PDA

View Full Version : AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

MikeC
11-30-06, 09:12 AM
"Charting another industry first for computing enthusiasts, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced the AMD Quad FX Platform with Dual Socket Direct Connect (DSDC) Architecture, the first dual-socket, multi-core desktop PC platform designed to take advantage of the latest enhancements in Windows® Vista™ Ultimate. As the supreme AMD platform for megatasking enthusiasts, the AMD Quad FX Platform is designed to redefine performance on the latest generation of multi-threaded applications.

The AMD Quad FX Platform is powered by pairs of the AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-70 series dual-core processors, the newest additions to the award-winning AMD Athlon 64 FX processor family. The new platform takes enthusiasts on a megatasking thrill ride, allowing them to make the most of their overall computing experience while gaming, editing audio/video and streaming high-definition content."

Reviews Posted:

AMDZone (http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=277&page=1)
FiringSquad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_fx_74_4x4/)
HardOCP (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)
HotHardWare (http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=911&cid=1)
PcPer (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=329&type=expert)

GlowStick
11-30-06, 09:35 AM
This looks like a cool setup, I really like the dual socket design and the mobo, however id like to see more server features added on such as a pci-x slot would be nice. However, if i had the money id probably go for a setup like this hehe!

MikeC
11-30-06, 09:37 AM
AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-70 series processors PIB Price

For the AMD Quad FX Platform with DSDC Architecture

Athlon 64 FX-74 (64-bit, 3.0GHz, Dedicated 2MB L2 cache, 2000MHz HyperTransport bus, Socket 1207FX) $999/pair

Athlon 64 FX-72 (64-bit, 2.8GHz, Dedicated 2MB L2 cache, 2000MHz HyperTransport bus, Socket 1207FX) $799/pair

Athlon 64 FX-70 (64-bit, 2.6GHz, Dedicated 2MB L2 cache, 2000MHz HyperTransport bus, Socket 1207FX) $599/pair

Q
11-30-06, 09:45 AM
Not very impressive at all. AMD beats out the Intel quad in a few very select places under a few select tests but gets absolutely creamed in gaming and pretty much everything else.

What a complete turn around from a year ago.

nekrosoft13
11-30-06, 09:51 AM
very poor results

Bearclaw
11-30-06, 10:42 AM
Not very impressive at all. AMD beats out the Intel quad in a few very select places under a few select tests but gets absolutely creamed in gaming and pretty much everything else.

What a complete turn around from a year ago.
QFT. The prices for the new FX's are insane also. What a bummer.

lightman
11-30-06, 11:25 AM
another industry first for computing enthusiasts, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced the AMD Quad FX Platform with Dual Socket Direct Connect (DSDC) Architecture, the first dual-socket, multi-core desktop PC platform designed to take advantage of the latest enhancements in Windows® Vista™ Ultimate.

A first what ? Last time I checked Opteron 2xx and Xeon 5xxx have been around for quite some time, with prices lower or on par with 4x4. I sincerely don't see the great innovation, or the "new" technology here.

And let's not talk about the performance/power consumption ratio...

jAkUp
11-30-06, 11:28 AM
meh. I don't think they should have released 4x4.

TiKiMaN1
11-30-06, 11:39 AM
meh. I don't think they should have released 4x4.

Agreed. (nana2)

sandeep
11-30-06, 11:40 AM
meh. I don't think they should have released 4x4.
hahaha....true

....more space, more cost, more power, new motherboard, and performance:thumbdwn:

TiKiMaN1
11-30-06, 11:47 AM
hahaha....true

....more space, more cost, more power, new motherboard, and performance:thumbdwn:

Only some really (crazy) AMD Fanboys will fall for this. The QX6700 still takes the win. And very soon Intel will be moving to the 1333MHz FSB and 4x4 will just get stomped even more.

lee63
11-30-06, 12:05 PM
Im loving my 6800 right now :captnkill:

Bman212121
11-30-06, 12:12 PM
I like Firing Squading Multitasking Game benchmark.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_fx_74_4x4/page13.asp

If I got a QX6700 then I could play game and encode videos in the background :D

jAkUp
11-30-06, 12:17 PM
Yes atm it's not a good solution. But with two Quad-Cores it could be a really fast plattform.

Still a QX6700 for me :D

Maybe for extreme multitasking, it certainly wouldn't be good for gaming.

jAkUp
11-30-06, 12:22 PM
True, not until we'll see multithreaded games. The Core MA is really fast for games right now.

Well even if we saw multithreaded games, that are able to take proper advantage of 8 cores, I think a 4 core Kentsfield will still be superior to an 8 core AMD solution in gaming situations. AMD's architecture just gets stomped on when it comes to gaming.

I guess it just depends on the architecture of AMD's new quad core cpu.

Fotis
11-30-06, 12:35 PM
4x4 sucks!owned:

AMD should only be thinking about getting its next gen cpu(K8L) out as soon as possible.

pkirby11
11-30-06, 12:44 PM
I think that 4x4 should have been shot because the resources taken up to create this monstousity could have been better used actually creating a new CPU that was good. Instead AMD slapped two weak processors together to form one slow piece of crap.

Quite frankly I love AMD and I plan to wait it out as long as I can before I upgrade. I keep tearing my self between getting a C2D or even the QX6700, getting 4x4 which isn't even a possibility anymore, or holding off and sticking with my FX60. I decided at least until January or Febuary to hold off. While the C2D is better than my FX60, all games run smooth as silk on my 8800GTX at all settings turned up at 1680x1050. Until I start to see performance drop again, I don't really care to spend the money and I've waited this long I might as well wait and see. In the end I might get a quad core Intel but I can't justify the $1200 price tag right now for the QX6700 and again I really doubt I will see much difference than I'm already seeing getting a E6600. Really who honestly can see a difference from 127 - 132 FPS any ways?

But still don't get me wrong, Intel is the winner all around right now. I just don't want to spend the money at the moment for something that isn't going to show that great of an increase. When DX10 games come out that might change. AMD needs to stop this stupid 4x4 crap, it really was a huge disapointment. Come on AMD, we need to see those glory days return were you wowed us all with Athlon 64 over the P4. I know you can do it, beat the C2D and make me happy wanting to stick with AMD! :D

J-Mag
11-30-06, 01:09 PM
If I got a QX6700 then I could play game and encode videos in the background :D

Why the hell would you do that? Personally I would get a 6300 el cheapo rig as an encoder if I had so much encoding to do that it was interfering with my gaming.

nemecb
11-30-06, 01:13 PM
Well even if we saw multithreaded games, that are able to take proper advantage of 8 cores, I think a 4 core Kentsfield will still be superior to an 8 core AMD solution in gaming situations. AMD's architecture just gets stomped on when it comes to gaming.

I guess it just depends on the architecture of AMD's new quad core cpu.
Intel fanboy much? As much as I agree that 4x4 is not a QX6700 killer, how can you possibly justify 4 cores outperforming 8 on an engine that is written to take advantage of an arbitrary number of cores (see the article linked here a while ago about Valve multithreading the Source engine with the future 80 core CPUs in mind)? The performance difference between Intel and AMD is nowhere near 100%, so unless it turns out that it's not possible to scale well to 8 cores (which is a valid argument, but not the one you made), AMD 8 cores would still be better than Intel 4 cores.

Also, it's interesting to note that the performance gap between four AMD cores and four Intel cores is noticeably smaller than the gap between the dual cores, despite the fact that these are still based on the old K8 cores. It seems to be more like 15% for quad cores versus the 20-40% we were seeing for duallies (IIRC). Maybe the new procs are just that little bit faster though. Mind you, I'm also throwing out any results that obviously don't scale properly to 4 cores because the 6800 beat everything else, so the Intels are still clearly the way to go for raw speed in one or two threads.

Also, according to the FiringSquad article, it's actually still cheaper to buy 4x4 than a QX6700, so I don't know where the pricing complaints are coming from. Yes, the QX6700 is going to outperform it, but apparently you can get two FX-70's plus mobo for less than the QX processor itself.

Do I think 4x4 is a good buy? No. The performance just isn't good enough to offset the slightly lower price that you can get a low-end 4x4 system for. The platform is not a complete disaster though, and once AMD has some processors that are at least in the same ballpark as the Intels it may look a lot more attractive.

Please commence (probably well-deserved) AMD fanboy accusations.:D

WimpMiester
11-30-06, 01:20 PM
WTF, the 4x4 is now a super expensive setup. When it was first announced it was suppose to be under $1,000 for a system and be able to run the X2 3800+ and up but now it requires a special CPU. Why would anyone want to waste money on this?

jAkUp
11-30-06, 01:21 PM
Intel fanboy much? As much as I agree that 4x4 is not a QX6700 killer, how can you possibly justify 4 cores outperforming 8 on an engine that is written to take advantage of an arbitrary number of cores (see the article linked here a while ago about Valve multithreading the Source engine with the future 80 core CPUs in mind)? The performance difference between Intel and AMD is nowhere near 100%, so unless it turns out that it's not possible to scale well to 8 cores (which is a valid argument, but not the one you made), AMD 8 cores would still be better than Intel 4 cores.

Also, it's interesting to note that the performance gap between four AMD cores and four Intel cores is noticeably smaller than the gap between the dual cores, despite the fact that these are still based on the old K8 cores. It seems to be more like 15% for quad cores versus the 20-40% we were seeing for duallies (IIRC). Maybe the new procs are just that little bit faster though. Mind you, I'm also throwing out any results that obviously don't scale properly to 4 cores because the 6800 beat everything else, so the Intels are still clearly the way to go for raw speed in one or two threads.

Also, according to the FiringSquad article, it's actually still cheaper to buy 4x4 than a QX6700, so I don't know where the pricing complaints are coming from. Yes, the QX6700 is going to outperform it, but apparently you can get two FX-70's plus mobo for less than the QX processor itself.

Do I think 4x4 is a good buy? No. The performance just isn't good enough to offset the slightly lower price that you can get a low-end 4x4 system for. The platform is not a complete disaster though, and once AMD has some processors that are at least in the same ballpark as the Intels it may look a lot more attractive.

Please commence (probably well-deserved) AMD fanboy accusations.:D

Intel fanboy? No way. As a matter of fact I am not a fanboy of any company. The P4D was a disaster. One of the most inefficient architectures in recent memory. I ragged on that way more than 4x4. My last 2 AMD CPU's were amazing, and for their time great CPU's.

And do you really think 4-8 cores will increase performance 100%?? It didn't work that way from 1-2, and Sweeny says that 4 cores should bring marginal performance increases on game engines that are written to take advantage of it. Why should we expect any difference from 8 cores?

And it's not really cheaper when you factor in the expensive motherboard, PSU upgrade, etc.
4x4 runs hotter, uses more power, and is slower, why do you need it?

ynnek
11-30-06, 01:22 PM
about price, we will have to see when its actually released on what they sell for.

Also, don't forget the increased cost of having to buy a much beefier PSU for the 4x4.

You might need to buy a new case or make some case mods too to physically fit that all in?

heh, if you notice, the amd 4x4 also quadruples the amount of fans needed.. Instead of one cpu fan, you need 4?

jAkUp
11-30-06, 01:27 PM
Well don't forget the mobo, it is rumored to be $400.

nemecb
11-30-06, 01:37 PM
And do you really think 4-8 cores will increase performance 100%?? It didn't work that way from 1-2, and Sweeny says that 4 cores should bring marginal performance increases. Why should we expect any difference from 8 cores?
No, but I would expect it to make up the 15% difference I'm seeing in multi-threaded game benchies at the moment.

And it's not really cheaper when you factor in the expensive motherboard, PSU upgrade, etc.
4x4 runs hotter, uses more power, and is slower, why do you need it?
That's true, although I haven't seen any power consumption numbers yet, the article I read definitely said they run hot. 45C at idle is nuts. I guess that's what happens when you have to start just clocking the same arch higher and higher.

Like I said, I don't think 4x4 is a good buy at this time, but I can see potential in the platform as a whole. If nothing else, video professionals and 3d renderers are going to love it when the quad cores come out because those apps seem to be scaling almost linearly with number of cores, and 4x4 is a simple way to double your cores instantly. Whether games see a benefit is going to be up to the engine writers.

BTW, would you be able to use Quad-SLI with 8800 GTX's on one of these*shiver*? Or are 8800 series not supported for Quad-SLI yet?

nemecb
11-30-06, 01:38 PM
heh, if you notice, the amd 4x4 also quadruples the amount of fans needed.. Instead of one cpu fan, you need 4?
Unless I'm missing something, it's still only two processors, so there'd only be two fans.