Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-06, 12:12 PM   #13
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

I like Firing Squading Multitasking Game benchmark.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...4x4/page13.asp

If I got a QX6700 then I could play game and encode videos in the background
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 12:17 PM   #14
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter
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
Maybe for extreme multitasking, it certainly wouldn't be good for gaming.
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 12:22 PM   #15
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter
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.
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 12:35 PM   #16
Fotis
Radeforce GTX7970
 
Fotis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 1,346
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

4x4 sucks!

AMD should only be thinking about getting its next gen cpu(K8L) out as soon as possible.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @3.8GHz|Corsair H50|MSI X58 Platinum|3x2GB Mushkin DDR3 1600 7-8-7-20|Gigabyte Radeon 7970 OC 3GB windforce|Samsung SSD 830 256GB/Intel SSD X25M 80GB|Seagate Ext. 2TB eSata|Corsair TX 750W|Microsoft Wireless Laser Desktop 7000|Silverstone Grandia GD-01 MX Black|Dell UltraSharp U2412M| Windows 7 x64 Pro
Fotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 12:44 PM   #17
pkirby11
Registered User
 
pkirby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 927
Send a message via AIM to pkirby11
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

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!
pkirby11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:09 PM   #18
J-Mag
Weapon of MassConsumption
 
J-Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,245
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bman212121
If I got a QX6700 then I could play game and encode videos in the background
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.
J-Mag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:13 PM   #19
nemecb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 4,018
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by jAkUp
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.
nemecb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:20 PM   #20
WimpMiester
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 221
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

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?
WimpMiester is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-06, 01:21 PM   #21
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by nemecb
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.
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?
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:22 PM   #22
ynnek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,364
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

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?
ynnek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:27 PM   #23
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Well don't forget the mobo, it is rumored to be $400.
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-06, 01:37 PM   #24
nemecb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 4,018
Default Re: AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by jAkUp
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.

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Three-part Webinar Series: OpenCL Programming on Intel Processors News Archived News Items 0 06-11-12 01:50 PM
AMD Gooses the Clocks on 'Bulldozer' Opterons News Archived News Items 0 06-04-12 02:24 PM
CPUMark99 - how do you compare fuelrod Benchmarking And Overclocking 66 07-19-11 08:32 AM
AMD 2400+ and 2600+ Benchmark Extrapolations savyj CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 2 08-17-02 09:32 PM
Athlon 2400+ and 2600+? 333 MHz Front-side bus?? PaiN Rumor Mill 26 08-16-02 10:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.