AMD today announced its dual-socket Quad FX platform featuring AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 series dual-core processors, the newest additions to the Athlon 64 FX processor family. The platform currently supports up to four CPU cores utilizing matched pairs of AMD Athlon 64 FX-70, Athlon 64 FX-72 and Athlon 64 FX-74 dual-core CPUs, and in the future, it will provide upgradeability to eight cores with planned AMD native quad-core processors in 2007, the company said.
The Quad FX platform also features DDR2 memory, being designed non-uniform memory access (NUMA) support with compatible operating systems, according to AMD. Other features include driving four or even eight monitors at the same time when using up to four PCIe graphics cards and 12 SATA controllers enabling up to nine terabytes of storage using currently available drive technologies, the company added.
News source: DigiTimes
The Quad FX platform also features DDR2 memory, being designed non-uniform memory access (NUMA) support with compatible operating systems, according to AMD. Other features include driving four or even eight monitors at the same time when using up to four PCIe graphics cards and 12 SATA controllers enabling up to nine terabytes of storage using currently available drive technologies, the company added.
News source: DigiTimes
Last edited by Bosaka on 30 Nov 2006 - 18:21
And still first of all we should wait for this new system versus INTEL's X4 CPU tests.
And still first of all we should wait for this new system versus INTEL's X4 CPU tests.
All the benches on the hardware sites show that the Quad FX is faster than the Dual Core C2E X6800 but still gets stomped silly by the Quad Core C2E Qx6700 (cept for ScienceMark which AMD has always dominated) and consumes 150W more than a Quad core intel system with like hardware. Even at 3.2Ghz it only edges past the QX6700 in some benchmarks and at 3.73Ghz the Intel quad core is completely untouchable. I think the biggest hit to performance is how the NUMA architecture works and the memory latency it causes. This might improve as Vista has a more effiecent scheduler than XP. As for now Intel still holds the performance crown yet with K8L and this platform we shall see if amd will offer the capability for Octo FX and what Intel will counter with in response.
INTEL already has X4 systems, 65 and 45 nm (soon) CPUs.
AMD Quad FX platform turned out far from what we have expected. Although this way AMD intended to respond to Intel’s quad-core processors launch, this response turned out quite strange I should say.
First of all, the performance of a dual-processor platform built with two dual-core Athlon FX processors turned out lower than that of the competitor’s solutions built on quad-core Kentsfield CPUs. We have seen this in all test applications throughout the entire session.
Secondly, Quad FX platform is often slower than the regular Socket AM2 system with a single CPU because of the higher memory subsystem latency. NUMA technology that proved highly efficient in servers turned out to do more harm than good in the desktop space.
Thirdly, from the performance-per-watt prospective Quad FX platform loses not only to Intel Kentsfield based solutions but to all other platforms as well. The sky-high heat-dissipation and power consumption of this platform also set specific requirements to power supply units, system cases and system cooling.
In other words, AMD Quad FX will most likely appeal only to the most dedicated AMD fans. For everyone else this platform will most likely be none other but a unique desktop system prototype showing the possibility (or maybe even uselessness) of introducing AMD’s server technologies into the desktop sector. Although we cannot deny that the upcoming AMD processors based on promising K8L micro-architecture will give new meaning to the exciting Quad FX concept.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...md-quad-fx.html
Bloody rediculous.... *shakes head*
I mean, it was always going to be bad for them, but I reckon it will be much worse... Who here has been on the forums and been advised to build an AMD system since C2D release?
If AMD were going to answer back to conroe, now would have been the time, but seems they are comming up short.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.