AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 Series Processors Reviews

[Treason]

Originally Posted by tertsi

Game over AMD!

Which will mean game over for R600 as well! Intel and nVidia for the forseeable future (two quarters into 2007)?

[ynnek]

Heh, to quote Rumsfeld of all people,

"You go to war with the Army you have"

[hirantha]

Originally Posted by ynnek

Heh, to quote Rumsfeld of all people,

"You go to war with the Army you have"

Very ideal quote in this case.

Now we all have a good reason to voyage into Quad 6700 with 1333Mhz bus.

[shadow001]

It's actually hard to decide to be honest....


I mean,while the FX74 option is definately too much money for the performance given,the slower FX70's,wich is made up of 2 dual core CPU's at 2.6 ghz,is only 600$ for both,and they're only 15% slower than the FX 74's for 400$ less...Add the motherboard cost(350$ MSRP) and 200$ for the ram,and you end up with an upgrade that the total cost matches that of the Kentsfield CPU by itself,since you basically can't find a kentsfield CPU for under 1100$ on it's own.....


I mean a 4 CPU system with each of those clocked at 2.6 ghz,is still going to kick ass in performance for the money paid,even if it's 30% slower than a kentsfield setup,but that one costs at least 400$ more in the process( Kentsfield CPU + motherboard + ram costs added up = 1500$)


Add the ability to support 2 Quad core K8L's on that same motherboard,when those eventually become as cheap as a pair of FX70's are right now(600$),and you've got the basis for a lot of performance for many years to come...


Windows Vista has better support for NUMA,wich XP sucks at and hurts the platforms performance at least in some applications,and it isn't such a bad deal in overall terms,even if most software today is single threaded,and in wich both the Quad FX and the kentsfields have at least 2~3 CPU's not doing much of anything ATM...


So for absolute performance and lower power consumption,the kentsfield is still better,but the prices on those,especially on the FX70's(600$),are mighty atractive from a performance for the money paid aspect....

[Bman212121]

Originally Posted by J-Mag

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.

Because I can

I probably wouldn't, but if you look at the benchies again it really doesn't interfere with gaming. I'd rather dump a lot of $$$ into one pc, than have to support a whole second computer, rather than just buying a more expensive processor. It could actually work out well for that task.

[pkirby11]

I say wiat untill quad cores mean a damn, I mean seriously AMD shouldn't have released this crap no one is going to buy it. And Intel, making the QX6700 and selling it for $1,000 with no noticiable improvements in games. I say, if you got the mony and want to buy a C2D, can't go wrong it's the best performer out there. Or if your like me and have a resonably fast FX-60, stick with until monolithic quad cores are out from AMD and Intel and see which is better.

I mean honestly, I've yet to find a game not enjoyable at 1680 x 1050 with all settings turned to max on my FX-60 and GeForce 8800GTX. Now I know this will change and the minute I get a game that can't be played with all settings up, I'll consider a CPU upgrade. So far I see no need however. But if your in the market for an upgrade stay away from AM2, 4x4 or QX6700's, just get a nice C2D setup, E6600 or 6700. Just my two cents, coming from a very disapointed AMD fan boy. If AMD can't get there act together soon they leave me no choice.

[a_big_burger]

The main issues with newly released 4x4:

1) High power consumption (almost twice the Kents power consumption!) According to Xbitlabs:

" ..... from the performance-per-watt prospective Quad FX platform loses not only to Intel Kentsfield based solutions but to all other platforms as well. The sky-high heat-dissipation and power consumption of this platform also set specific requirements to power supply units, system cases and system cooling."

2) Poor overclockability:
"Well, our tests revealed that AMD Quad FX platform cannot boast undefeated performance. Maybe it could be corrected by successful overclocking? Turned out it couldn’t. Our experiments showed that it is extremely hard and hardly efficient to overclock the Quad FX platform."
- XBITLABS

Kentsfield has very good overclockability. Reviews compare 3.0 GHz AMD chips with 2.6 Kents. It is very easy to clock Kents at 3 Ghz.

3) Kentsfield still beats Quad FX in almost all benchmarks.
"the performance of a dual-processor platform built with two dual-core Athlon FX processors turned out lower than that of the competitor’s solutions built on quad-core Kentsfield CPUs. We have seen this in all test applications throughout the entire session." - XBITLABS

AMD just made desperate move to release 4x4. It tries to win back hearts of PC enthusiasts. As an AMD Fan, I am very disappointed!. I need to
1) Keep using old AMD FX-55 until K8L comes out

or

2) I need to move to Intel camp!

Originally Posted by JoKeRr

The gap in performance difference is mainly caused by the increased clock speed of Athlon64 FX. Prior to FX74, the fastest AMD processor was only clocked at 2.8ghz, and most website comparisons were made with FX62 Vs. E6700. In the case of quad, QX6700 is still clocked at 2.67ghz, but FX was bumped up by 200mhz. A fair test would be to OC Kentsfield to 3ghz, or downclock FX to 2.7ish ghz.

4X4 with FX72 and FX74 is cheaper, but chances are, you'll need a bigbutt PSU (especially if you're going SLI), and definitely a eATX case, and who knows how much that ASUS 4X4 mobo is going to cost, considering Asus is willing to sell a 680i mobo with bundled software for well over 300 USD. Don't forget ASUS is the only manufacture that makes 4X4 mobo right now, monopoly much??

Killer part for any gamer is 4X4 is slower than the same speed Athlon64 X2s, kentsfield is not.

[a12ctic]

Originally Posted by pkirby11

I say wiat untill quad cores mean a damn, I mean seriously AMD shouldn't have released this crap no one is going to buy it. And Intel, making the QX6700 and selling it for $1,000 with no noticiable improvements in games. I say, if you got the mony and want to buy a C2D, can't go wrong it's the best performer out there. Or if your like me and have a resonably fast FX-60, stick with until monolithic quad cores are out from AMD and Intel and see which is better.

I mean honestly, I've yet to find a game not enjoyable at 1680 x 1050 with all settings turned to max on my FX-60 and GeForce 8800GTX. Now I know this will change and the minute I get a game that can't be played with all settings up, I'll consider a CPU upgrade. So far I see no need however. But if your in the market for an upgrade stay away from AM2, 4x4 or QX6700's, just get a nice C2D setup, E6600 or 6700. Just my two cents, coming from a very disapointed AMD fan boy. If AMD can't get there act together soon they leave me no choice.

its not amd or intels fault that games dont take advantage of multi-core cpu's. Its the developers fault.

[BrianG]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Windows Vista has better support for NUMA,wich XP sucks at and hurts the platforms performance at least in some applications,and it isn't such a bad deal in overall terms,even if most software today is single threaded,and in wich both the Quad FX and the kentsfields have at least 2~3 CPU's not doing much of anything ATM...

I would like to see the impact of running XP x64 on some of the benchmarks.



So what we know now is that AMD's current CPU is slower than Intel's - no surprise. Quad-FX is still slower than Kentsfield - no surprise. I do not know what any AMD fan would have expected from this platform. There is no magic bullet to save tehm until the new architecture is released. Intel is faster.

However, this platform is intriguing. FEATURES out the wazoo. I think it's Achilles heal is the power consumption. Problem is that the power is not a factor of having two CPUs. It is because of the two nForce SLI chips. That mobo is a space heater. IT needs a die shrink and a dual core architecture on one socket to cut down on power consumption.

I think it is interesting the [H]'s review is mostly positive. They seem to be keeping an pen mind, despite the inevitable conclusion that Kentsfield is an easier and better performing solution. I still wonder how x64 or Vista will change the benchies that rely on memory bandwidth.

My score card:
CPUs - B (Nice clock bump with new packaging)
Dual/Dual Arch. - B+ (HT works)
Chipset - C (the ugly Band-Aid)
Features - A (How many SATA ports you want? Good with the bad of above.)
Upgrade - B (K8L compatible, same aweful power draw)

All that said, I will probably hold off on upgrading my CPU until we know more about K8L. If I can swing a sample mobo or CPU from either camp, I'll make changes, but the X2 4800+ is just fine for now and might get in some OC'ing soon.

Oh, and anyone notice that Quad-FX is accompanied by demo silicon of actual Quad-core from AMD? Page out of the Intel book sharing info with the press of way off products so the market does not lose hope. Conroe benchies eight months before release, anyone? Expect to see working benchmarks of the Quad Opty as soon as the clocks get up to pace.

[pkirby11]

Originally Posted by a12ctic

its not amd or intels fault that games dont take advantage of multi-core cpu's. Its the developers fault.

Still doesn't matter, why make somthing that isn't going to benifit the average user or hardcore gamer. That's were AMD is going to make most there money. Most people doing high end 3D rendering or movie editing will go with a server architecture any ways. Look at Venturi, he's been doing 4x4 for years with no real performance gain in games. 4x4 was a waste of resources and precious time, which AMD can't afford to lose. The sales of 4x4 will be abismal at best, I gaurantee it considering I was all set to buy it. I had been holding off buying anything new until I saw the 4x4 setup and I was very disapointed.

Think about it, you need a server case to use the motherboard, you need a 1KW PSU, the heat is gonna suck and most likely when HT3.0 comes out then your $400 4x4 becomes even slower. Then you top off the fact that it still can't best Intel and you tell me how 4x4 is anything but a wasted effort? For about the same price I can get an overpriced QX6700 and not need the same power requirements or heat problems and that still doesn't account for the fact that quad cores are pointless for me seeing as I'm a gamer and it's not going to make much difference right now. So no thank you, I'll wait until quad cores are worth it and or my CPU becomes a bottleneck in games.

[nemecb]

Originally Posted by BrianG

I would like to see the impact of running XP x64 on some of the benchmarks.



So what we know now is that AMD's current CPU is slower than Intel's - no surprise. Quad-FX is still slower than Kentsfield - no surprise. I do not know what any AMD fan would have expected from this platform. There is no magic bullet to save tehm until the new architecture is released. Intel is faster.

However, this platform is intriguing. FEATURES out the wazoo. I think it's Achilles heal is the power consumption. Problem is that the power is not a factor of having two CPUs. It is because of the two nForce SLI chips. That mobo is a space heater. IT needs a die shrink and a dual core architecture on one socket to cut down on power consumption.

I think it is interesting the [H]'s review is mostly positive. They seem to be keeping an pen mind, despite the inevitable conclusion that Kentsfield is an easier and better performing solution. I still wonder how x64 or Vista will change the benchies that rely on memory bandwidth.

My score card:
CPUs - B (Nice clock bump with new packaging)
Dual/Dual Arch. - B+ (HT works)
Chipset - C (the ugly Band-Aid)
Features - A (How many SATA ports you want? Good with the bad of above.)
Upgrade - B (K8L compatible, same aweful power draw)

All that said, I will probably hold off on upgrading my CPU until we know more about K8L. If I can swing a sample mobo or CPU from either camp, I'll make changes, but the X2 4800+ is just fine for now and might get in some OC'ing soon.

Oh, and anyone notice that Quad-FX is accompanied by demo silicon of actual Quad-core from AMD? Page out of the Intel book sharing info with the press of way off products so the market does not lose hope. Conroe benchies eight months before release, anyone? Expect to see working benchmarks of the Quad Opty as soon as the clocks get up to pace.

Quoted for being an excellent post.

They really need to get the power consumption under control before this will be a viable solution. Definitely something to watch in the future, but not the solution to their current performance woes.

[hirantha]

Originally Posted by pkirby11

Still doesn't matter, why make somthing that isn't going to benifit the average user or hardcore gamer. That's were AMD is going to make most there money. Most people doing high end 3D rendering or movie editing will go with a server architecture any ways. Look at Venturi, he's been doing 4x4 for years with no real performance gain in games. 4x4 was a waste of resources and precious time, which AMD can't afford to lose. The sales of 4x4 will be abismal at best, I gaurantee it considering I was all set to buy it. I had been holding off buying anything new until I saw the 4x4 setup and I was very disapointed.

Think about it, you need a server case to use the motherboard, you need a 1KW PSU, the heat is gonna suck and most likely when HT3.0 comes out then your $400 4x4 becomes even slower. Then you top off the fact that it still can't best Intel and you tell me how 4x4 is anything but a wasted effort? For about the same price I can get an overpriced QX6700 and not need the same power requirements or heat problems and that still doesn't account for the fact that quad cores are pointless for me seeing as I'm a gamer and it's not going to make much difference right now. So no thank you, I'll wait until quad cores are worth it and or my CPU becomes a bottleneck in games.

Awesome post!