amd fx-74 vs intel 6700 quad

[Prowl]

yes see it here first folks.

4x4 is here

4x4 got owned or at it's best just equals intels quad core

4x4 is hotter!

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

translated if you need.


http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2F2006%2F1129%2Ftawada92.htm


Sorry amd fans, 4x4 @ 3ghz vs intel quad core 2.6 lost. Add to that this was AMDs top 4x4 ofering vs the mid intel quad. and look at the power use! Not being a fan boy but the same core2 vs x2 is happening again! Just this time Intel was first and is staying there. K8l better do some thing!

[Crixx_Creww]

ok i was actually reading it eh

buh lol, after awhile i reallyyy couldnt handle that translation lol

[TrinireturnofGamez]

  Intel is faster per clock , AMD needs to fix that.. or find a way to make 4ghz chips without burning a hole in their mobos : D.

[.:Jedi:.]

One originally done in english

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

AMD hadda pull one outa their a$$ cuz this 4x4 architecture aint seem to cut it nah....

[W1nTry]

I have been reading alot of articles about this platform lately and I must now dispell the intelism sad... before I post the relevant links let me point out that this particular situation is a give and take. As with most comparisons, it comes down to what it is ur doing. Intel's chip is a better performer, no doubts there, however the Quad FX platform is a better platform depending on what you're doing. Techwise speaking the platforms have about as much in common as ducks and goats do. Let's highlight a little:

1. Both have 4 cores total
Intel has 2 x dual core die's on 1 chip (PHYSICALLY SEPARATE I MIGHT ADD) but who cares, it works well enough
AMD has 2 CHIPS each with 2 cores (Seperated by socket and HT links)

2. Both have great memory bandwidth
Intel has a 1333MHz FSB - shared architecture as FSB goes, but still latency is low
AMD has 2x HT to 2 north bridges - ~75% more bandwidth than a single FX, but higher latency penalty

3. Well thats about it... everything else is pretty different.

Now to point out why everyone who's posted so far is wrong and right - AMD never marketed teh Quad FX platform as a GAMERS platform. It is a WORKSTATION beast - its obvious most ppl here have seen gaming benches and encoding, but what about multitasking? hmm thats where the 4x4 really starts to show its legs.

The QC from intel is faster bar none in single threaded and even slightly multithreaded games/apps. ITs built on CORE 2 DUH!!! it will be faster per clock. However Kentfield doesnt have the memory bandwidth to multitask quite like the 4x4. You'd have to compare 4x4 to a Xeon workstation with multiple FSBs etc. SUre intel will TROUNCE them there for sure... but then yuh go up again etc etc Opetron blah blah blah.

What it comes down to is this, the AMD platform can do more at once, perhaps the individual tasks running when compared to the Kentsfield doing it, intel will win, but multiply the number of things going on at the same time and the Quadfather will win later on as the contention for the CPU gets ridiculous. That being said this is for ppl that REALLY DO A RIDICULOUS amount of multitasking (designers and encoders perhaps) we're talking running games, game servers, a million browswers, database apps, benchmarks, encding, decoding, etc SIMULTANEOUSLY. Now instead of reading japanese or whatever language articles, I invite you to read hands on impression of the platform with the following links:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36087
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36064
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36059
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36050
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36017
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36004

These articles talk about kentsfield vs. Quadfather, Quadfather architecture, power, benches, multitasking and price. Just to highlight a few more things:
1. Kentfield draws less power, but then its relative when you factor in what exactly you're doing and how many things ur doing at the same time.
2. The Quadfather is cheaper
3. The Quadfather will become Octfather when QC AMD processors launch Q1/2 next year (similar to 939 single-X2 without a change)
4. QUadfather supports more devices (ridiculously so)

This rig is DEFINITELY NOT for everyone, and quite frankly NOT for gamers (less R600 outshines Intel on teh AMD platform which I doubt) but if you're into doing a million things for the same if not less price with less slow downs than the intel variant, its prolly your way to go.

[Crixx_Creww]

enter amd fanboyism to teh extreme

nay nay

enter amd NON SENSICAL fanboyism to teh extreme.
lol, these fan boys dont let a little thing like facts and greater performance on the intel side disuade their arguament. They find the most trivial loophole imaginable to try and justify them saying that amd is better.
My question winny, what does amd do when intel starts playing their game?
what does amd do with a dual socket qc kentfield?

[Prowl]

4x4 cheaper?

actually 4x4 is more expensive! Intel has only release the xtreme editions of the kentsfield, there are still 4 other quad core cpus to come from them.

Also looking at the article rememeber it was the 6700k vs the FX-74! the 6850k 6650k, 6400k and 6300k are not released, you have 3 price points less and one more than the FX-74 Seperate from the xenon line.

Performance and power/heat speaks for it'self. Intel has the lead and imagine when the E6900 and 6950k are out!

Sorry but AMD now has to play the price game and accept their performance is less!

[W1nTry]

They find the most trivial loophole imaginable to try and justify them saying that amd is better.
My question winny, what does amd do when intel starts playing their game?
what does amd do with a dual socket qc kentfield?

I never said 4x4 is better bar none, in fact I DID mention a comparitive Xeon QC would trounce it, I just said its not a complete loss and it has its strong points. Its obvious that intel fanboys don't read anything of the competition properly cause you're glasses were fogged from being so steamy about kenstfield, but its not like we haven't grown accustomed to it, so bleh I not even sure why I bother to answer seeing as your post makes little/no sense to my reply.

4x4 cheaper?

actually 4x4 is more expensive! Intel has only release the xtreme editions of the kentsfield, there are still 4 other quad core cpus to come from them.

Also looking at the article rememeber it was the 6700k vs the FX-74! the 6850k 6650k, 6400k and 6300k are not released, you have 3 price points less and one more than the FX-74 Seperate from the xenon line.

Performance and power/heat speaks for it'self. Intel has the lead and imagine when the E6900 and 6950k are out!

Sorry but AMD now has to play the price game and accept their performance is less!

This too is a moot point as we don't have exact figures on where those price points are (please do post them if you have them though) and also there are cheaper FX based 4x4 processors as well. The 74 is top and there are 3 below it, so whats really ur point? AMD's performance IS less, noone has disputed this since Core 2. Careful prowl you're starting to sound like crixx.

[Prowl]

see my first post for 4x4 prices

now

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20061123PD209.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2extreme-qx6700.html

I will admit amd will have a $599 4x4 before intel releases theirs and if it ocs to 3.0g it will be a better value vs the 6700k, untill intel releases the rest of the quad line.

[W1nTry]

Personally, I think 4x4 is excessive but I suppose it has its niche. Kentsfield will rule the roost in mid and highend gaming and depending on price workstations that aren't ridiculous, the Quadfather prospect of going OCtfather is nice (seeing as it'll just need a CPU change) but if you've read some of the articles I posted, you'll see that you won't get the full benefits of K8L and the like with the current iteration of the platform. Granted you will get a performance boost and probably a power decrease, but it will shine alot brighter on the revised platform. Noone really knows how K8L will perform but in the least we know QC FXs have been tapped out and are actually being demoed today. Though I am an AMD fan, I am no fanboy like crixx. Whatever is the best bang for buck suites me fine (like my Core duo laptop i'm using at this very moment), I do favour AMD as their price/performance is always good and generally cheaper than Intel, but heck if Via came out with an UBER C9 or something I would chance it if the numbers were right. We're seeing the product cycle, its like Athon vs. P4 or K6II/K7 vs PIII. Core tech is Intels new gen which bests AMDs last gen, we will expect K8L to compete with core 2/Q and then CPGPU to compete with Nehalem or at least something like that (Read CSI vs. HT etc). We live in exciting times (save and except the world coming to an end but thats another story for another time )

[TrinireturnofGamez]

On techreport, 4x4 does win a coupel benchmarks but intel quadcore has much lower power usage.. i think its just a hold over until K8L .

[syncrod]

lixxxxxx

[Crixx_Creww]

lixxx sync? where? and how?

[W1nTry]

This should make the QuadFX more attractive:

MD to cut FX-70 prices

Post-launch pre-availibility haircut

By Charlie Demerjian: Wednesday 06 December 2006, 13:32
IT LOOKS LIKE AMD is reacting to the initial press reaction over 4x4 Quadfather QuadFX. Leaping into action, word has reached us that they are going to cut $100 off the price, presumably to $499/699/899, in very short order. Since it is officially launched, I can't say it is a pre-launch price cut, but it is probably a pre-availibility cut. µ

Prowl?

[Prowl]

That was to be expected! AMD has to place the price vs performance game. Intel can now follow and release their lower end Kents and similar prices.

[Crixx_Creww]

or if intel was feeling particularly wicked
they could lower the price of their high end kents to match amd prices, just to shut them out the market, its not like intel couldnt afford it.

[W1nTry]

or if intel was feeling particularly wicked
they could lower the price of their high end kents to match amd prices, just to shut them out the market, its not like intel couldnt afford it.

This makes little sense as they are making very good numbers with their existing pricing structure. Selling at a loss in an attempt to kill off the competition altogether would be to the detriment of the market as it already suffers with the price war going on all now. Didn't you know the semi-conductor market isn't doing too well in terms of growth? AMD and Intel are listed in the top 10 SLOWEST growing semi-conductor manus.

[Crixx_Creww]

notice the use of PARTICULARLY WICKED!
like say if tomorow i became ceo of intel

thats what i would do
kill amd and then do some radical stuff

[.:Jedi:.]

kill u say? how? these things humor me........

[Spazosaurus]

notice the use of PARTICULARLY WICKED!
like say if tomorow i became ceo of intel
kill amd and then do some radical stuff

...and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses every time they jumped, and if Crixx really became CEO of Intel, very soon we would have to pay $900 instead of ~$300 for a c2de6600 and charge everyone who ever bought an AMD chip in their life double that just for the hell of it.