backtop


Print 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

Game performane not so shabby
By mlittl3 on 11/29/2006 8:36:28 PM , Rating: 0
I looked at the benchmarks and AMD actually does better at really high game resolutions. Let's look at this from another point of view. If you don't care about power consumption (obviously Intel wins this in a landslide), both the Intel platform and the AMD platform are powerful enough to do anything very fast. Who cares how much faster one does it over the other. Both Intel's quad plaform and AMD's quad platform are about the same price.

QX6800 = $999 for four cores (2.66 Ghz each)
Athlon FX-74 - $999 for four cores (3.0 Ghz each)

They are the same price!!!

All other system parts except for the motherboard are the same for both platforms. So that leaves just the platform to differentiate the price. Theinquirer.net has a rumor that the AMD Asus platform will not cost more than $300 dollars.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35...

An high end SLI Nvidia chipset intel platform costs $250 on Newegg.com.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...

Therefore, you only save $50 going Intel which is negligible for enthusiats. Again, throw out the power consumption and you have two great platforms. Now throw in the fact that you can put TWO native quad core "Stars" processors in this AMD system in 6-8 months and you have a 8 core AMD system for the same price as a 4 core Intel system.

That is a great deal!!!




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?


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Related Articles
AMD 4x4 Motherboard Details Unveiled
November 20, 2006, 3:31 PM
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM
AMD Opteron 10/30/2006 Price Cuts
October 10, 2006, 8:03 PM
AMD Q4'06 Dual-Core Roadmap
October 3, 2006, 8:23 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki