, so much for John's judgement.

:lol:

All kidding aside, all through my AMD-bashing, I'm still more than open in going with a Quad FX instead of my long-lusted-for 2xClovertown. Naturally it will have to be with quadcores sitting on each socket. If by the time I've finished holding up 7/11s and have the money to buy the system there is a choice in 2xQuads from AMD and Intel I will carefully weigh my options completely blind to brand. Bang for the buck is my only consideration. If Quad FX wins, then I'm whipping out my Visa card and starting my own QFX DaClan with Baron. :lol:
 

MU_Engineer

Splendid
Moderator
Wow, it's been many years since I've read anything Dvorak has written, and after following those two links I now recall why it's been years since I've read anything he has written.

Egads.

Well, if he likes AMD he's within his rights to say so. Too bad it's currently an un-informed preference. At least for now.

He doesn't know that more RAM will improve the OS performance.
That's really only true up until a certain point, dependent upon your setup and usage. There is some caching/preloading of commonly-used applications in RAM, but it's not quite as much as you might think. Your computer will run a word processor, Web browser, or e-mail at the same speed if you have 512MB RAM or 128GB RAM.

In this age of VM software he thinks dual-boot is a practical solution, and it seems like he has no idea what the MCE to Vista upgrade path is.
VMs are good, I'll tell you that. I run 64-bit Linux and it's nice to not have to reboot to be able to be able to open some %$*! Windows-only thing (usually some ActiveX-dependent website or DRM'ed file.) But they do have their shortcomings, particularly in the fact that they cannot handle accelerated graphics, access all of the host machine's hardware directly or load drivers. They also eat a bunch of RAM and are much slower than running something on the "bare metal." So VMs are good for office-type programs and other non-intensive, non-hardware-interfacing (except for USB devices which VMware can handle) programs but useless for games and things that need to load drivers and talk to the hardware directly. So to really see how Linux will act on your computer, you'd need to dual-boot it. Windows has to restart a lot anyway, so I don't think that doing that a little more will be a pain. Also, if you want to share files, it's much easier when you dual-boot as long as you have an ext2 or FAT32 partition somewhere to put files on so that both OSes can read. If you want to share stuff in a VM, it can be done only over the network.

His "perfect" PC uses RAID-5?
RAID 5 is not bad to tell the truth, but it's not really optimal for straight desktop usage. It is expensive because you have to get 3 HDDs and an RAID controller if your motherboard or OS does not support RAID 5. Write speed also is much slower on RAID 5 than a single drive. To tell the truth, with the possible exception of RAID 1, *no* RAID level is really suited for general desktop usage. And RAID 1 would be better made as one HDD in the machine and another outside the machine used for an external backup drive. RAID is used for special situations where you need redundancy and the need to string several HDDs together to make one big contiguous space. Unless you're into video or other very disk space dependent or data-is-critical applications, RAID really isn't for you.

P.S. Nowhere did Dvirak say what RAID level he planned to use. For all we know he could use RAID 0, RAID 3, RAID 4, or RAID 1 with two parity disks or a normal RAID 1 setup with a hot spare. I guess he's a desktop guy, so my feeling is that it would be RAID 0 (very stupid unless his PC syncs with an external NAS frequently) or possibly RAID 5 as you stated.

He accuses Windows of bottlenecking LAN performance. Oh, well yeah, you're right, this is the same guy who doesn't know RAM will improve OS performance.
As I said above, there is a limit to how much adding RAM will improve your performance. And Dvorak's 100% right that it's hard to get more than 500 Mbps out of GbE adapters under Windows, although that's more due to not being able to fine-tune the MTU of all of your LAN adapters for peak throughput than the TCP/IP stack's fault. He might also be referring to the performance of Windows SMB file-sharing format, which is slow- slower than UNIX NFS, HTTP/FTP, or raw TCP/IP data sharing via something like netcat.

Wireless as a LAN backup??
I think he means also being able to use wireless to connect to the local network. This is handy if your house isn't wired for Ethernet and your desktop doesn't sit within cable reach of the modem or router. I had to use a wireless adapter (a bridge, actually) on my desktop until I was able to move my computer to where it was within reach of the router.

And moving on to that AMD mule and prostitute show, when the benchmarks I have seen show the E6300 and the X2 4200 to be fairly close in overall performance, one has to wonder about the alleged performance difference. Although I'm not surprised a GeForce chipset would generally trounce those Intel controllers.
The E6300 is roughly equal to the X2 4200+ only in SSE-heavy applications due to its 128-bit SSE execution engine. It's much faster in integer math but slower in non-SSE performance than an equivalently-clocked K8. I work in a lab where we do a lot of simulations and they are not optimized for SSE. An Athlon X2 4200+ is faster than a Core 2 Duo E6400 for that application. I know as I have an X2 4200+ (939) and benchmarked it using the program. It runs a tad faster than the E6400.
 

bberson

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
363
0
18,780
0
He doesn't know that more RAM will improve the OS performance.
That's really only true up until a certain point, dependent upon your setup and usage. There is some caching/preloading of commonly-used applications in RAM, but it's not quite as much as you might think. Your computer will run a word processor, Web browser, or e-mail at the same speed if you have 512MB RAM or 128GB RAM.
Sorry but when it comes to Vista, you're wrong about that. And I'm not talking about a subtle wrong, or a maybe we're splitting hairs wrong, or maybe it's a subjective thing wrong. You're wrong, wrong, absolutely positively way the hell wrong here.

Plus Dvorak talks about scoring movies with his Vista system. Video editing LOVES memory. Lots and lots of it. The more the better. Don't take my word for it (even though it's a sincere statement drawn from personal experience, and never mind the fact that I work for a television network) - go ahead and Google it for yourself.

In this age of VM software he thinks dual-boot is a practical solution, and it seems like he has no idea what the MCE to Vista upgrade path is.
VMs are good, I'll tell you that. I run 64-bit Linux and it's nice to not have to reboot to be able to be able to open some %$*! Windows-only thing (usually some ActiveX-dependent website or DRM'ed file.) But they do have their shortcomings, particularly in the fact that they cannot handle accelerated graphics, access all of the host machine's hardware directly or load drivers. Windows has to restart a lot anyway, [...]
No argument about that. I wish I knew what you folks were doing that causes you to restart Windows so often, though. Y'all running Windows ME or something? I've got XP Pro, 2000 Server, 2003 Server, etc. scattered all over my house and it's all been rock solid. At the office we had a funny incident recently where an NT4 box which runs a middleware app with known memory leaks, which because of that known memory leak was supposed to be on a weekly reboot schedule, crashed. Turns out nobody in the data center was recycling it and it had been running un-touched for a year and a half before the leak finally caused the kernel to barf.

His "perfect" PC uses RAID-5?
RAID 5 is not bad to tell the truth, but it's not really optimal for straight desktop usage. It is expensive because you have to get 3 HDDs and an RAID controller if your motherboard or OS does not support RAID 5. Write speed also is much slower on RAID 5 than a single drive.
Exactly. And what's another drive (for RAID 0+1 or RAID 10) if you're going to spend that much cash anyway?

While Dvorak didn't say what RAID level he was planning, any solution with three drives is going to be silly for desktop use.

He accuses Windows of bottlenecking LAN performance. Oh, well yeah, you're right, this is the same guy who doesn't know RAM will improve OS performance.
And Dvorak's 100% right that it's hard to get more than 500 Mbps out of GbE adapters under Windows
Buy better NICs and better switches. I've had no such issues. We have servers that are entirely capable of saturating Cisco gig switch ports.

Wireless as a LAN backup??
I think he means also being able to use wireless to connect to the local network. This is handy if your house isn't wired for Ethernet and your desktop doesn't sit within cable reach of the modem or router.
Since he said "I like having two network access systems. The first would be a gigabit controller, which should be on the motherboard by now. [..] Let's also add a wireless backup", that tells me his primary connectivity would be copper. While I'm having trouble envisioning the old fart moving his perfect seventy pound desktop all over his hovel, perhaps I'm wrong.

It also reminds me of how clueless Dvorak is since it's nearly impossible to find a motherboard that, if it integrates a NIC, doesn't integrate a gig NIC.

And moving on to that AMD mule and prostitute show, when the benchmarks I have seen show the E6300 and the X2 4200 to be fairly close in overall performance, one has to wonder about the alleged performance difference. Although I'm not surprised a GeForce chipset would generally trounce those Intel controllers.
The E6300 is roughly equal to the X2 4200+ only in SSE-heavy applications due to its 128-bit SSE execution engine. It's much faster in integer math but slower in non-SSE performance than an equivalently-clocked K8.
Yes, the AMDs are almost universally superior with the FP work. Somehow though, I'm having trouble envisioning Mr. Dvorak doing laboratory -variety number crunching while editing his videos, composing his ill-informed articles and playing whatever game he thinks he needs four video cards for. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. You think AMD's mule and prostitute routine showcased math apps? Beats me.

-Brad
 

elpresidente2075

Distinguished
May 29, 2006
851
0
18,980
0
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
 

shinigamiX

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2006
1,107
0
19,280
0
in short i like more memory :lol:

Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?
 

bberson

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
363
0
18,780
0
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?
From the likes of Micron, Kingston, etc. You won't find 'em at Mushkin or Corsair. And they'll cost ya' at least 50% more in price per MB.

-Brad
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
in short i like more memory :lol:

Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.

well what ever you get sell the rest to me for really cheap :lol:

or just ship it to me in okla.
ill pay for the shipping from ny :lol:

Sure. I'll let you know when I get my upgrade.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
in short i like more memory :lol:

Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?


Yes they do. OCZ just released 2x2GB sets for $513, which is less than 4GB in 2x1GB sets. Check out Newegg.
 

dasickninja

Splendid
May 16, 2006
7,557
0
30,810
11
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
0
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.
 

shinigamiX

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2006
1,107
0
19,280
0
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?
From the likes of Micron, Kingston, etc. You won't find 'em at Mushkin or Corsair. And they'll cost ya' at least 50% more in price per MB.

-Brad
MUST!HAVE!
 

elpresidente2075

Distinguished
May 29, 2006
851
0
18,980
0
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.

I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
0
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.

I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.

You have a point, but right now the only use for the second socket on the Asus 4x4 motherboard is for another FX-7x chip.

Leave the future alone, it'll come along later, and we can judge from hard facts instead of speculation/FUD. :wink:
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
Performance hit?
Because of the NUMA Problem the board had with XP it actually runs like the FX62, whereas two chips caused problems with placement and actually lost around 8%. Fortunately 8% of what FX62 does will still provide higher frame rates than I'm getting. I should be able to go up to 1600x1200.

That is a little bummed out but Vista has seemed to fix a lot of the problems with games @ RC2. RTM should be even better.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.
OF course I would never run both but if they aren't in the same box you can just buy them one at a time. I am confident in it's ability to run multi-threaded games and productivity apps very well.

I can't wait to compile some apps I have to see the difference between my Turion X2, 4400+ and QFX. I'm definitely going to also load up a large DB and put a bunch of clients on it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS