PDA

View Full Version : Core2Q QX 6700 vs AMD 3.0 GHz 4x4


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Blacklash
11-29-06, 09:32 AM
Note the Intel chip is @ 2.67 GHz and the AMD @ 3.0Ghz. You may not be able to read it and the charts illustrate the differences fine:

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

Dazz
11-29-06, 09:35 AM
Well it's the MHz race Vs the efficenticy race all over again but the roles are reversed :o Wow the power for the dual FX is insane
Well in games the Core is still whoping the A64.

hirantha
11-29-06, 09:54 AM
i think at higher resolutions FX is performing good. like in Doom3

Spartan 117
11-29-06, 10:10 AM
hmmm, interesting, guess my QX6700 is still top dog for now :)

Dazz
11-29-06, 10:21 AM
Peformance Vs power draw the core is the better buy.

Bearclaw
11-29-06, 10:21 AM
hmmm, interesting, guess my QX6700 is still top dog for now :)
Haha, considering you just got it, that would be nice! :D

Tuork
11-29-06, 10:21 AM
I hope AMD can bouce back and gain the lead again.

Don't get me wrong, the Core2Duo architecture is quite amazing, but Ive always had a soft spot for AMD.... ever since the K6-II days.
:(

jAkUp
11-29-06, 11:16 AM
Wow. 4x4 is extremely unimpressive... anyone suprised? :)

pkirby11
11-29-06, 11:26 AM
I don't know, considering it's based off of an old design and it's not clocked to much higher I think it's impressive. Is it worth the money right now? Probably not, how ever when AMDs quad cores come out 4x8 could be really impressive. I also would be willing to be that AMD is going to scale much better in heavilly multithreaded applications. I'm sorry but it's only a matter of time before Intels aged FSB gets saturated.

That aside, I'm still very torn and I'm not sure I will be staying with AMD much longer considering how long it's taking them to counter Intel. I'm an old AMD softy and I don't deny it but they're not doing a good job of keeping me interested. How ever I really think that before I go C2D I'd like to wait for Intel Quad Cores.

OWA
11-29-06, 11:29 AM
Looks like software will need to be rewritten for the 4x4 for it to do well. Cinebench 9.5 was the only test where it looks promising. Since I didn't know what that was, I found a blurb at Sharky's about it:

CINEBENCH 95 is the latest update to this performance suite, which utilizes CINEMA 4D for both CPU and video-based testing. We're concentrating on the multi-threaded CPU benchmark, processes a large, detailed image file on-screen, times the overall performance, and displays the results. CINEBENCH 2003 was multi-threaded as well, but it simply split the task into equal portions (per logical or physical cores) and let it run. CINEBENCH 9.5 upgrades this considerably, and dynamically shifts processing on the fly. So if one core is finished its job, the program automatically segments the remainder, thereby speeding up processing times considerably. Another factor of this change is that it rewards physical cores, while lowering performance on Hyper-Threaded systems.

jAkUp
11-29-06, 11:32 AM
Sure its an old design, but that doesn't counter the fact that it uses more power, conducts more heat, etc.

pkirby11
11-29-06, 11:40 AM
Sure its an old design, but that doesn't counter the fact that it uses more power, conducts more heat, etc.

True, I'm only talking about the performance. I just don't think it's that bad, how ever when talking about power consumption, heat and other factors including the need for an eATX case, 4x4 sucks. :D I don't know why but I'm just and AMD happy fan boy. I wasn't going to go Intel and since I've waited so long I thought I'd get a little more life out of my AMD FX-60 and then upgrade to Quad Core Intel. Might as well, gone this long. :)

JoKeRr
11-29-06, 11:45 AM
Looks like software will need to be rewritten for the 4x4 for it to do well. Cinebench 9.5 was the only test where it looks promising. Since I didn't know what that was, I found a blurb at Sharky's about it:

I'm not sure why REDUCE performance for ANY type of system (Hyperthreaded or multiple) is a good thing?!

Benchmark is partially flawed, b/c the 4X4 is equipped with 4GB of ram, while the C2Q X6700 only has 2gb of ddr2.

I'm not sure how those FX warranted the FX7X naming convention, since essentially FX72 and FX70 are the same as FX62 and FX60 with a new socket, only difference is multi-socket support. Talking about marketing.. hm.

I guess the most convincing part is the power draw, when C2Q only exceeds 320W but 4X4 is well over 500W, even though the TDP of FX74 is supposed to be only 125W. I guess a 2nd 680a chipset is quite the powerhog as well.

Overall, C2Q is still the fastest, especially in integer power (even with the 11% deficit in clock speed).

Blacklash
11-29-06, 11:57 AM
The kick in the stones is the Core is running @ a lower clock and will likely OC much higher.

Here let me contrast 2.67 vs 3.0GHz with SuperPi1m on my rig:

2.67GHz = 19.000s
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/1779/test1m267ghzod5.th.jpg (http://img47.imageshack.us/my.php?image=test1m267ghzod5.jpg)

3.0GHz = 16.859s
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2319/test1m30ghzxp0.th.jpg (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=test1m30ghzxp0.jpg)

nekrosoft13
11-29-06, 12:13 PM
i think at higher resolutions FX is performing good. like in Doom3

thats because at higher resolution video card does more work.

you never benchmark CPU side by side in high res, all you gonna find is the video card bottleneck, not cpu bottleneck


back to topic

4x4 doesn't look good

Spartan 117
11-29-06, 12:21 PM
WOOOT HOOOOOOO!!!!1!!!ONE!!!

my QX6700 just arrived, now, ill still have to wait for the mobo

Bearclaw
11-29-06, 12:22 PM
WOOOT HOOOOOOO!!!!1!!!ONE!!!

my QX6700 just arrived, now, ill still have to wait for the mobo
I posted this in the other thread also where you anounced it.

(w/opics)

Mr_LoL
11-29-06, 12:33 PM
All I see is a shedload of question marks. Boo.

Spartan 117
11-29-06, 12:57 PM
I posted it in the other thread :D

BrianG
11-29-06, 12:58 PM
Let's face it, this a very specific application. I have a feeling Venturi will like this thing. It could use more clock.

AMD is buying time until the next rev of their architecture hits. It is a "metoo" platform.

Kudos to them for taking a stab at it, I suppose. But some one will dig on the 12 SATA and 4 GbE ports.

And hey, if one could get it for a fair price, one might be down...

superklye
11-29-06, 01:09 PM
/me waits for a12ctic to come and show us all how AMD is really the winner here and that Intel is slower and crappier than AMD.

BrianG
11-29-06, 01:10 PM
I honestly have tough time imagining who would buy a new rig / upgrade based on the 4x4 AMD solution as opposed to the Intel Quad core stuff...

Intel FTW here I think.
Yeah, I hear ya, but think about the possibility of goign to dual quad cores, something hinted to by AMD. The socket, IIRC, is the same so conceivably, it will be the next step.

We'll see when the NDA is actually dropped here as to what kind of upgrade path options it will have, ie being able to get one FX-70 now and adding another later for low money.

It will have an audience, just not nearly as broad as the C2D or the upcoming K8L and future quads.

Bearclaw
11-29-06, 01:17 PM
/me waits for a12ctic to come and show us all how AMD is really the winner here and that Intel is slower and crappier than AMD.
QFT. I am surprised he hasn't posted yet.

Dazz
11-29-06, 04:19 PM
Let's face it, this a very specific application. I have a feeling Venturi will like this thing. It could use more clock.

AMD is buying time until the next rev of their architecture hits. It is a "metoo" platform.

Kudos to them for taking a stab at it, I suppose. But some one will dig on the 12 SATA and 4 GbE ports.

And hey, if one could get it for a fair price, one might be down...
And the 20+ USB ports i guess you don't need to use hubs anymore lol.

a12ctic
11-29-06, 04:43 PM
Its about on par imo, pretty good for a 4-5 year old chip compared to a arcitecture released a few months ago.