AMD has put out the details of its 4x4 platform for enthusiasts, and it looks... interesting.
Dubbed Quad FX, for those who haven't heard about it, it's two dual-core Opterons plugged together with Dual Socket Direct Connect. The platform doesn't use registered memory, and supports Quad-SLI, using the NVIDIA 680a chipset.
We haven't had a chance to go hands on with a unit yet - ours is arriving tomorrow, so we're told - but the initial performance previews are a mixed bag.
HardOCP seems to think that it's pretty good, saying that it's difficult to call a winner between Kentsfield - Intel's Quad Core chip - and the 4x4.
Legit Reviews is more pessimistic, saying that "By doubling the scores across the board AMD was able to catch up to Intel's latest quad-core processors in a number of benchmarks, but it's clear from our use of both system that Intel still has the lead when it comes to 'quad' platforms."
Xbit Labs are even harsher: "In other words, AMD Quad FX will most likely appeal only to the most dedicated AMD fans. For everyone else this platform will most likely be none other but a unique desktop system prototype showing the possibility (or maybe even uselessness) of introducing AMD’s server technologies into the desktop sector."
The other downside of the platform seems to be the power requirements - we are talking double the power requirements of an Intel Quad core system to achieve performance that is apparently the same or worse.
We'll be sure to let you know what we think of it when we've had a chance to play tomorrow. What's your thoughts on Quad FX? Let us know over in the forums.
Dubbed Quad FX, for those who haven't heard about it, it's two dual-core Opterons plugged together with Dual Socket Direct Connect. The platform doesn't use registered memory, and supports Quad-SLI, using the NVIDIA 680a chipset.
We haven't had a chance to go hands on with a unit yet - ours is arriving tomorrow, so we're told - but the initial performance previews are a mixed bag.
HardOCP seems to think that it's pretty good, saying that it's difficult to call a winner between Kentsfield - Intel's Quad Core chip - and the 4x4.
Legit Reviews is more pessimistic, saying that "By doubling the scores across the board AMD was able to catch up to Intel's latest quad-core processors in a number of benchmarks, but it's clear from our use of both system that Intel still has the lead when it comes to 'quad' platforms."
Xbit Labs are even harsher: "In other words, AMD Quad FX will most likely appeal only to the most dedicated AMD fans. For everyone else this platform will most likely be none other but a unique desktop system prototype showing the possibility (or maybe even uselessness) of introducing AMD’s server technologies into the desktop sector."
The other downside of the platform seems to be the power requirements - we are talking double the power requirements of an Intel Quad core system to achieve performance that is apparently the same or worse.
We'll be sure to let you know what we think of it when we've had a chance to play tomorrow. What's your thoughts on Quad FX? Let us know over in the forums.
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review
October 14 2021 | 15:04
Want to comment? Please log in.