where were you when AMD ruled the roost?

I guess you're asking regarding my personal computer? I went into the K8-era, if you will, with a 2.8 GHz / FSB533 Northwood that I upgraded to a 3 GHz / FSB800 / HT @ 3.6 GHz mid-2004. This combo lasted me through Dec last year, when I did a major system overhaul and got me an Opteron 170. Today, I'm using a Core 2 Duo E6600.

Besides that system, I also built my personal file server using a Sempron (K8) in March 2005, which chugs along perfectly since then.

.
You see, despite what some people make me out to be, I'm neither an AMD-hater nor an Intel-fanboy, I'm using whatever suits the task and fits the budget, same with my recommendations to friends and family.

Although both are beyond my budget, I am very eager to see the benchmarks of Kentsfield versus 4x4 (I think I anticipate those types of shootouts more than I anticipate most sporting events).

If these rumors turn out to be right, then it sounds like 4x4 will have higher clock speeds and greater memory bandwidth while Kentsfield will have higher IPC. It will be exciting to see how these two radically different designs compare. I can't wait!

The real joke is the people who actually think quad core is anywhere remotely close to being useful on the desktop. "It has more cores, so it's better. More is better!" *sigh*

Yeah, call me when software can actually make significant use of those dual core CPUs that have been on the market for a couple of years now. By then of course, they'll have to rewrite it all *again* for 4 threads instead of two. Pfft.

Will any of these cpu's be compatible with 939 socket mobos?

I'll post my take on this:

Frankly, I'm disappointed that we'll have to deal with yet another socket change. I was kind of hoping AMD had actually planned the move onto 4x4 while designing AM2 but this is obviously not the case. I think the FXs get 10 more points because you get 2 CPUs in the same box, so the FX-70 will be two 2.6GHz FXs. This, of course, means that AMD was BSing when it said that people could buy a single chip and then upgrade later on. It also means that you won't be able to drop in accelerators into 4x4 systems, since you won't have an open socket.

That said, there's a bit of silver lining in these news. Hopefully, because the CPUs are socket F, you'll be able to use Opteron 2xxx parts instead of FXs, so buying a single CPU at a time could be doable. Then there's the fact that Accelerators for socket F could work in 4x4, which makes it easier on 3rd parties that make these. If there were dual-socket AM2 systems then these manufacturers would be forced to support two sockets or ignore the desktop completely. Another nice thing, in my opinion, is the fact that AMD seems to be about to kill off AM2 FX parts, so we'll there will be significant differences between regular X2s and FX parts, the FX series being dual-socket "Desktop" parts.

#20, 4x4 means 4 CPU cores and 4 GPU cores (it's supposed to be used with quad-SLI). Quad-cores should be compatible with the socket when they come out, though.

All these new multi-core cpu naming conventions are more confusing then ever. Does 4x4 mean one quad core cpu? That seems like it should mean quad cpu's with quad cores.

(1) going from not being able to supply 2.6 GHz 5000+ parts to doing 3 GHz FXes in 3 months?

(2) nice boost in numbers with no associated boost in performance. (FX-60 = FX-70)

(3) 2.6 GHz instead of 2.4 GHz as new top grade at 65nm intro, could be good, but given the history of the 5000+ SKU, I reserve judgement

(4) damn, Intel at least packaged the P4 EE Gallatins differently, these desperate edition FXes only get the laser-mark treatment

(5) as new FX = old Opteron 22xx, it'll be interesting to see the motherboard prices, prolly in the $400+

Lots of old wine in new bottles, this roadmap shows. </yoda>

Maybe, just maybe, Intel should do a special edition 2.93GHz Kentsfield @ 120W, it would completely stomp the highest-end 4x4-combo at half the cost and energy consumption. *lol*

Between this story and the others posted today re. Tulsa Xeons and Intel "duplicating AMD's Torrenza initiative", do you get the feeling that the cpu market is just so fluid and dynamic right now that these guys are making up strategy along the way?

But where are the prices!

Reading the article, I'd have to say I definetely felt waves of dissapointment. Other than the move to .65, simply renaming processors (as Proe said, FX-60 = FX-70) doesn't rank very high on my books.

So does this mean an FX-70 is faster than a FX-60? No, just means you can use two of them....sigh.

Proe, trolls are not messengers, so quit lecturing people about maturity.

bah, meant to reply

The worst part about this news is that there is no mention of an X2-3600.

I am just interested in K8L Quad core processor and not in this 4X4 MUV ,,

Whats well under 1k, mean to them, that is the question.

Very cool, now show me the benchmarks!

ok...good chips..but FX on 90nm @ 3.0Ghz...are they serious about that ?

BTW, nice achievement there on 3Ghz ..AMD