HEXUS.articles :: AMD Quadfather - first part of an epic trilogy?

[Super XP]

I would like to make a note that one strong reason why AMD released such a thing as a QuadFX (4x4) platform was merely because people supposedly demanded such a platform for several years. This I got from the AMD website via a press conference they had.

It lowers the performance in some applications due to the extra latency penalties incured when fetching data from memory connected to the other CPU. See Anandtechs review with the 2 CPU's vs. 1.

But it overall gains you much performance in "Multi-Tasking". This is where AMD was targeting this platform.

There wasn't really anything stopping you before, I had dual Xeons a couple years back before dual core CPU's were available and a friend had dual Opterons.
Before that ABit had the BP6 (Dual Celeron) and VP6 (Dual Pentium III) which could be flagged as the real fathers of dual socket on the desktop, unfortunately Intels disabling SMP support in future generations of desktop processors brought that to an end but a pair of mid-range Woodcrests aren't too expensive and you can find an LGA771 board with PEG slots for similar money to the QuadFX's board.
The only innovation by AMD is that of marketing.

Yes, there were Dual Socket motherboards out there for a long time, but there cost for a good motherboard was disgustingly expensive, not to mention the expensive registered ram needed to run them. Also, there wasn't any good built in hardware on them, like Crossfire/SLI, PCI/PCIe slots, AGP 8x, etc. What I am trying to say is these server boards were built for just that, servers & workstations, they greatly did not appeal to the enthusiasts & gamers.

So, seeing that AMD has the architecture (Intel does not) to create such a platform, i.e.: QuadFX, yes I applaud there efforts & Marketing. Clap, Clap, Clap

Yes, Intel's Double Dual Core called the Kentsfield is faster & sucks back less power, though its future IMO is short. The Core 2 is still a better buy & a fabulous CPU.

Yep, and no reviews thought to tell people that while you can 'buy now and then upgrade to octo-cores' when the 65nm quad cores come around, they'll be AM2+ and therefore if you buy the first generation board now you'll be losing out on power management features.

If you invest in a platform as the QuadFX with 2 x FX Dual Core CPU's, by having the ability to upgrade those CPU's into 2 x 65nm Native Quad-Core Barcelona CPU's, the only words I can come up with is fantastic. What more do you want? The Barcelona Native Quad's are going to be very power conservative with only using cores when needed & placing the rest in idle with no power draw.

But speaking about Power Management features? When you make an investment like the current QuadFX which already draws a lot of power, you wouldn't care about power management features. If you did, then you wouldn't make the investment in the first place.

I am not taking sides here, just to make it clear. I admire new innovative & architectural technologies whether it is from AMD or Intel.

Oh, and yes AMD is releasing AM2+, but they are still sticking with there Socket F (1207pins) for 65nm Barcelona N Q C.

[Thorburn]

But it overall gains you much performance in "Multi-Tasking". This is where AMD was targeting this platform.

So where can we see how you gain compared to Kentsfield?

Yes, there were Dual Socket motherboards out there for a long time, but there cost for a good motherboard was disgustingly expensive, not to mention the expensive registered ram needed to run them. Also, there wasn't any good built in hardware on them, like Crossfire/SLI, PCI/PCIe slots, AGP 8x, etc. What I am trying to say is these server boards were built for just that, servers & workstations, they greatly did not appeal to the enthusiasts & gamers.

Actually the Asus PC-DL which I used in my Dual Xeon system was an excellent motherboard in these respects, it was based on the 875 chipset and used regular DDR memory, had AGP 8x (this board pre-dates PCI-E), fitted the EATX form factor, had overclocking options and cost me about £150 if I remember correctly.
The BP6 used the 440BX chipset and was pretty standard in its hardware requirements and hardly expensive, and the VP6 was much the same.

By going QuadFX you are also being forced into memory constraints as you basically need to fit 4 sticks of DDR2 to the system, as each CPU performs best with dual channel memory fitted. But since you have only 4 slots total if you choose to upgrade later (say from 4 x 512MiB to 4 x 1GiB) then you're going to have to junk the lot, where as most people would simply buy 2 x 1GiB to start out with and double it up at a later date on a standard board.

If you invest in a platform as the QuadFX with 2 x FX Dual Core CPU's, by having the ability to upgrade those CPU's into 2 x 65nm Native Quad-Core Barcelona CPU's, the only words I can come up with is fantastic. What more do you want? The Barcelona Native Quad's are going to be very power conservative with only using cores when needed & placing the rest in idle with no power draw.

You mean the split plane voltage control? Seperate voltages to each core depending on load?
That was my point, I believe thats only a feature of AM2+, while the chips will still work they lose this functionality and since with the current generation of chips you are gaining little in the short term and losing out over the mid-long term then why would you buy now?

But speaking about Power Management features? When you make an investment like the current QuadFX which already draws a lot of power, you wouldn't care about power management features. If you did, then you wouldn't make the investment in the first place.

Why indeed.

[Super XP]

So where can we see how you gain compared to Kentsfield?

I am not comparing the Kentsfield with the QuadFX. They are both great in multi-tasking, Kentfield is overall faster, due to the Core 2 design, but it is good to see the QuadFX competitive. QuadFX is faster then anything AMD has out so far.

Actually the Asus PC-DL which I used in my Dual Xeon system was an excellent motherboard in these respects, it was based on the 875 chipset and used regular DDR memory, had AGP 8x (this board pre-dates PCI-E), fitted the EATX form factor, had overclocking options and cost me about £150 if I remember correctly.
The BP6 used the 440BX chipset and was pretty standard in its hardware requirements and hardly expensive, and the VP6 was much the same.

Well, I’ve looked at Dual Socket motherboards for both AMD & Intel CPU’s & they were quite expensive for the better boards, we are talking in the lines of about $500 to $800cad. But for a single socket mobo at around $250, it offers much more.

By going QuadFX you are also being forced into memory constraints as you basically need to fit 4 sticks of DDR2 to the system, as each CPU performs best with dual channel memory fitted. But since you have only 4 slots total if you choose to upgrade later (say from 4 x 512MiB to 4 x 1GiB) then you're going to have to junk the lot, where as most people would simply buy 2 x 1GiB to start out with and double it up at a later date on a standard board.

This goes for any motherboard. NO difference. I never said that the QuadFX was cheap. Somebody buying it should expect its higher then normal costs. It’s a Dual Socket motherboard with 4 x PCIE Graphics slots with a lot of add-ons? But the same is if you buy a single slot mobo with 4GB of DDR2 along with completely populating everything on the board..

Also, the QuadFX performs better with 2GB per CPU from what I’ve read, so buying 512MB x 4 is a waist of money.

You mean the split plane voltage control? Seperate voltages to each core depending on load?
That was my point, I believe thats only a feature of AM2+, while the chips will still work they lose this functionality and since with the current generation of chips you are gaining little in the short term and losing out over the mid-long term then why would you buy now?

Why indeed.

No, that feature is for all Native Quad-Core’s regardless of socket size. These QuadFX platforms are based on Socket F with 1207 pins.
Socket F 1207pins CPU’s
Barcelona Native Quad-Core in Q2 2007 – HTT
Altair Native Quad-Core in Q3 2007 – HTT 3.0
The Socket AM2+ you are talking about is for AMD’s Socket 940 pins with the Hyper Transport 3.0 revision @ speed’s of 2.6 GHz (5200MT/s). First Socket AM2+ (940pins) Native Quad-Core is called AGENA.



- Barcelona will allow individual core frequencies to lower while other cores may be running full bore. There is much more voltage options with AMD’s Native Quad-Core’s. Read the Article bellow for more info on AMD’s first 65nm Native Quad-Core called Barcelona.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2027637,00.asp