Page 1 of 1
AMD 4x4 Review
Posted: 2006-12-02 02:18am
by Darth Quorthon
From [H] Enthusiast
An early look at AMD's dual-socket system. Here's the part that got me:
Power
And talking about power, this Quad FX system with the installed FX-74 processors is a POWER HOG. We are breaking the 500 watt mark on system power consumption without the single video card being loaded. Once you install two 8800 GTX video cards into the Quad FX, as I suspect many of these boxes will have, you have a system that will be able to pull consistent wattage loads of over 700 watts when the system if fully utilized. Given a high end SLI Quad FX configuration, you are probably going to want no less than a 1 kilowatt power supply that is SLI approved from NVIDIA. Even in our single 8800 GTX configuration it would be hard to suggest any PSU smaller than a 750 watt model and then it had better be a quality unit.
What is even more disturbing is the power consumption of our Quad FX at idle. At idle it pulled more than 2X the amount of power needed for our Intel QX6700 system. The Quad FX was using 400 watts at idle! This alone is a enough to kill any but the best “550w” power supplies over time.
And it seemed like only yesterday that AMD was on top of the world...
Posted: 2006-12-02 02:28am
by Ace Pace
Anyone suprised? The entire idea was dumb from the start.
Posted: 2006-12-02 10:31am
by Arthur_Tuxedo
I have no idea who this is supposed to be marketed to. The big advantage over the Kentsfield is that it will be upgradeable to 8 cores in 2007, but who the hell will need that? Gamers don't even need two cores yet, much less eight. People who do such heavy-duty video editing or other intensive CPU tasks that they need 8 cores are probably already on a server farm or a mainframe. Otherwise, all you have is a huge, dual HSF'd solution that isn't faster than the Kentsfield, yet looks at PSU's as if they're in heat. I knew the 4 x 4 thing was bullshit, but I always thought it was just some weak marketing turn of phrase, I never thought they'd actually try to come out with a product based on it before K8L.
Posted: 2006-12-02 10:43am
by Admiral Valdemar
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have no idea who this is supposed to be marketed to. The big advantage over the Kentsfield is that it will be upgradeable to 8 cores in 2007, but who the hell will need that? Gamers don't even need two cores yet, much less eight. People who do such heavy-duty video editing or other intensive CPU tasks that they need 8 cores are probably already on a server farm or a mainframe. Otherwise, all you have is a huge, dual HSF'd solution that isn't faster than the Kentsfield, yet looks at PSU's as if they're in heat. I knew the 4 x 4 thing was bullshit, but I always thought it was just some weak marketing turn of phrase, I never thought they'd actually try to come out with a product based on it before K8L.
I'll give you a clue; think of inadequate male genitalia.
Posted: 2006-12-02 11:51am
by Arrow
I can think of a some things to do with an 8 core processor, but all of them involve work and none involve gaming. Having 8 cores in chip, mounted in cPCI or VME single board computer would definitely have some advantages for the stuff I work on (mainly, reducing cost, size and electrical power).
Posted: 2006-12-02 12:07pm
by salm
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have no idea who this is supposed to be marketed to. The big advantage over the Kentsfield is that it will be upgradeable to 8 cores in 2007, but who the hell will need that?
I´d love to have this. Having 8 buckets when rendering means that i can get Images that normally render 24 hours done in 3 hours. Hell, i could produce high quality animations like that without the need of a renderfarm.
Posted: 2006-12-02 12:12pm
by Ace Pace
salm wrote:
I´d love to have this. Having 8 buckets when rendering means that i can get Images that normally render 24 hours done in 3 hours. Hell, i could produce high quality animations like that without the need of a renderfarm.
Then get Kentsfield, 4 cores at far lesser price and you're not locked into an utterly idiotic platform.
4x4 would be an interesting concept, but it's hampered both by AMDs memory controller(for a change) and by WinXP issues. Apperantly, in Vista, 4x4 is quite abit faster.
Posted: 2006-12-02 12:15pm
by Arthur_Tuxedo
salm wrote:Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have no idea who this is supposed to be marketed to. The big advantage over the Kentsfield is that it will be upgradeable to 8 cores in 2007, but who the hell will need that?
I´d love to have this. Having 8 buckets when rendering means that i can get Images that normally render 24 hours done in 3 hours. Hell, i could produce high quality animations like that without the need of a renderfarm.
You have to admit, though, people like you who could utilize 8 cores and don't already use servers or mainframes is a pretty small market.
Posted: 2006-12-02 04:46pm
by Uraniun235
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I have no idea who this is supposed to be marketed to. The big advantage over the Kentsfield is that it will be upgradeable to 8 cores in 2007, but who the hell will need that? Gamers don't even need two cores yet, much less eight.
I'm not so sure about that. If I check Task Manager right after exiting from Supreme Commander, one core's been pegged while the other hovered around 40-60% usage. Gamers don't "need" dual-core but soon enough it'll become an advantage.
But quad-core is still pretty useless for all but a sliver of the population, and octo-core even moreso.
And 700 watts at peak consumption? Jesus christ! That would heat up a room damn quick. 400 watts at idle is ridiculous. I don't think my primary system - including a hefty 21" CRT - sucks down 400 watts
at maximum load.
Posted: 2006-12-02 05:15pm
by Admiral Valdemar
I suppose this would be a good time to start hoping reversible computing comes around sooner. Since we're either going to kill ourselves working off the debt to pay for these things and their thirst for power, or cook ourselves when running the latest killer app.
Posted: 2006-12-02 05:55pm
by Uraniun235
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I suppose this would be a good time to start hoping reversible computing comes around sooner. Since we're either going to kill ourselves working off the debt to pay for these things and their thirst for power, or cook ourselves when running the latest killer app.
Or... these ridiculous jimmy-rigged systems will be failures, with most people settling for less expensive, less power-hungry systems.