Where are they now?
Small form factor systems
Just a few short years ago, small form factor systems captivated our attention by squeezing an entire PC into a barebones form factor the size of a bread box. Small form factor systems were every bit as fast as their full-size counterparts, they were available with all the latest chipsets, and they had enough tweaking and overclocking options to keep the average enthusiast happy.

Shuttle was responsible for most of the craze, and they did small form factors better than anyone else, aggressively releasing models based on new chipsets and sockets—often even before motherboard makers. And then Shuttle decided that it wanted to become a systems vendor, shifting its focus from designing small form factor barebones to putting together complete systems. Suddenly, Shuttle was less concerned with keeping its barebones systems on the cutting edge, leaving the door open for someone else to pick up the torch.

Except no one really did. Some tried, and we've seen decent small form factor designs from Biostar, MSI, and others. But none have been exceptionally good, and none have inspired the sort of enthusiasm for the platform that we saw in Shuttle's heyday.

Perhaps we're just beginning to see the enthusiast community's relationship with small form factor systems for what it was—a torrid affair driven by infatuation, but sorely lacking in substance. Still, we miss getting excited about cramming an obscenely powerful system into a chassis the size of a toaster.

Biggest flop
Quad FX
When Intel announced that it would bring its Kentsfield quad-core processor to market before the end of the year, AMD seemed to scramble to come up with a response. At first, AMD intended to counter Kentsfield with a "4x4" concept that combined two processors and four GPUs in boutique systems built by the likes of Alienware and Voodoo PC. As enthusiasts who prefer to roll our own systems, we weren't impressed, and we didn't pull any punches.

AMD was at least paying attention, because 4x4 soon morphed into the much more reasonable Quad FX platform. Quad FX dropped the four-GPU requirement in favor of a motherboard that was simply capable of supporting up to four graphics cards, and AMD pledged several processor options to meet different budgets. What's more, AMD said Quad FX CPUs and motherboards would be available as retail products, giving enthusiasts the freedom to build their own systems based on the platform.

AMD's Quad FX platform

In essence, Quad FX became little more than an enthusiast-oriented dual Opteron platform with support for unbuffered memory. That's not a bad idea, especially considering how suitable AMD's processor architecture is for multi-socket systems, but the reality didn't work out quite as well as the ideal. You see, Quad FX did in fact arrive before the end of the year, but it did so only in review sample form. Actual CPUs and motherboards are only now becoming available online, and retailers are selling them at a bit of a premium.

Availability wasn't Quad FX's only problem. AMD chose to launch the platform with just one compatible motherboard, and while Asus' L1N64-SLI WS is a sight to behold, it's too big for some ATX cases, has two very power-hungry Nvidia MCPs, and really is overkill for enthusiasts looking to revisit the multi-socket glory days of the BP6. Power consumption is actually a rather major issue for the entire Quad FX platform, especially when compared with Intel's considerably more power-efficient quad-core alternative.

Quad FX may be a fine workstation alternative for those looking to avoid higher Opteron prices, but it's too awkward to compete with the simplicity of adding a quad-core Kentsfield to a compatible LGA775 motherboard, and it's not any faster. With 65nm CPUs and some reasonable mid-range motherboard options, Quad FX could have been a very desirable platform. That's the direction the platform needs to take if AMD wants Quad FX to go anywhere in 2007.

Most underdelivered hype
Hardware physics processing
We've had hardware acceleration for graphics, 3D audio, and even Ethernet for years, but in 2006, we were introduced to the first dedicated physics processor. Ageia's PhysX physics processing unit promised to bring games a new level of environmental interaction and realism that would not be possible without dedicated physics hardware.

The hype sounded good, and games were certainly ripe for an upgrade from lame rag doll effects. Unfortunately, Ageia's delivery was a little lacking. Game support just wasn't there, and we found that even Ageia's own Cell Factor tech demo ran pretty well with just a high-end dual-core processor. Ageia promised more widespread game support, and we've been inundated with press releases detailing upcoming games that will make use of PhysX hardware, but we're still waiting for a compelling reason to recommend a PhysX card.

Ageia's PhysX processor

Of course, Ageia wasn't the only company pimping physics processing in 2006. ATI and Nvidia also threw their hats into the ring, promising to accelerate eye candy physics (effects physics that doesn't impact actual gameplay) on the GPU. Both briefed the press about their plans, and ATI even had a live demo running at Computex. Yet we're still waiting for games that will actually make use of GPU-based physics acceleration.

Game developers aren't universally enthusiastic about hardware-based physics processing, either. Valve, for one, seems far more interested in doing physics on multi-core processors. Dedicated physics processing's best shot at a killer app may be Unreal Tournament 2007, but that's not due until later this year, leaving 2006 drowning in unrealized physics hype.

Biggest play
AMD buys ATI
It doesn't get much bigger than the AMD buying ATI. Although the jury is still out on whether this marriage will be good for both companies, and the market as a whole, there's no denying that this was the biggest development of 2006. In fact, AMD's acquisition of ATI had such an impact that we're still waiting for the dust to settle; we may have to wait until the end of 2007 to have anything really profound to say on the subject.

• Comment on this article
• Mail the author directly
• Sign up to receive notices when we publish new articles
• Drop into our forums for a free-form discussion
• Or go back to TR's front page