Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 35

Thread: HEXUS.articles :: AMD Quadfather - first part of an epic trilogy?

  1. #17
    HEXUS consultant editor James Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    157
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Native quad core chips will still be K8 based, they are a newer revision and have tweaks and enhancements, but as far as I understand they are not K10.
    Again, AMD has explicitly told me its native quad-core chips will be K10, not K8. That's from their Technical Director - Sales and Marketing EMEA, so isn't likely to be wrong.

  2. #18
    smells
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morris View Post
    Again, AMD has explicitly told me its native quad-core chips will be K10, not K8. That's from their Technical Director - Sales and Marketing EMEA, so isn't likely to be wrong.
    My bad on that one, got drawn into the old K8L talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Morris View Post
    The QX6700 is a great product, but it is just two E6700 sitting side by side in the same packaging and sharing the same FSB. There really is very little difference between that and sticking the two processors in separate sockets.
    Except for the fact it offers a drop in upgrade for people already running the dual core derivative.
    Lets face it people could (and some have) simply have bought a pair of dual core Opterons or Xeons if they are willing to pay out, but adding a second socket will always bump up the price because you are adding more components.
    I used to run dual Gallatin-1M Xeons in my home system back in the days before dual core chips, it wasn't cheap but for the only way of having 2 cores at the time it was worth it. I wouldn't have bought it if it was a choice between that and a single dual core chip.
    Last edited by Thorburn; 24-11-2006 at 07:23 PM.

  3. #19
    HEXUS consultant editor James Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    157
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Well, that's what I still run as my main work desktop - two 3.06GHz Gallatin Xeons watercooled. Apart from the lack of PCI Express, it's still pretty decent. At least it was until Core 2 came along. Kind of shows how much Intel had been standing still.

    However, if the Quad FX motherboards are £150-£200 as the top Core 2 ones are and the processor twinpack is the same price, there's only the larger case and meatier PSU to factor in. Buying two HSFs rather than one is hardly going to break the bank. But whichever platform you choose, the graphics are the real consideration pushing you to get the 1000W PSU, and you'd probably get a huge chassis anyway. I wouldn't bet on Quad FX being noticeably more expensive to the end user than Core 2 Quad. Really, it's the relative performance which counts - and nobody's officially allowed to talk about that yet. So we'll have to wait and see.

  4. #20
    Senior Member DavidM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,696
    Thanks
    716
    Thanked
    242 times in 225 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morris View Post
    Buying two HSFs rather than one is hardly going to break the bank.
    And if they're retail CPUs.. they should have a decent pair with them anyway

  5. #21
    Senior Member kasavien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Watford
    Posts
    1,825
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    103 times in 48 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Octavean View Post
    This should be called a 2x 2x not a 4x4
    It's 4x4 because there are 4 cores (2 * 2core CPU's) and there can be 4 GPU's

    It says this in the article

    Andy

  6. #22
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,644
    Thanks
    930
    Thanked
    677 times in 451 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.5 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Vertex 4 + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 680 Sig 2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2208WFP
      • Internet:
      • FTTC
    I think most people are taking this as something aimed at the consumer market, which it clearly isn't.

    Something in this price and performance range, is aimed at people where the cost is only a passing consideration.

  7. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morris View Post
    Again, AMD has explicitly told me its native quad-core chips will be K10, not K8. That's from their Technical Director - Sales and Marketing EMEA, so isn't likely to be wrong.
    That's but the replay of the lame attempt to simulate technical development AMD tried to pull with their dual-core K8s. (when they tried to re-christen them K9)

    K9 is dead, K10 is dead and QC K8 got K8L-ed.

  8. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morris View Post
    However, if the Quad FX motherboards are £150-£200 as the top Core 2 ones are
    DailyTech indicates it to come in at ~$480, or almost twice as expensive as your average high-end C2Q board.
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4963

  9. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    255
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Proesterchen View Post
    DailyTech indicates it to come in at ~$480, or almost twice as expensive as your average high-end C2Q board.
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4963
    "U.S. distributors claim the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS will have an MSRP of $480 without bundles, but the street price will probably be much less."

  10. #26
    Syn
    Syn is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK, London
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Proesterchen View Post
    That's but the replay of the lame attempt to simulate technical development AMD tried to pull with their dual-core K8s. (when they tried to re-christen them K9)

    K9 is dead, K10 is dead and QC K8 got K8L-ed.
    AMD has STATED that there is no such thing as K8L, that name came from the intel camp. If AMD is calling THIER native quad core K10 then IT IS K10 full stop.

    Nice update Hexus, are we going to see some bits of Quad FX on Hexus.TV?
    TAMGc 2

    - Samsung 17" SM730BF 4ms TFT - Thermaltake Xaser Tsunami Black - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ - Asus A8R-32 Deluxe - Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2PT CL 2-3-3-6 - 2x Western Digital Raptor 74GB S150 (1 For Windows, 1 For Games) - Western Digital Caviar 250GB SE16 (For everything else) - Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS - Sapphire Radeon X1900XT 512MB - Thermaltake PurePower 680W (+12v 14A) (+12v 23A) (+12v 15A) = 52A -

  11. #27
    HEXUS consultant editor James Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    157
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts


    That's all I can say...

    K10 looks like as much of an update over K8 as Core 2 is over Core/Pentium M. I've recently had the chance of testing Core against Core 2 in two very similar notebooks. The difference is not as great in performance as you would think clock for clock - it's just that Core 2 launched at 2.93GHz, way above what Core ever got to.

  12. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Are we talking about Synthetic benchmarks or Real World? I think AMD's QuadFX shows how strong there Hyper Transport Technology is. Kentsfield is only about 1 to 3 % faster.

    Nice read, and a Nov 30, 2006 review on Real World Performance.


    Real World Quad FX Speed & Agility

    Our real world testing today disproves my preconceptions entirely, and shows that in quite a few cases, the FX-74 is as fast, or even faster than the QX6700. We ran the numbers over and over again, and the FX-74 simply has the horsepower to compete with the QX6700 in the most CPU intensive applications. When the systems are completely maxed out and you’re running rendering, encoding, or multi-media applications, the difference between the two CPU’s is quite minimal, usually between 1 and 3 percent.

    We all know that Intel’s Core 2 architecture is faster than AMD’s current processors so we have to believe that we are now seeing the interconnect efficiencies that AMD engineers have bragged about for so long now. We have heard many times how Intel’s Front Side Bus design is antiquated and inefficient, but let’s face it, it still works damn well. But maybe now as we move towards this Quad FX system, we are seeing all of AMD’s planning finally starting to materialize.
    The Bottom Line

    AMD’s Quad FX platform is big, bad, expensive, piggish, powerful, and has an extended upgrade path that will allow power users double the desktop power in 2007. You could call the AMD Quad FX the HUMMER H2 of the computer world. The AMD Quad FX platform is going to prove to be an extremely capable machine but there are going to be big costs associated with ownership. If you are wanting to buy a quad-core machine now with no regards to upgrading to an octo-core platform later, you would be remiss to not invest in the Intel QX6700. The QX6700 is cheaper, uses much less power, and will give you slightly better performance.The Quad FX ain’t your momma’s PC.


    LINK:
    http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

    Also, the QuadFX motherboard looks rocking cool black, blue, yellow & orange I think?

    Take Care & Merry Christmas
    Last edited by Super XP; 25-12-2006 at 07:53 AM.
    AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.60 GHz - 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 512MB CrossfireX - ASUS VH242H 23.6" WS HD1080P - Asus M3A79-T Deluxe - OCZ DDR2-1066 8GB (4 x 2GB) Reaper HPC CL 5-5-5-12) Patriot PC-100 SSD 32GB w/ 64MB buffer x 2 (RAID 0) - Windows 7 Ultimate x64 etc.

  13. #29
    smells
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    Unfortunately you have quoted the HardOCP review in your post which has taken MASSIVE criticism.
    This is the PC equivilent of suggesting that Hitler had some good ideas, you just lose the arguement.

  14. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    HARDCOP was the only reviewer which I am aware of that used "REAL WORLD" benchmarks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Unfortunately you have quoted the HardOCP review in your post which has taken MASSIVE criticism.
    This is the PC equivilent of suggesting that Hitler had some good ideas, you just lose the arguement.
    Well, of course HARDCOP received criticism for there review. They were the only reviewer which I am aware of that used "REAL WORLD" benchmarks. Real world benchmarks don’t just bench the CPU, it benches your entire system. AMD’s Hyper Transport Technology has done a great job & pushed the K8 even further.

    Notice that they did not base all there benchmarks around gaming? Unlike several other reviews.

    I do believe though that AMD needs to work on there drivers for there QuadFX, because it can perform better IMO.

    I do like the fact that the motherboard is Dual Socket for the desktop, a long with the other massive add-on’s, this really gives people the opportunity to build what ever they want, how they want, and how much they want? There really is no limit to what you can do with the QuadFX motherboard.

    AMD has these Dual Socket mobo’s on there roadmaps extending past 2008 & into 2009+, that is only good news for us enthusiasts. I just hope they start releasing them into the market as both Socket AM2, AM2+ & AM3 etc.

    Take Care,
    AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.60 GHz - 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 512MB CrossfireX - ASUS VH242H 23.6" WS HD1080P - Asus M3A79-T Deluxe - OCZ DDR2-1066 8GB (4 x 2GB) Reaper HPC CL 5-5-5-12) Patriot PC-100 SSD 32GB w/ 64MB buffer x 2 (RAID 0) - Windows 7 Ultimate x64 etc.

  15. #31
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,644
    Thanks
    930
    Thanked
    677 times in 451 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.5 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Vertex 4 + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 680 Sig 2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2208WFP
      • Internet:
      • FTTC
    Quote Originally Posted by Super XP View Post

    Notice that they did not base all there benchmarks around gaming? Unlike several other reviews.
    Yes it would be horrible to base these 'real world' benchmarks against 'real world' demanding tasks that strain almost all parts of a system wouldn't it?

  16. #32
    smells
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Super XP View Post
    AMD’s Hyper Transport Technology has done a great job & pushed the K8 even further.
    It lowers the performance in some applications due to the extra latency penalties incured when fetching data from memory connected to the other CPU. See Anandtechs review with the 2 CPU's vs. 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super XP View Post
    I do like the fact that the motherboard is Dual Socket for the desktop, a long with the other massive add-on’s, this really gives people the opportunity to build what ever they want, how they want, and how much they want? There really is no limit to what you can do with the QuadFX motherboard.
    There wasn't really anything stopping you before, I had dual Xeons a couple years back before dual core CPU's were available and a friend had dual Opterons.
    Before that ABit had the BP6 (Dual Celeron) and VP6 (Dual Pentium III) which could be flagged as the real fathers of dual socket on the desktop, unfortunately Intels disabling SMP support in future generations of desktop processors brought that to an end but a pair of mid-range Woodcrests aren't too expensive and you can find an LGA771 board with PEG slots for similar money to the QuadFX's board.
    The only innovation by AMD is that of marketing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super XP View Post
    AMD has these Dual Socket mobo’s on there roadmaps extending past 2008 & into 2009+, that is only good news for us enthusiasts. I just hope they start releasing them into the market as both Socket AM2, AM2+ & AM3 etc.
    Yep, and no reviews thought to tell people that while you can 'buy now and then upgrade to octo-cores' when the 65nm quad cores come around, they'll be AM2+ and therefore if you buy the first generation board now you'll be losing out on power management features.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PSU Calculator
    By Hullz-Modz in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 08:07 PM
  2. AMD Japan Files Claims Against Intel in Japan
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 04:58 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-06-2005, 12:06 AM
  4. Do you get an 'XP rating' applied when you o/c?
    By Austin in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •