Imagine for a moment you're at the decision making table at AMD; you are at least a year away from introducing an updated micro-architecture to refresh your now aging K8 design and your chief competitor just introduced faster and cooler CPUs than anything in your lineup. To make matters worse, this very same competitor enjoys a manufacturing advantage and has also announced that it will begin the transition to quad-core even earlier than originally expected, starting at the end of 2006. The earliest you can even hope to release a quad-core CPU is the middle of 2007. What do you do?

AMD's first move made sense, and that was to dramatically reduce the pricing of its entire lineup to remain competitive. Most computer components are not things you can buy and sell off of emotions alone, and thus something that performs worse must cost less. Through the price drops AMD actually ended up with a fairly attractive dual core lineup, although our similarly aggressive pricing from Intel meant that the most attractive AMD CPUs were the cheapest ones.

But what was AMD to do about the quad-core race? Even though Intel would release its first quad-core CPUs this year, less than 1% of all shipments would feature four cores. It won't be until the end of 2007 before more than 5% of Intel's shipments are quad-core CPUs. But would the loss in mindshare be great enough if Intel already jumped ahead in the race to more cores?

Manufacturing a quad-core Athlon 64 or Opteron on AMD's current 90nm process simply isn't feasible; AMD would end up with a chip that is too big and too hot to sell, not to mention that it would put an even greater strain on AMD's manufacturing which is already running at capacity.

With the 90nm solution being not a very good one, there's always the "wait until 2007" option, which honestly seemed like a very good one to us. We just mentioned that Intel wasn't going to be shipping many of these quad-core CPUs and the majority of users, even enthusiasts who are traditionally early adopters, will stay away from quad-core until 2007 at the earliest to begin with.

Then there's the third option, the one AMD ended up taking; instead of building quad-core on 90nm or waiting until next year, around April/May of 2006 AMD decided that it had a better solution. AMD would compete in the quad-core race by the end of 2006 but with two dual core CPUs running in a desktop motherboard.

Of course dual-core, dual-socket is nothing new, as AMD has been offering that on Opteron platforms for quite a while now. But the difference is that this new platform would be designed for the enthusiast, meaning it would come equipped with a performance tuned (and tweakable) BIOS, tons of USB ports, support for SLI, etc... Most importantly, unlike an Opteron system, this dual socket desktop platform would run using regular unbuffered DDR2 memory.

Back then the platform was called 4x4, and honestly it was about as appealing as a pickup truck. The platform has since matured and thanks to a very impressive chipset from NVIDIA and aggressive pricing from AMD, what's now known as Quad FX may actually have some potential. Today we're here to find out if AMD's first four-core desktop platform is a viable competitor to Intel's Kentsfield, or simply an embarrassing knee-jerk reaction.

The Platform
POST A COMMENT

87 Comments

View All Comments

  • BikeDude - Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - link

    Could the reason be that 1GB per memory node is simply too little?

    On a configuration like this, you'll easily see one of the nodes with only 256MB or so left...

    So, put in some more memory! At this point 32-bit XP will be limiting, even for 32-bit apps. (XP won't address more than 2^32 Bytes, some of this will be masked by PCI and PCIe devices, and additionally each process only has a 2GB address space for code&data unless you upgrade to 64-bit Windows) Also be aware that nVidia ForceWare 80.00 and newer lost PAE support. You'll experience crashes and non-working games if combined with a PAE aware 32-bit OS (such as Win2003). ForceWare 79.11 works fine though.

    (BTW: MSFT added NUMA support in XP SP2)
    Reply
  • Kiijibari - Saturday, December 02, 2006 - link

    Hi Ananand,

    sounds credible, because there is some extra cache snooping traffic going on, anyways, please keep us posted if there is a new BIOS version available, and if it would "do" something :)

    Windows schweduler differences between XP and VISTA would be interesting, too.
    So far there were only Win32 XP vs. Win Vista64 comparisions, not possible to draw a fair conclusion with that data.

    Thanks a lot

    Kiijibari
    Reply
  • mino - Friday, December 01, 2006 - link

    One important question:

    Are those new FX-7x CPU identical or is there some differentiation employed ???
    Reply
  • Kiijibari - Saturday, December 02, 2006 - link

    identical to what ?

    If you meant Socket-F Opterons, then yes, they are identical, if the BIOS allows it, then normal Opterons should be able to run in 4x4 boards, too.

    cheers

    Kiijibari
    Reply
  • mino - Sunday, December 03, 2006 - link

    Thanks that info(if correct) pretty much clears the FUD. Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, December 02, 2006 - link

    How so? The 2P+ Opteron IMC wants buffered RAM, while these FX types do not. I dont think a simple BIOS hack can circumvent that. Reply
  • Kiijibari - Saturday, December 02, 2006 - link

    *gasp*

    Du you really think AMD engineers, tests, validate, etc. a CPU for a niche market ??
    There are maybe only a few thousand 4x4 CPUs, that are sold worldwide per month ... it would be economical ridiculous.

    But if you dont know anything about business, maybe that will convince you:

    http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?i...">http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/read_post.jsp?i...

    cheers

    Kiijibari

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now