The 4x4 Rant

[alexander]

Ok, another one in the series, this one is about AMD and intel 4x4 processors and their implementation...

 

First about intel. Intel peeves me, the core 2 made a signifficant improvement in the dualcore business putting Intel ahead of AMD for the first time in many years. AMD however already announced that they were working on a new quad core system that would put intel to shame (or back in its place) again. Intel however was the first to declare "Ooh, we got the first quad core processor" and it was all pure BS because what they did, if you dont know, is take a circuit board, make 2 socket connections on them, throw 2 core 2's in there, connect them via FSB and voila, proclaimed the first quad core, when in reality that still remained a dual dual core. AMD was taking its sweet time and saying that they will put 4 cores on one dye, and i was remaining hopeful, think about it, even if each core was worse then intel's (and they were not), the fact that they would be so close together would make the performance skyrocket!

 

So 3 days ago i saw the pictures of the first mobo for the AMD 4x4 aka their quadcore chipset, along with the announcement of second generation dual cores. And i am peeved, because AMD split their idea in half. There are 2 procs with 2 cores each, not one huge proc with 4, and that is upsetting. They are not connected to each other via FSB, and infact have, what AMD calls "Direct Connect" technology, which is nothing more then a really, really fast bus (waay faster then FSB, put it that way), but the fact remains that it is still two dualcores and not a quad core. I can understand why AMD did it too, i mean the cost of producing 2 dualcores, vs growing a crystal that is almost double the size, new socket (the 4x4 is using 2 socket f 65nm procs, so there are 2414 pins all together) that would have to accomodate the cores, a well thought through cooling system and all that, so to them it was economical.

 

However still it is not a satisfactory result as i would expect more from AMD. But there is a but, in 07, AMD will be finishing their new 32nm facility in the US (with all the machinery that will cost them something like 27 billion), to remind you Intel uses a 45nm technology for their duos, and a 32 nm plant, maybe, just maybe will be able to size down the cores so much that sometime in 08 a single dye quadcore will come out, or maybe even a dual quad core connected over the "Direct Connect" along with HyperTransport 3, there is something to look forward to!

 

PS if i am not mistaken 4x4 and the new athlon x2s will feature AMDs HT2 bus, but that is unchecked...

[Buffy]

FYI, here's what Jim Louderback at PCWeek had to say about the AMD chip this week:

Well, though it comes from a company that touts its chips as cooler and quieter, this one practically needs a cooling tower, and it ought to come with a pair of noise-cancelling headphones. It eats megawatts for breakfast too!

I agree with those folks who think that except for high-end users of multiple simultaneous applications (like my developers), quad-core is a waste for most desktops. It will sure bring down costs for scalable servers though, and I like the fact that I can run both db and web server and app server all on the same box with "dedicated" cores.

 

Here's a somewhat negative review from ExtremeTech.

 

I'm a programmer: I can make any hot new chip look slow,

Buffy

[alexander]

can you write a runtime photon mapping engine for lighting for games. i wonder what the 4 cores and 4 sli cards will do choke or crank...

[InfiniteNow]

hehehehe... I thought this was going to be a thread about Buffy, then remembered, she uses 2x4. :hihi:

 

 

Like any new release, it 4x4 will have an audience, and those customers will request changes (noise reduction and better cooling) pretty quickly I'm sure.

[Buffy]

If need be, I escalate to a 4x4....

 

...those customers will request changes (noise reduction and better cooling) pretty quickly I'm sure.

Huh. Ya think?

 

Its horrible when competition forces you to release a product before its ready for prime time...

 

Don't get up, it works better if I kneel in front of it,

Buffy

[CraigD]

I am not an electrical engineer, having only a superficial understanding of chip design, but it strikes me that dual and quad core CPUs – especially those with general memory (FS) bus connections (the fastest commodity ones of which I’m aware operating at 1 Ghz), are essentially a generation behind multiprocessors such as the Cell to be had in the Playstation3 (though having a PS3 anytime in the next 30 days isn’t likely to be easy!), which, as it ships now, connects the processors with a 1.6 Ghz bus). The fanciest of the RS/6000s I use professionally give me 256 PowerPC CPUs with an effective speed of about 1.5 Ghz (actual 24 Gbit/s).

 

I’m just not very impressed with Intel’s or AMD’s 2 and 4 processor chips.