Not a bad review at all



LINK:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=891&cid=1

These new 4x4 motherboards look Freakashly amazing.

4 x DDR2 DIMMs
2 x Sockets
4 x PCIE x16
12 x SATA300's
1 x ultra DMA 133/100
RAID: everything
etc.

More then 20 Multi-Threaded games coming in 2007

12 sata connectors, like the multitude
2 cpu's, so 2x4cores, sweet

"RAID: everything" ... you're telling me it has 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 50, and 0+1? Yeah...right. :x

I don't want to know how much power a fully loaded 4x4 system consumes nor how much heat it produces.

Games are about as multithreaded as they are going to get... Anything that doesn't happen on the main thread is multithreaded (e.g. model animations).

Kind of redundant stuff.

GT90 said:

Raid: 0, 1, 0+1, 5 & JBOD span cross Serial ATA drives.;)

Well, they may be multi-threaded right now, but they will even more multi-threaded just to take advantage of all this wonderful new technology coming out.

Remember, you can always improve game development & games themselves, regardless. This is just basic common sense.


From what I've heard, it will consume equal to or less power then a Kentsfield system.

>> Raid: 0, 1, 0+1, 5 & JBOD span cross Serial ATA drives.

Hardly "everything." It's a shame 10 isn't supported.


>> Well, they may be multi-threaded right now, but they will even more multi-threaded just to take advantage of all this wonderful new technology coming out.

Anything that it's either multi-threaded (more than one thread) or not (one thread). "More" does not fit it's description. It either is or it isn't. Multi-threading has been done for quite some time--it's nothing new. What's new is that there are additional execution cores to handle it on instead of just one.


>> Remember, you can always improve game development & games themselves, regardless. This is just basic common sense.

If you had any idea how games work and how multithreading works, you'd understand they are oil and water--they don't mix. Games rely on a single time line so even if everything is multi-threaded, at best, it will still be as fast as the slowest thread which means next to no performance gain but a huge increase in complexity. All threads have to be synchronized by halting and continuing the threads at each step in the time line (usually 10 ms). The only games that can put multi-threading to serious use are RTS-like games.

>> From what I've heard, it will consume equal to or less power then a Kentsfield system.
Not less--more. Two sockets, two crossbars, two memory controllers, etc. adds up to more power draw, not less. With quad video cards (e.g. 7900 GTs) that each can draw close to 200w, you should be looking at a PSU no less than 1 Kw. It doesn't matter AMD or not--that many graphics cards draw an enormous amount of power.

FordGT90Concept said:

I don't fully know about game development, but I do know somebody which knows about it. And these new Multi-Threaded games will be designed to fully take advantage of both the multi core CPU's & the graphics. They are with the Vista release promo or something.

Also, I am talking about a typical 4x4 system vs. a typical Kentsfield system. Both having the same graphics cads & DDR2 ram etc. The power will be almost dead on, with AMD probably taking the cake on power usage & winning it. These 4x4 mobo's are not power hungry

How in the hell do you know that the power consumption will be "dead on"? You mean to tell me that AMD's platform which has to power two CPUs, two memory controllers and multiple HTT links, will draw significantly less power than an Intel platform? How do you figure? I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree.

All that really matters that it has a AMD cpu..... that AMD cpu will have tricks up its sleeve to make all those things plus all multiple video cards, four sticks of ram, all hdds and multiple optical drives to all of a sudden run less power at full speed. Yep.... all it takes is an AMD cpu to instantly cause all components in the system no matter if it configured minimumly or full to the gills to run full performance at lower power usage compared to Intel equivalent system... matter of '100000 % fact' and from what he has been reading or heard... a Intel system will cause all and every one of the components in a system to use more power and cause more heat...

Lol, you're too funny man.

LOL, where do you find the stuff you say G.G

Check this out? This guy claims that the K8L which doesn't even excist has been benchmarked. Something does not look right IMO.

LINK:
http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?p=892505#post892505

La2er

Hahah, here it is on google

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=AMD%27s+K8L+Benchmarked&meta=

This is funny,

Only gonna cost 2500$ for the cpu's, 400$ for the mobo, 1000$ for RAM, 3600$ for 4 DX10 videocards and another 900$ for 2kW PSU. Not bad...you can have a computer for 8400$...kewl

Super XP said:
Never trust a marketer with a product to sell...

Super XP said:
Prove it. It's illogical to even begin to believe anything you said there is true.

Since 4x4 is codename for 2 X dual core (ie two cpu sockets each containing a dual core cpu) and 2 x memory controllers each with 2gb for a total of 4gb....all equals to 4 cores X 4 gb mem..

So you have 2 X dual cores, 2 x 2gb mem (total 4gb), 2 X gpus (ie SLi or Crossfire), 2 X hdd in raid 0, and finally 2 X optical drives..... = SuperXP saying " All you need is a 250W psu "

I think there's only 4 DIMM shared between both sockets...

There is dedicated 2 DIMMs per socket for a total of 4 DIMMs. And what about the HD's ? and the mobo? power?

sovietdoc said:

For 4x4 Quad-Father, it is more like $999.00 for the 4x4 motherboard & 2 x FX-70 Dual Core's.

Here's what I think take it for what its worth.

4x4 is a pathetic attempt to compete with intel who has recently gained the technical and performance upper hand. It is an overly complex "band-aid technology", requires too much power, too much space in a computer case (the motherboards are going to have to be huge to hold all the stuff they want to cram on to them) and will not be any faster than their current dual core line up in the vast majority of applications that any of the gamer types (which most of us are) use on a daily basis.

The fact of the matter is that dual AMD CPU's with SLI is nothing new. It has been around since 2005 if any of you saw the Maximum PC dream machine 2005 a.k.a. DMX you will know what I'm talking about. In short its specs were:

2 dual core skt940 AMD Opterons
8GB RAM
2 7800GTX in SLI
2TB HD Space

Drop a pair of 7950GX2's in here and bingo 4x4 in a system that is over a year old. 4x4 is nothing more than a refresh of this technology, they have added a few more features but all in all it has nothing new to bring to the table.

Don't get me wrong I like AMD, I just think that 4x4 is nothing more than a marketing ploy that they are hoping will buy them some time. If you want a computer with 4 cores you would be much better off investing in an Intel "Kentsfield" the core 2 architecture is MUCH faster than the K8 stuff AMD has out and a single single CPU package with 4 cores on it is a far more elegant solution to the problem.

In my opinion AMD would have been better served by putting their engineering time, money, and talent into accelarating the release of K8L which might actually stand a fighting chance against conroe in the high end enthusiast market.

The multiple sockets that function as one system could have some serious future potential. I think four GPUs is well into the land of excess though.

Jim H said:

Sorry Bro, but that is obviously your opinion. 4x4 is not a "pathetic attempt" LOL, its called innovation, and a start to something new in the industry. Why don't you read up on AMD's Torrenza, then you will understand.

And AMD's quad's are going to come out later on, but they are also much more advanced then anything Intel has to offer at the moment. AMD is working on a "Native Quad-Core" (4 chips 1 die)where as Intel's Kentsfield is two Core 2 Duo's slapped together onto a package, that is a no brainer to slap together, and therefor will be released in November. Obviously Intel is looking for bragging rights with there Double Dual Core Kentsfield

Sure Kentsfield will be faster & slower in benchmarks vs. the 4x4, but I would rather take my chances with the 4x4, and upgrade the CPU's to quad-core's for an 8 cpu powerhouse.

If you look at AMD's future road maps, they are moving to double socket motherboards w/ 4 x PCIE x16 slots for the high end. I call this innovation, because they can do this thanks to there Hyper Transport.

I wouldn't call it innovative--they are doing it out of necessity. Intel can develop their own HyperTransport when they feel they need it.