Talk:AMD Quad FX platform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please Discuss

I did a major rework of the article as everything was discussed twice because of a poor merge. I also removed some of the titles and removed the cleanup tag. Feel free to revert if you think you can add more to the article that way. Also, If there are no objections I'm going to remove the stub tag, because the future product tag covers that.--Donutey 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I don't have the experience to do it, but all the sources or at the bottom of the page for whoever put the "citation needed" tags.--Donutey 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Socket 4x4

This article should incorperate Socket 4x4 mostly because AMD announced the product as "Socket 4x4 chipset" instead of "Socket 4x4" because it's not a new socket, but a dual socket implementation of AM2. (so far as we know).--Donutey 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • A merge sounds good to me. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not just call the merged article as "4x4 chipset"? --idle.man5216202.71.240.18 08:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I'd prefer to keep the name as close to what AMD called it, we might wait until more information is released before deciding on a merge. --Donutey 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Information

The original article, frankly, wasn't the truth. Socket 4x4 is NOT a quad core CPU, the linked article says as much. I rewrote the entry completely, hopefully it can be improved upon further, however, the title is not the best as Socket 4x4 is a socket not a chipset. If someone wishes to delete this article, I would have no qualms. --71.113.173.36 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC) okay Rubber cat 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I take that back, AMD has been calling it "Socket 4x4 chipset" so I guess that's the correct title, it seems like a market-ese name, similiar to AMDs LIVE! and Viiv. So it's not a good idea to delete it. --71.113.173.36 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I added some more information and the future product tag. Does anyone know the release schedule or more specific details?--71.113.173.36 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Term "Quad FX"

See here: [1] Well, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMD64 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 November 2006

[edit] multiple graphics

The 4x4 system will also have support for multiple graphics cards which is a feature that few workstation boards have.

not true

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe The Dragon (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 September 2006

4x4 is not a workstation mobo. The 4x4 mobo from NVIDIA named nForce 680a, have four PCI-E slots. -210.0.209.178 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

Time to add a section on the reception of the platform, or the controversy caused by the exclusive nature of AMD's choice of Asus? Particlebry 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A cursory Googling turns up some performance issues, however I don't care to run the risk of using questionable sources. 68.39.174.238 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's ASUS is willing to do Quad FX mobo, and the others do not. --202.71.240.18 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NUMA

Sadly, Vista's improved NUMA-aware core has done virtually nothing to help 4x4. Scortiaus 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples as? --202.71.240.18 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why the tech report article is quoted as a reference for the non-NUMA vs NUMA OS? In their first review they used the Windows XP x64 edition, based on W2k3 kernel SUPPORTING NUMA, the comparison shouldn't be between a OS without suport (the 32bits XP for example) with a OS with suport (XP x64, Vista)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EduardoS (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC).