AMD Dual Socket 4x4

[Sledgehammer70]

AMD took the leisure in announcing hints at a new road map that would include a dual socket AM2 system. The new dual socket system is being referred to as "4x4". No not 4 cores per socket but 2 AM2 X2 CPU's running side by side.

As expected, AMD has been working on an answer - and while the company does not have a new architecture, the manufacturer scales the current Athlon64 platform until the arrival of 65 nm production generation in Q4 2006 or Q1 2007. At least on the high end, the company believes that it will retain the performance crown with a system the company calls "4x4."
Source: TG Daily (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/01/amd_dual-socket_dual_core_platform/)

[GHoosdum]

Lame. Sounds like they're trying to pull a stunt... "Our two processors are better than their one."

[Sledgehammer70]

I heard that Quad core will slide into AM2 socket, so inturn they could end up with 8 core system, as a high end gamer that opens a ton of doors, especially for developers.

I have to agree this does sound like a stunt. I know AMD has something in the works to man handle conroe but liek always we gotta wait as they plaay leap frog.

[Sledgehammer70]

Call me a Skeptic, but I think this Dual socket is the real deal and will tie the desktop systems into AMD's new Torrenza system.

[drasnor]

Meh, I could run 2x2 on my H8DCE now. If I had wads of money, that is.

Seriously though, "dual socket"? I suppose these days dual CPU isn't distinguishable enough from dual core so we get new and interesting coinage like this. I just love the major attitude shift in the benefit of dual execution units brought by AMD's dual-core processors. I mean, some (http://www.short-media.com/forum/member.php?u=335) people (http://www.short-media.com/forum/member.php?u=143) have been using "dual socket" for years, appreciating its performance and spreading the gospel that this sort of performance can be useful to normal people beyond business applications (e.g. gaming) but with few converts. Now everyone has whet their appetite with dual-core and wants what we've had all along: more holes to plug CPUs in.

I'm fairly certain there's a diminishing returns curve associated with Cost vs Performance with number of cores and processors. I would be interested to see it so I can know if blowing beaucoup (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beaucoup) of money on a computer Hydra is really worth it.

-drasnor :fold:

[Evermore (Guest)]

Ehhh. I think this is a great idea! Some idea as the "SLI" or "Crossfire" that everyone seems to love. Why not bring out this idea. YOu know the possibilities of having 4 different cores to run on your system? Yes. This does mean very high prices, but why not for the enthusiasts?

Nah. Not a stunt. Just another idea to bring to the table. Something new. Something unheard of. I think it's a spectacular idea.

[Mt_Goat]

I want real 4X4! As in 4 Quad cores so as to have a total of 16 cores in one machine! :D

[V|P]

I want real 4X4! As in 4 Quad cores so as to have a total of 16 cores in one machine! :D
Getting 5 XBOX 360's is close... :shrug:

[Sledgehammer70]

soon enought MT soon enough

[jradmin]

Well, if they actually make a good range of multithreaded games and optomize older ones...then I could see this being a good thing.

[Mt_Goat]

Hell, I'll just take the farm in a box efferct for folding purposes! :D