Jump to content

Talk:AMD Quad FX platform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please Discuss

[edit]

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)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge with Socket 4x4

[edit]

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)[reply]

New Information

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Term "Quad FX"

[edit]

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

multiple graphics

[edit]

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)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

NUMA

[edit]

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

Examples as? --202.71.240.18 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]

Still a realistic AMD platform?

[edit]

I've read recently that AMD was going with a 12-core processor, how is this impacted?

It would be good to understand how this fits into the architectural roadmap. Nothing has been updated here since 2006, and I was expecting that by 2008 we'd be adding FPGAs and GPUs to our motherboards, in that second socket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.15.204 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

Article discusses "the future" as 2008. Time-neutral phrasing could accurately archive this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.107 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still an issue in 2023. Perhaps it might be best to revamp/summarize the information better and merge it into the main Athlon 64 article under the Athlon 64 FX section.216.209.138.138 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it to be more time neutral, but there's a lot of unsourced material, so I'd be in favour of a significant rework / slimmed down and merged into another article. 185.62.159.164 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on AMD Quad FX platform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AMD_Quad_FX_platform&oldid=1215284226"