Quad SLI

[piesang]

Looks like Gigabyte has something interesting planned.

Link

 

[frank84]

sorry

repost

 

[Appledrop]

i was very interested at first.. but then read that "The board will only be able to carry Pentium processors using the socket 775." Whats the point in that? Pairing 4 g70s with a prescott :laugh:

 

[bjc112]

I wonder what the power requirements are..

:Q

Probably STUPID high..

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
i was very interested at first.. but then read that "The board will only be able to carry Pentium processors using the socket 775." Whats the point in that? Pairing 4 g70s with a prescott :laugh:

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: bjc112
I wonder what the power requirements are..

:Q

Probably STUPID high..

for a rig like that, you would need good cooling and good power support

i would imagine that you would likely have to go with a CM Stacker case or the like, and fit two PSU's

WTF .. i am dissapointed that its only for Intel, what are they thinking AMD!!!!

I dont think that this board is going to be aimied at anyone other then the absolute extreme gamer with has $$$$$'s to spare

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
i was very interested at first.. but then read that "The board will only be able to carry Pentium processors using the socket 775." Whats the point in that? Pairing 4 g70s with a prescott :laugh:

:thumbsup:
from same article

ATI will showcase its own multi-GPU solution "Crossfire" at this year's Computex. The company did not release any detailed information about the technology but sources said users will be able to combine Crossfire-enabled cards with any other graphics card. Also, ATI's approach appears not to be limited to just two GPU - or four such as in this case. Crossfire may be able to support up to 32 graphic chips, sources said.

bah sli i want my 32vpu crossfire!

 

[Emultra]

If you would combine that many video cards, wouldn't it make sense to manufacture cards with only the components inside, that can be used to boost performance?

I mean, it's not like you need 32 of the same features that can't be multiplied. And for the same cost too.

 

[imported_humey]

I knew that would come, dual GPU cards in SLI, why not, soon you can buy dual core AMD 64 desktop CPU's, so you can buy 1 dual core opterons and stick in a dual cpu/socket mobo and have 4 CPU's, in windows, if AMD again added hyperthreading (which they invented and patented in 2002 btw) would it show up as 8 CPU's

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: humey
I knew that would come, dual GPU cards in SLI, why not, soon you can buy dual core AMD 64 desktop CPU's, so you can buy 1 dual core opterons and stick in a dual cpu/socket mobo and have 4 CPU's, in windows, if AMD again added hyperthreading (which they invented and patented in 2002 btw) would it show up as 8 CPU's

Someone has to explain the AMD/Intel link someday...

Why doesn't AMD use HT if they created it?

 

[Ronin]

Eh?

Hyperthreading != Hypertransport

I think you're confused about the two.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: humey
I knew that would come, dual GPU cards in SLI, why not, soon you can buy dual core AMD 64 desktop CPU's, so you can buy 1 dual core opterons and stick in a dual cpu/socket mobo and have 4 CPU's, in windows, if AMD again added hyperthreading (which they invented and patented in 2002 btw) would it show up as 8 CPU's

Someone has to explain the AMD/Intel link someday...

Why doesn't AMD use HT if they created it?

becuase it is not needed for shorter pipelines (A64 K8) when the are always full, in facy HT would slow them down .. FYI

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: humey
I knew that would come, dual GPU cards in SLI, why not, soon you can buy dual core AMD 64 desktop CPU's, so you can buy 1 dual core opterons and stick in a dual cpu/socket mobo and have 4 CPU's, in windows, if AMD again added hyperthreading (which they invented and patented in 2002 btw) would it show up as 8 CPU's

Someone has to explain the AMD/Intel link someday...

Why doesn't AMD use HT if they created it?

becuase it is not needed for shorter pipelines (A64 K8) when the are always full, in facy HT would slow them down .. FYI

Sounds like something that happens in Soviet Russia. hah.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Eh?

Hyperthreading != Hypertransport

I think you're confused about the two.

Ronin, i know you know what you are talking about, but Hyperthreading = Hypertransport is false, hypertransport is actually a link (hypertransport link) thats why opterons have more of them so that they may comunicate with other opterons aka 2x "opteron 256's", and the 8xx series would have 8 hypertransport links to communicate between 8 chips.

Hyperthreading .. well im sure you know what this is, and yes AMD did create it, but because AMD and Intel have this thing going on where they can use each others technology (some sort of license/agreement) Intel end up using it, for instance SSE3 was created by Intel but AMD use it on there new Rev-E chips (Venice and SD), they actually have the instructions that are used by Hyperthreading disabled, but everything else is enabled.


RichUK


EDIT: damn typos

 

[Ronin]

Did you read what I wrote?

!= means not equal, not =.

 

[RichUK]

Whoops i wondered why you put =! And not = .. lol .. see i knew you knew what you was taking about .. except my apologies

RichUK

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: Ronin
Eh?

Hyperthreading != Hypertransport

I think you're confused about the two.

Ronin, i know you know what you are talking about, but Hyperthreading = Hypertransport is false, hypertransport is actually a link (hypertransport link) thats why opterons have more of them so that they may comunicate with other opterons aka 2x "opteron 256's", and the 8xx series would have 8 hypertransport links to communicate between 8 chips.

Hyperthreading .. well im sure you know what this is, and yes AMD did create it, but because AMD and Intel have this thing going on where they can use each others technology (some sort of license/agreement) Intel end up using it, for instance SSE3 was created by Intel but AMD use it on there new Rev-E chips (Venice and SD), they actually have the instructions that are used by Hyperthreading disabled, but everything else is enabled.


RichUK


EDIT: damn typos

I thought it was that Intel could legally ripoff anything that AMD develops, whereas AMD can't just do that. It was a court decision from some years ago.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Eh?

Hyperthreading != Hypertransport

I think you're confused about the two.

No I was referring to hyper threading. Of course AMD uses hypertransport in the 64s (needed to OC them) .

 

[imported_humey]

Amplifier, because Hyperthreading now and more so in 2002 was buggy and some apps work better with it of, AMD left it to go for Hypertransport, but talk recently of maybe having both, who knows for sure, i was joking above about 8 cpus, and as i said before my pal from my irc channel worked for amd fixing the machines that make the wafers, he knows more than anyone else i know but only shares some info, he wont talk to much on subjects of amd cpus for the future or windows longhorn, but has axx to builds even my irc server cant get.

Ronin no im not confused and both arent the same(hypertransport dont show up as 2 cpus its a way of making the hardware communicate upto 48x faster than before), there both differnet and both AMD tech, email AMD and ask why they didnt hold onto hyperthreading after patenting in 2002, then come back and post here please.

RichUK has given you the same answer AMD will btw, its to do with short verus long pipes.

 

[Ronin]

Apparently you have a difficult time reading as well. Go back up and look at my 100% unedited post and reread it, please.

Rich, thanks for the apology. I have the same problem sometimes (happens mostly when I'm skimming).