AMD Quad FX Vs Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 Benchmarks

[WillyWonka]

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/tawada92.htm

2.67 GHz C2Q vs. 3 GHz 4x4

Look at the power consumption at the bottom!
Me => :slapass: <= AMD

Pity they didnt OC seeing as the C2Q will hit 3.6-4 GHz while the 4x4 will struggle to get a 10% OC :nuts:

[TaPaKaH]

is there an English version ?

[WillyWonka]

is there an English version ?

How hard is it to read the graphs? :stick:

Or: Paste the URL into http://babelfish.altavista.com/ and select Japanese -> English (I cant direct link the translation.)

[WillyWonka]

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph16.files/PCwatch_QualFX_22166_image001.gif

Looks like a 1kW PS is in order :fact:

[frankR]

Looks like a 1kW PS is in order :fact:

Yikes ! :eek:


Not looking good for AMD if these graphs are representative. Why bother comes to mind.

[dinos22]

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/tawada92.htm

2.67 GHz C2Q vs. 3 GHz 4x4

Look at the power consumption at the bottom!
Me => :slapass: <= AMD

Pity they didnt OC seeing as the C2Q will hit 3.6-4 GHz while the 4x4 will struggle to get a 10% OC :nuts:
AMD can at least claim they won something substantially over Intel ahahahah :D :D :D :D :D

they probably didn't have a spare generator to overclock that AMD power slut

[WillyWonka]

Yikes ! :eek:


Not looking good for AMD if these graphs are representative. Why bother comes to mind.

Not to mention cost ... given these are aimed at "enthusiasts" (corporate speak for overpriced), it aint going to be cheap.

Expensive mobos (i.e. huge server class mobos)
2x CPUs
...

My wallet => :slap: <= AMD

4x4 is also just a temporary stopgap until the K8L so you have 0 future proofing :mad:

[TaPaKaH]

Reading the graphs - Intel wins everywhere :woot:
Besides, it`s cheaper to buy 1xIntel ($1k) than 2xAMD ($1.2k+)

[dinos22]

Reading the graphs - Intel wins everywhere :woot:
Besides, it`s cheaper to buy 1xIntel ($1k) than 2xAMD ($1.2k+)
you know what the funniest part is

they can start selling using TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) measurements now with such massive power consumption figures...................Intel and AMD are going to start buy power company shares pretty soon the way this is going:slapass: :slapass: :slapass: :slapass:

[Blacklash]

I'd like to see the C2Q @ 3.GHz for a comparison. It already looks slightly faster @ 2.67.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7479/cine95bnc1.gif

[FatRakoon]

Yikes ! :eek:


Not looking good for AMD if these graphs are representative. Why bother comes to mind.

No, there are many many of us who will bother just because we can.

I have to say though, that I have been a 100% AMD user for years now, and recently upped to a conroe, and while benchmarks etc are showing the Conroe clocked up a tad ( 3.3Ghz ) is way over twice the speed of my AMDs, when it comes to the real world, its a lot closer than many Conroe users seem to want to admit.

For example...

My main AMD is an x2-4200 @ 2.5Ghz... I run F@H on both cores, they take up 100% of each core, or 50% each of the total right?
Now, if I run anything, then if its on one of the cores, that that cores Folding takesa dive and the Apps then has its 100% of that core... If its a proper Multithreded apps, then of course it takes up both... Sound logical right?

Well, on the conroe, it does not quite do this...

Kept doing pretty lame stuff, sure, each fold takes up its 50%+50% but then some other app does not force the folding down to 0% and give its core the required 100%

A good example is DVDSanta... Thats able to use up both cores, and guess what?

If I am folding on both cores, and DVDSanta is also trying to use up both cores, have a look at the TaskManager, and you will see that DVDSanta is only actually taking up around 25% or each core, which in effect also means that the AMD is faster at multi-tasking than the Conroe is.

Try it for yourself... the AMD is vasty superior... I have even compared a Winchester 3200 against a dual core 2.6Ghz P4 and again, the P4 is a bloody pile of plonk against the AMD.

Oh, and also on this conroe, I have not been able to get it 100% reliable... NFSU2 crashes all teh time, and a surprising ammount of apps simply dont run on it... CAnt figure out why just yet,

So, sure, I love my AMDs and once I know that AMD have a conroe beater thats available at a price I am willing to spend, I will be going back to AMD for sure.

[dinos22]

Oh, and also on this conroe, I have not been able to get it 100% reliable... NFSU2 crashes all teh time, and a surprising ammount of apps simply dont run on it... CAnt figure out why just yet,.
judging by your conclusions and things that are crashing your system i would say you need to figure out what is crashing it in first place because it ain't ath game.......................that is the only damn game i play and i've never had a single glitch.............i have not had a single app NOT run on conroe so what are you on about LOL

folding priority should work as normal too..........i'll check that out on my system

[Poodle]

With dual Nforce i680 chipsets (hot!) and 90nm cpus this isn't really surprising. 4x4 will need to mature some. I wouldn't buy until Ati has something on the market, if I would be bothered at all.

[Bla$nA]

Poor AMD ;/

[WillyWonka]

4x4 will need to mature some.

4x4 is just AMDs dual Opteron server platform rebadged. It doesnt get any more mature than that ... I've been using it for 18 months :)

[Stalk3r]

Direct babelfish translation:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2F2 006%2F1129%2Ftawada92.htm

[HamidFULL]

AMD's Break Day!!! LOL...

[WillyWonka]

Extremetech just released their 4x4 review: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2065504,00.asp

Conclusion: Same results as original japanese site.

Intel => :slapass: <= AMD

[Nazu]

I'm feeling a bit sorry for AMD :lol2:

[WillyWonka]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx.html

4x4 overclocking:
Our test platform used two Athlon 64 FX-74 processors with 3.0GHz nominal clock speed. Unfortunately, we couldn’t increase this frequency any further. If the clock generator frequency was set even 1MHz above the default 200MHz, the system wouldn’t boot Windows XP shutting down automatically. It was pretty strange also because nothing could be done to resolve this situation: no common tricks used to improve the stability of the overclocked system, such as increasing the processor voltage, bus voltage or chipset voltage or lowering the HyperTransport bus multiplier, would help. We could free some room for the clock generator frequency increase by reducing the processor clock frequency multiplier below the nominal value, but only until the CPU frequency hit 3.0GHz. Once the frequency got higher, the situation repeated: the system would simply shut down on us.

C2Q: 50%+ OC
4x4: 0% OC

AMD => :frag: <= Intel

[WillyWonka]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5148

Paper launch alert:

Pricing of Athlon 64 FX-70 series start at $599 for a pair of FX-72’s and top out at $999 for a pair of FX-74’s. Availability of Quad FX systems and parts are expected in early 2007. Currently, Asus is the only known motherboard manufacturer to have a Quad FX motherboard ready. DailyTech

[nn_step]

looks like a software problem

[uOpt]

There is no way that the above power consumption charts turns out true.

If it is without video cards, then there is no way that a non-overvolted dual-core AMD64 takes 250 watts.

If it includes video cards, then the Core2 numbers would be made up by the cards alone with nothing for the CPU.

Note that I don't say that Core2 can't be better. But those numbers are obvious nonsense.

[nn_step]

you forget uOpt that nForce 570 chipsets consume more power than the sum of the processors

[uclajd]

Here are some limited OCing results, courtesy Legit Reviews (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/425/16/):

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/425/rtr_overclocked.jpg

You have to look at overclocking on an enthusiast platform (who spends over a grand for a CPU and doesn't try to OC it?). And comparing overclocked systems, Intel shreds AMD's global warmer.

Supposedly these boards have a $500 MSRP? :eek: I must say, it is an awesome looking beast to behold (pic courtesy HardOCP (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0)):

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1164762316TkkLXtB7nv_3_1_l.jpg

Nice to see AMD trying to keep Intel honest (competition spurs innovation and lower prices), but you'd have to be crazy to go this route, IMO. It does seem karmic that all the AMD people who made space-heater jokes about Prescott will now need 700W PSUs if they want this setup. :lol:

[nn_step]

The funniest thing about it is that the Chipset uses up far more power than the CPUs

[onewingedangel]

NN thats just wrong. The two 570 chipsets together take up the same power consumption as one fx74 chip. The sad fact is that AMD are forced to stretch their binning to the linits to get 3ghz chips, and can't afford be be picky about getting chips that can both hit 3ghz and do so at reasonable power levels.

4x4 would have been much more interesting using socket am2 chips and a couple of x2 5000+'s, at least then power consumption would have been ok, and it could have been an upgrade route - buy one extra processor to match your current one, rather than get a whole new system. If your in the market for a new system you would be an idiot not to go the intel route either via conroe or kentsfield at this time.

[ooztuncer]

from old tom: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/

[nn_step]

NN thats just wrong. The two 570 chipsets together take up the same power consumption as one fx74 chip. The sad fact is that AMD are forced to stretch their binning to the linits to get 3ghz chips, and can't afford be be picky about getting chips that can both hit 3ghz and do so at reasonable power levels.

4x4 would have been much more interesting using socket am2 chips and a couple of x2 5000+'s, at least then power consumption would have been ok, and it could have been an upgrade route - buy one extra processor to match your current one, rather than get a whole new system. If your in the market for a new system you would be an idiot not to go the intel route either via conroe or kentsfield at this time.
Lets do some math here, The processors are speced at 65w apiece. Thus their sum can not exceed 130w total. Thus it must have more do with the chipset.
Hitting 3Ghz isn't a problem for AMD.

[onewingedangel]

The processors TDP are not 65w a piece, they are 125w a piece.

They have slightly higher TDP's per core than fx62's due to the higher clock speeds, thinking that somehow the clockspeeds would have gone up and the TDP down would be delusional.

[nn_step]

to ignore the possibly that the process can yield better processors over time, is retarded.

[uOpt]

you forget uOpt that nForce 570 chipsets consume more power than the sum of the processors

Indeed it looks like it. The TDP is not the power consumption of the chip, but it the chip's power consumption will not exceed the TDP (non-overclocked stock voltage). So the processors take up at a maximum 250 Watts.

That is sad.

The biggest advantage of the Intel platform over the AMD platform has always been the Intel chipsets, at least when you like working drivers, decent power consumption and all that yazz.

[onewingedangel]

They ARE 125w TDP chips, if they could fit into the 89 or 65w families they would have done. The simple truth is that 90nm K8's hit their limit between 2.6 and 2.8ghz, where any further increase in speed results in a far higher power usage and heat output compared to the performance increase provided. It's the price for binning to the very limits of your silicon.

The 570's whilst power hungry for northbridges do not come close to the power consumption of the cpu's, both nf570 chipsets consume less power than one fx74.

[WillyWonka]

Dont run a 4x4 in the UK 24x7... you'll need to apply for an overdraft to pay your power bill :)

[Poodle]

The Rd580 is WAAAAAAAAY cooler than the Nforce chipset. http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=21&articleid=822

To fit two Nforce chipsets on one board is pure madness. 4x4 needs Ati chipsets and 65nm cpus. I hope that Amd will continue support the platform because it might be great i the future.


I think it's a bad move from Amd not to introduce it with Ati from the beginning. The high power consumption label might not wash of later...

[Mako88]

Yawn.

Wake me for K8L, this 4x4 nonsense is a non-event due to the horrible drawbacks related to power consumption, cost, and general lack of performance versus a simpler alternative.

And those of you saying "BUT IT LOOKS SO TEH COOL!!!!111one" settle down. It's a piece of pcb, a computer part, not a Ferrari. ;)

[Sheik]

Man that makes the XQ6700 look good :p:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/425/14/

[revogamer]

this system has 4 PCIe slots and able to run 4 single slot graphics, but would this system be able to run 2 8800GTX at full load?

[doompc]

Sure, with 1KW PSU...

[nn_step]

possibly 2K PSU

[Dutch Schultz]

talk about getting stomped.

[StealthyFish]

so the 570 eats up a lot of power, are you going to run a CPU without a northbridge? I think not. So that part of the argument is completely bs, simply because the kentsfield wattage consumption was also tested with a 680i chipset, which eats more power than a 975X or 965P chipset, to keep this realistic. Logically, a kentsfield will eat less power because of 65nm and single socket anyway, so even if you set it up to a board which consumes as much power as that 570 chipset, you'd still get less wattage consumtion. It may bring the kentsfield a couple of watts closer, but nothing that will make it run 510W+ full load, lol.

[dinos22]

from old tom: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/


yeah these figures are pretty big

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page9.html

[dinos22]

i think both AMD and Intel are using way too much power

bring on mobile quad core CPUS :D

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page12.html

decent 700W PSU will do the trick with both systems fully loaded