backtop

Hardware AMD 4x4 Named Quad FX
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - November 29, 2006 3:25 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Nov 30 at 1:43 PM

Image courtesy PC Watch
Four cores, four graphics cards, four hard drives, four everything

PC Watch has the scoop on AMD’s upcoming 4x4 enthusiasts platform. The article claims AMD dubbed its 4x4 platform Quad FX. The upcoming Quad FX platform is based around NVIDIA’s unannounced nForce 680a chipset with SLI compatibility. DailyTech previously revealed images of ASUS’ nForce 680a offering—L1N64-SLI WS. Initial Quad FX systems will be powered by AMD dual-core processors, though the platform should be compatible with AMD’s upcoming Stars processors.

AMD is expected to launch Quad FX with three processors initially—the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70. AMD is shipping the FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70 in pairs at $999, $799 and $599 respectively. This undercuts Intel’s recently released quad-core Kentsfield Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor priced at $999.

The processors will utilize AMD’s socket F and feature a 125 watt TDP and manufactured using a 90nm SOI process. Unlike AMD’s workstation Opteron 2200 series processors, AMD Quad FX systems will not require registered DIMMs and function with regular unbuffered DDR2.

PC Watch has also posted benchmarks of the upcoming Quad FX platform as well. The early numbers do not favor too well against Intel’s Core 2 Extreme QX6700 though.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By mattsaccount on 11/29/2006 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 4
The x axis is labeled "Watt". Can anyone confirm what this graph is showing us?

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




By Nightmare225 on 11/29/2006 5:37:26 PM , Rating: 3
Holy... If that's what I think it is... AMD's getting it's butt kicked.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 3
I ran the page through Google's translation engine, and it seems clear that graph is showing idle power consumption, along with consumption with two loads. Google doesn't translate the image itself, so I don't know exactly what the top and bottom bar labels say (but obviously the top one must be idle power draw).

Clearly though, AMD's QuadFX power consumption is FAR higher than Intel's Quad Core. It's funny how fast the tables turn: a couple of years ago, AMD consumed less power, and Intel's most extreme offering couldn't catch AMD even with a big clock-speed advantage. Now Intel consumes less power, and AMD's most extreme (absurd?) offering can't catch Intel, even with a clock-speed advantage.


By aGreenAgent on 11/29/2006 9:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
It would be ironic, except it's to be expected. Intel Quad Core = 1 chip. QuadFX = 2 chips. So I wouldn't be surprised if QuadFX used almost double.

And the tables haven't turned more than expected. Intel has a performance lead. AMD releases a new generation, gets performance lead. Intel releases new generation, gets performance lead (currently). The tables won't turn until AMD can't beat Intel with their next gen processor.

Also, this isn't new chips or anything, it's a new platform. If I remember correctly, the only difference in the chips is that they've been worked for multiple chips.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By Furen on 11/29/2006 6:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising at all considering that the Nforce5 is the most power-hungry chipset in existence (talk about overly dramatic). This motherboard has two of them and two very power hungry chips.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By clayclws on 11/29/2006 6:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
NFORCE 5 Series? I think I read NFORCE 680a . I'm sure I am reading the same article...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
the nForce 600 series is based on nForce 500. Some would even argue the chips are nearly identical.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By clayclws on 11/29/2006 6:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
So...the chipset in the motherboard is using all that power? Is that what you mean? I thought it was the other components like the CPU...


By shabby on 11/29/2006 7:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
No no dont be silly, its the chipsets fault not amd's...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/29/2006 7:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I have no idea is what using all of that power. I would assume it's the two CPUs and the chipset.


RE: Does the last graph show power use in Watts?
By Thorburn on 11/29/2006 7:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
It seems likely that its the two 125w TDP processors :)
The chipsets will most likely be in the 15-25w range, thats why they have SMALL heatsinks and the processors have BIG heatsinks....


By Furen on 11/30/2006 12:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
If you read my orginal post, I say that the problem is the fact that the motherboard has two very power-hungry chipsets (like 20W more than a comparable ATI alternative, and there are TWO 570s on this board, that's what the 680a entails) and two very power-hungry chips (CPUs). That's why I said it's hardly surprising we saw such a high power draw, an single ATI/VIA/SIS chipset would probably drop the overall power-draw by 40-50W but that's still far from what Intel can do.


By AnnihilatorX on 11/30/2006 3:56:28 AM , Rating: 3
On Y Axis from Top to Bottom:

When Idle

CineBench 95 - Multiple CPU Rendering

Video Encoding


Game performane not so shabby
By mlittl3 on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: Game performane not so shabby
By dashpot on 11/29/2006 11:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I would still be a bit cautious first with the "initial" version of 4x4 -- according to the inq, a new board may be needed to "let it fly"

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36...

Looks like "4x4+" may be in the works



RE: Game performane not so shabby
By dashpot on 11/29/2006 11:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
That is, assuming you have plans to move on to the 8 core sometime Ü



RE: Game performane not so shabby
By johnsonx on 11/29/2006 11:41:49 PM , Rating: 1
At the really high resolutions, both systems are GPU bound. Therefore the small differences there are just your typical platform differences. It could also be that video drivers themselves may execute slightly better on AMD, so once things get GPU bound a little more efficiency in the driver makes the difference. Either way, comparing two systems at GPU bound resolutions and then making assumptions about the CPU's is not a good idea.

Second, you can't just say that the rumor is that the QuadFX mainboard will cost about $300, and then find one of the most expensive Intel SLI boards at $250 and declare the platforms equally priced. Even assuming the $300 price point for a QuadFX board is valid (something tells me the launch price will be over $300), there are plenty of good SLI boards for Intel down to $100. Those $100 boards have 95%+ of the performance and features of the $250 boards. On the other hand, by it's nature, there will be no 'value' boards for QuadFX. So compare $100 to $300.

Finally, regarding the power requirements, you can't just ignore the differences in pricing out a system. It looks like you'll need a 600 Watt power supply MINIMUM for AMD QuadFX, and the board shots I've seen so far show 24-pin + 8-pin power plugs which means a server-class power supply. The intel system needs good power too, but nothing exotic. All else being equal then, the power supply for the AMD system will cost about double what the Intel one does.

So, you can spend at least $350 more on the AMD QuadFX-74 system and get a bit less perfomance than the Intel QX6800 system would, or you can go cheap with the FX-70 processors and spend just the same as you would on the Intel QX6800, and get a lot less performance.

This is a bad deal!!!


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By Lakku on 11/30/2006 12:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
QX6700 requires a motherboard and power supply conforming to EPS standards, which includes the 8-pin aux. connector for CPU power.


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By Ganniterix on 11/30/2006 8:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
What's hilarious about his comment and most of the other 4x4 fans is that they keep mentioning the quad core as a replacement. It seems that AMD will be distributing these for free once they come out :)

If you want to take them into your account in your (... let's be kind ...) FLAWED comparision you have to include their cost (... let's be kind once again ...) which most probably will be in the range of $1000. Let's compare present with present ... and then compare future with future.

What happens couple of months or a year down the road ... when one of the CPU's fails (cause they are electronics after all) and maybe AMD thinks your model was too old and was already EOL'ed. AM2, AM2+, AM3, Socket F ... almost ran out of breath there. I wouldn't bet that Quad cores would be an easy direct replacement. And let's assume they will be! There is still the added cost to replace 2 cpu's.


RE: Game performane not so shabby
By johnsonx on 11/30/2006 1:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, lets also not forget that so far the QuadFX mainboards that have been spied are all E-ATX boards. So you can't put one in a regular size ATX case. While I will grant that there are some reasonably priced cases that will fit an E-ATX board, on a whole such cases are more expensive and there are fewer available.

None of this actually matters to me though, it's just amusing to watch the fanboys try to explain how QuadFX has some sort of advantage over QX6700. My 2 Athlon64 and 1 AthlonXP systems are serving me just fine, and if I were in an upgradin' mood, I certainly wouldn't spend any more than $200 on a CPU & mainboard.

BTW I see I got modded down above... did I say something factually wrong? Or was I just politically incorrect?


Shipping in pairs?
By MonkeyPaw on 11/29/2006 4:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
If they are selling them in pairs, that's pretty cool. Instead of buying one overpriced CPU, you get 2 SMP CPUs for what ends up being a more reasonable price. The 2.4ghz Socket F Opterons are selling for $460 alone! Still, energy consumption will be ridiculous, though I doubt the "slower" QuadFXs will actually consume 125W each, especially once we see 65nm K8s. Perhaps QuadFX would make a good server/workstation? I guess it all depends on how it compares to Core 2 Quad.