AMD Puts Pressure On Intel In PC Gaming With New Socket For Two Dual-Core Processors

[bunnyfubbles]

It'll be interesting if it can be done with cheaper AM2 CPUs, bringing back dual CPUs to the average joe like in the days of the P2/P3 where you didn't even need to have a special CPU and the dual CPU motherboards could be found for a reasonable price (or perhaps even the AXPs that could be easily modded to work)

However this does smell a lot like the original A64 FX51, basically a glorified solution you could pretty much already get with the Opterons...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
It'll be interesting if it can be done with cheaper AM2 CPUs, bringing back dual CPUs to the average joe like in the days of the P2/P3 where you didn't even need to have a special CPU and the dual CPU motherboards could be found for a reasonable price (or perhaps even the AXPs that could be easily modded to work)

However this does smell a lot like the original A64 FX51, basically a glorified solution you could pretty much already get with the Opterons...

The difference at the moment will be the memory...I haven't seen 1GB sticks of DDR2 667 registered Ram, though apparently a company called ATP from Taiwan makes some (a little dubious about them) for $170 each.

 

[Tangerines]

So is this only for FX chips. or does it work with normal X2 chips?

 

[bongsteen]

oh well, in the long run people will find a way for it to work on cheaper processors.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: rchiu
Naa...what AMD is doing is putting money into marketing and package something already exists as the new and cool technology. It is a new marketing ploy, not a new platform that specifically target enthusiasts (ie those who got way too much money to burn) so AMD can dope those people into putting up more money.

You're victim of stereotype thinking. It's the total opposite to what you say. Anybody should be able to see that multi-processing is the future.

4X4 is massively multicore, 4 to 8 cores, with new cool connection technology that will later be integrated into future mainstream chips.
In complete contrast to, for instance, "Extreme Edition" and Pentium D, 4X4 really represents the way AMD intends to move forward. Available early.
Costly yes. But also contrary to EE and P-D (and even, dare I say it, Conroe) 4X4 cost will come with a very tangible performance edge.
On multithreaded software of course. But again, that is the future. If you're not happy with how your old/current single threaded games run on your current A64 may I suggest you buy a new videocard? Because that's where the problem is if there is a problem.

There really doesn't exist much of a need for a future processor to run single threaded apps faster. Software will take advantage of multiple processors where performance is an issue. This is certainly true already today for some tools. It will definitely also be true for future games.

I'm certainly not one to advocate burning money on bleeding edge, immature, highend equipment. I won't recommend 4X4 either. But to be fair, one has to recognize that the actual additional user value you get for your money this time is rather considerably greater than is usually the case with highend stuff. To make a contrast: is it worth it to buy a new Conroe system, $530 processor alone, that is only 10%-30% faster than the system you have today? Does that makes sense? And how long have you waited for this? Longer, I bet, much longer than it will take for that system to be surpassed by a cheaper system. And then the Conroe deal still seems brilliant compared to EE or FX parts.

(Of course one reason why the Conroe deal has seemed so brilliant is that it's a deal where people compare future parts and future pricing with current.)

Heh, when dual core AMD came out, I was the first to jump on it and I debated with some people on this forum long and hard supporting the advantage of dual core over single core for everything from gaming to everyday tasks.

But dual core on a dual socket or more for gaming?

I deal with 4, 8, 16 way processor servers everyday at work at a fortune 50 company. These servers deal with applications designed to have hundreds or even thousands of people hitting it at the same time and probably handle close to million transactions a day. Now AMD is saying something like that is gonna benefit gamers?

Please, don't be delusional. It's great to have dual processor to handle multiple processes running on a desktop, but the benefit diminishes greatly if you go beyond that, unless you have an application specifically designed to need more than 2 way processing. If a gamer wanna optimal gaming experience, a dual core with the best graphic card he can afford will offer the best value for him. 4x4 or something more is just a big waste of money, not to mention the heat, the noise and the electricity needed. I know because I had dual cpu system and going down to 1 cpu with dual core was a god send.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: XentropyThis will be great for certain people with certain software, but I don't think games are really the proper software for using more threads. Just look at where hyperthreading and dual core gave advantages; games didn't really see as much improvement from more threads/cores as rendering and encoding and the like.

This will only be true until HT/DC becomes more of a destop mainstay. I installed the Q4 1.2 patch this morning. id claims an 87% improvement over single cores. From what I've been able to tell from playing, there is a notable difference in the way Q4 runs.

Yeh, Quake 4 is wone of the games that shows the strongest performance improvements when using Dual Core.

However Quad Core seems to show no improvement with Quake 4 but we shall see on this.

The engine itself was written by Carmack from the ground up to utilize dual cores. If they ever support quad cores... you wont see anywhere near the kind of increases you saw with dual.

 

[Acanthus]

Honesetly with the way software is right now, unless you run 3d studio max or do a TON of encoding... There is no reason to get more than 2 cores.

Id take Core 2 Duo + Supercooling for the same price of entry.

A 3.7ghz conroe or SLI is a lot more enticing than adding 2 more cores that will see 0% usage.

 

[hardwareking]

nice plan by amd.This means that a really rich enthusiast can get 2 x2 4400+(AM2) for a price less than that of a core 2 extreme chip.
But the question then is,will it be able to outperform the core 2 extreme.And then there are other factors such as power consumption and heat of 2 cpus.
And haven't servers used dual cpu systems for a long time.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
nice plan by amd.This means that a really rich enthusiast can get 2 x2 4400+(AM2) for a price less than that of a core 2 extreme chip.
But the question then is,will it be able to outperform the core 2 extreme.And then there are other factors such as power consumption and heat of 2 cpus.
And haven't servers used dual cpu systems for a long time.

.... i thought i read FX chips only


$2500 for the chips alone

 

[alex123]

Now AMD/ATI news starting to make sense...

If I got it right, instead of 2 FX CPUs you might put there just 1 FX CPU + Graphic Co-Processor that goes right into 2-nd AM2 socket... And if works better then current GPUs (for some reason), then it suddenly makes sense... Maybe GPUs really could benefit from being connected to HTT rather then going through PCI-E...

HTT is by all means faster bus then PCI-E. Well, that is very primitive explanation, but I think you could see my point.

Again, purchasing ATI, among other things, could help AMD to develop all those Graphic Co-Processors for AM2 socket / HTT. I would assume that developing AM2 GPU is quite an effort, so maybe not Nvidia nor ATI would be willing to take that risk... So AMD is trying to get close with ATI

Maybe AMD is saying "if you could not win CPU race, let's try to win (CPU+GPU) race"?

Does that make sense?

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: alex123

Now AMD/ATI news starting to make sense...

If I got it right, instead of 2 FX CPUs you might put there just 1 FX CPU + Graphic Co-Processor that goes right into 2-nd AM2 socket... And if works better then current GPUs (for some reason), then it suddenly makes sense... Maybe GPUs really could benefit from being connected to HTT rather then going through PCI-E...

HTT is by all means faster bus then PCI-E. Well, that is very primitive explanation, but I think you could see my point.

Again, purchasing ATI, among other things, could help AMD to develop all those Graphic Co-Processors for AM2 socket / HTT. I would assume that developing AM2 GPU is quite an effort, so maybe not Nvidia nor ATI would be willing to take that risk... So AMD is trying to get close with ATI

Maybe AMD is saying "if you could not win CPU race, let's try to win (CPU+GPU) race"?

Does that make sense?

SO what? They are gonna try to force intel and nvidia to combine to try to beat them? With the amount of R&D money that could be thrown into that combination, its scary to think about the solutions. That would be a REALLY REALLY stupid idea by AMD and ATI. ATI doesn't want the monster that is intel looking at them with any sort of "your my enemy" look.

 

[the cobbler]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
nice plan by amd.This means that a really rich enthusiast can get 2 x2 4400+(AM2) for a price less than that of a core 2 extreme chip.
But the question then is,will it be able to outperform the core 2 extreme.And then there are other factors such as power consumption and heat of 2 cpus.
And haven't servers used dual cpu systems for a long time.

yeah but dual-Opteron boards require expensive, slow ECC ram and aren't really appropriate for the enthusiast market

also, this is being done on some kind of single uber-socket, not two separate sockets if I understand correctly

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

SO what? They are gonna try to force intel and nvidia to combine to try to beat them? With the amount of R&D money that could be thrown into that combination, its scary to think about the solutions. That would be a REALLY REALLY stupid idea by AMD and ATI. ATI doesn't want the monster that is intel looking at them with any sort of "your my enemy" look.

Intel has had 10 times the R&D money that AMD has for many years now (in fact since forever).
As to Intel and Nvidia, remember that they are competitors...they both manufacture chipsets and graphics chips.

 

[alex123]

Just want to correct myself... According to this Anandtech article specifically "Torrenza" technology announced by AMD, is talking about HTX socket. That HTX socket allows external cards (like video, and other co-proc cards) to be connected to the HTT bus.

So there is no need to plug "Graphic Co-Processor" into AM2 socket ... Of course, it will go to HTX socket.

Originally posted by: alex123

Now AMD/ATI news starting to make sense...

If I got it right, instead of 2 FX CPUs you might put there just 1 FX CPU + Graphic Co-Processor that goes right into 2-nd AM2 socket... And if works better then current GPUs (for some reason), then it suddenly makes sense... Maybe GPUs really could benefit from being connected to HTT rather then going through PCI-E...

HTT is by all means faster bus then PCI-E. Well, that is very primitive explanation, but I think you could see my point.

Again, purchasing ATI, among other things, could help AMD to develop all those Graphic Co-Processors for AM2 socket / HTT. I would assume that developing AM2 GPU is quite an effort, so maybe not Nvidia nor ATI would be willing to take that risk... So AMD is trying to get close with ATI

Maybe AMD is saying "if you could not win CPU race, let's try to win (CPU+GPU) race"?

Does that make sense?

In that Anandtech article, they already talk about videocards connected through HTX socket, so there AMD needs some support from ATI.

Besides HTX videocards, there are more interesting things being discribed in the article... However, to the average home user, HTX videocards are probably the biggest treat among all recent AMD announcements.

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: the cobbler

Originally posted by: hardwareking
nice plan by amd.This means that a really rich enthusiast can get 2 x2 4400+(AM2) for a price less than that of a core 2 extreme chip.
But the question then is,will it be able to outperform the core 2 extreme.And then there are other factors such as power consumption and heat of 2 cpus.
And haven't servers used dual cpu systems for a long time.

yeah but dual-Opteron boards require expensive, slow ECC ram and aren't really appropriate for the enthusiast market

also, this is being done on some kind of single uber-socket, not two separate sockets if I understand correctly

Well the single uber socket is what I thought at first too with the first story about this. But then Daily Tech article and AT story makes it sound like 2 seperate sockets. Which is more realistic. But then I see the AMD spinster talk about the very unique cooling system that will be used for this. He didn't even say "heatsink". So that leaves me scratching my head on this. WE NEED SOME PHOTOS OF THIS!!!

 

[IdaGno]

the '57 Dodge had nice tail fins but it was still a POS