What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
58 Comments
- zinnternet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Good to see my computer can now double as a central heater for my whole house!
- ouorama, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Great, TWO 3.0 GHz AMD FX CPUs lose to a single Intel QX6700 while sucking up nearly double the wattage of the Intel system.
Is there something wrong with you people who think this is some kind of triumph for AMD? Have you gotten so desperate to see an AMD win that you'd declare losing only 9 or 10 benchmarks as a victory for AMD? Hey I guess it's better than losing 10 of 10 eh. What the hell is wrong with you AMD fanboys. Bragging rights is reserved for the winner of benchmarks, not for some idiot with two obsolete CPUs on an expensive motherboard that can't beat a single Intel CPU on a cheap single socket motherboard. Don't know what the hell is wrong with HardOCP spinning this as some kind of victory and bragging rights for AMD. Yeah, you're bragging you're a dumb ***** for buying the 4x4. - frant1c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16How did the roles of 'company that makes extremely-hot-CPU-powerhogs' and 'company that makes equally fast, but 5 times colder, less-power consuming CPUs' reverse so fast?.
- Napalm05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Actually they did compare it to the Intel quad core it is named QX6700 in all of the benchmarks that they did.
Here is a cpu-z screenshot of it.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1162357634y0W4Vi6jQJ_2_3_l.jpg - chickenselects, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11i dont know...i loved AMD but they dropped the ball. Ended up buying a 6600 and OCing to 3.6. This just looks gimmicky and the performance doesn't seem to justify all the work put into this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Every time i read such stories i think i am using really really weak CPU
but few minutes later my OS reminds me that i dont use anything that can utilise horsepower of a dual or quad core CPU.
Buying a hybrid hard disk make a LOT more of sense than to buy a quad-core. - Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Intel actually let their engineers work instead of cutting costs.
- iamhrh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think you both missed the point.
AMD was able to take what everyone knows to be a less powerful core (yes, the intel Conroe core is MUCH better), and due to the efficiency of their interconnects, nearly match the performance in multi-core situations.
The point here is that when AMD does match intel on an individual core basis, the performance difference will be huge because of how much better their communication between cores is handled. - Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My next computer is currently going to be an Intel one (although I currently am using an AMD). Even if AMD's nextgen processors are good, Intel's are very powerful and they have "low end" CPUs like the E6300, E6400, and E6600. I'm just not ready to spend $600 - $1000 on processors yet when I want my entire computer build to cost about $1400.
- exsst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well it is a shame, but I really hope they come up with a better architecture asap...
competition is always healthy. - chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a victory when you consider that buying 2 FX-74 processors costs $500 less than buying a QX6700. I don't know how cheap a motherboard you plan on using with a QX6700, but I'm willing to bet that it's not going to be $500 cheaper than a Quad FX motherboard.
- AJCinATX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"I would guess at this moment you are wondering if our numbers are correct or if you read correctly. Let me reassure you that this power consumption data is in fact correct. The FX-74 equipped Quad FX system uses approximately 100% more power than the comparable Intel QX6700 quad-core system at both full CPU load and at an idle state."
- DigitalPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Is it me or does it mention on the 2nd page that less equals better according to the benchmark test and in this case it appears that Intel's QX6700 was fairly 1.5% better than AMD mostly in all the test.
And not to mention less power consumption. - muller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ the previous 2 posters:
I see your point, but it would have been nice if the review had said that in plain english rather than making it appear as a victory for AMD despite benchmarks that seem to disagree.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it wasn't stated very clearly in the article, and that's why people are interpreting it differently. - djcgmcse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I agree.. I'm a daily reader of HardOCP, but Kyle's conclusions on this review were just flat out a misrepresentation of his own benchmarks and what the site has stood for.
I'm not sure what I'm more disappointed in; this AMD architecture, or this review... - chaos386, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Pricing of Athlon 64 FX-70 series start at $599 for a pair of FX-72’s and top out at $999 for a pair of FX-74’s." http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5148
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Depends on what you are doing with your computer. Rendering, compressing audio/video, etc takes a lot of horse power. So do things like sorting multiple large tables in a database. All these (and many other processes) can benefit from multiple cores and lots of ram.
I work in a large companies corp. records department. We are forced to use celeron with 512 mb's of RAM based pc's to do scanning, indexing, etc. You want to see something truly painful? Try creating PDF's (with documents scanned at 300 dpi). 9 documents, with the largest document containing about 30 pages. Takes approx. 30 minutes!!!!!!! I'd love to see how long it would take with a dual or quad core cpu and 2-4 gigs of ram. (and NO, the pdf's are NOT being created by Adobe, but as part of our scanning system). - fuelvolts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's called K8L and it is supposed to perform equal to or better than Core 2
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Those numbers seem off. Right now an fx-62 runs about $600. So if i can indeed get a pair of 72's for $600 it may not be a bad deal. Anyone up to go halves on some 72's?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amusing watching all the CPU fanbois drink the multi-core kool-aid, when most apps won't even take full advantage of multi-core apps for some years, if at all.
It's funnier still, that people are getting mad about it.
The truth is, most users, even gamers, waste more CPU cycles than they use because the software isn't there yet. And, most 'enthusiasts' are paying a price premium for bragging rights, unaware that most of the pricey silicon they're so proud of sits underutilized and depreciating 90%+ of the time. Still, I suppose -someone- has to pay for all that spiffy R & D. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Odd, their conclusion (that the AMD 4x4 was comparable to the QX6700) isn't borne out by their numbers.
- briangabriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2According to article, the processors are reworked Opterons. Windows even listed them as Opterons, which I am sure will be fixed before these hit the street. So a comparison to a quad xeon is not that far off.
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2are you on crack? intel DID come out better THIS review.
- CircusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ah man, the techno-lust is sooo strong right now... must... fondle...something...new...and...SHINY!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Nobody cares that your Windows apps don't scale. Didn't you get the memo? We're all using Linux now."
No, the exchange server was down. ;-) - cgreentx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well.. If you RTFA you'll see that the Athlon FX setup here used the Opteron socket and even identifies as an Opteron. AMD is differentiating the FX in a way that it is not an "upgrade path" away from the regular Athlon64. It means a full system replacement to implement. As an Intel E6600 owner I can simply pick up the QX6700 online and drop it right into the same socket without any other purchase. This is going to seriously hinder Athlon FX sales IMO. In addition, very few of the benchmarks showed any edge over the performance of the Intel anyway. The only *significant* gain will be in the Quad SLI capability, and there will be boards to do that with Intel as well. Not that many people who can afford to buy $3000 worth of video cards for their gaming rig really care about upgrade paths.
- caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I did the same thing. Spent around $500 on a Core 2 e6300 @ 1.8 and a Gigabyte 965G DS3 board. I checked Gigabytes website after the quad launch and found a BIOS update. So when the quad prices drop and I need a performance boost it will cost me almost nothing compared to 939 / AM2 and Quad FX / Opteron. I mean what was the point of the AM2 platform anyway, if they're just going to toss us another Opteron bone. I could have built a 4-CPU Opteron system 2 years ago and might have had an upgrade path to 16-CPUs, assuming AMD releases a quad-core Opteron for the 940-pin socket. But those prices are out of my range. And when I can build a cheap quad core intel system for under $1000 that performs like a top-of-the-line Quad FX or any Opteron system costing up to twice as much AND uses half the power, I gotta invest my money wisely into a cluster of cheap PCs instead of the big expensive iron.. that's the problem I have with AMD's decisions. They're not targetting me as a customer. I want cheap Athlon64s and Semprons in single, dual and quad core, ranging from 1.0 Ghz up to 3.0 Ghz with 128K up to 512K of cache. FX series should be 1+ MB of cache per core, dual/quad core and peaking at 3.2 or higher today, if possible, just to match current Intel designs. Opterons should be socket compatible, IMO. There's no reason to separate the desktop and server markets. It only opens up opportunities for competition to steal the sale.
- sanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm waiting for AMD to integrate the ATI GPU/vector-processor with the K8L core. When you see all those charts showing how GPU's kick the crap out of CPUs in math, I wonder if AMD's future strategy won't help it move ahead of Intel once again, despite the latter's lead in manufacturing process technology.
- jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So far, that Core 2 Duo purchase I made in Sept. is looking to have been a smart decision. At the time, it was simply the best and most cost efficient decision for dual-core. Being that I'll be able to drop in a Core 2 Quad (or whatever they call them) for a few hundred bucks makes the deal even sweeter.
- ZeroNeo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And so it was thinking of a 3Ghz CPU when you first saw the beginning of the PIV architecture.
- fuelvolts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how else are you supposed to make a LGA chip look like?
- paulj2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think what we're seeing here is that AMD simply can't produce low power 65nm chips and by releasing this platform they can get on almost equal footing with Intel. The problem is that all of the problems associated with 90nm like excessive heat and power usage are only multiplied by having two CPU's and a server class motherboard. Although not faster now, I don't think you can question the impact of the 4x4 platform into 2007. It gives enthusiasts like me something I can call my own, and I suspect that once Barcelona hits, people will be much more sympathetic to 4x4.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fanboy alert!
Don't you remember how intel has been changing its platforms every 9-12 months for the past 5 years or so? Necessitating a 'full system replacement' whenever you wanted to upgrade the processor (till the core/core2 range anyway).
AMD on the other hand is well known for sticking with a platform until there is a worthwhile or significant performance/feature benefit of changing.
Why? AMD don't sell chipsets do they. So they have nothing to gain by forcing people to upgrade every 9 months. Intel on the other hand, DO make chipsets and so its in their interests to kill any unreadability in current models so you have to buy more of their stuff whenever you upgrade. - ih8regs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with that is they won't be competing with Conroe, but Yorkfield, and it will be 65nm 2.6-2.9 GHz Altair(K8L) vs 45nm 3.43-3.73 GHz Yorkfield. Both are single die quad cores due Q3 07. Besides being clocked faster on a smaller process, Yorkfield is also an improved core over Conroe, so unless AMD makes more improvements than they've already outlined for the K8L, Intel will keep dominating.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For me it's the 2 cpu quad core 5320 screamer.
Nothing tops that thing right now. Maybe the 5160 but it's too expensive. I can't wait until Intel gets better interconnects. Right now the linux kernel has had years of opteron NUMA customization, so Intel will have a lot of work to do. Geeshe, AMD, get your act together. I like it when AMD is on top but the bossman wants the best processor. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel has also absorbed the circuit design techniques of at least half a dozen companies in the last decade... I'm sure they're using at least a trick or two learned/bought from those design teams.
- Neilyos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's just that they insisted on the PGA for so long... what were they waiting for?
- clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So it's 2 cores and 2 sockets.... so it's 2... by 2. or 2X2.... For a total of 4 cores.
Where are they getting the hype and doubling it to 4x4? I don't see them having 16 cores anytime soon....
WTF - caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nobody cares that your Windows apps don't scale. Didn't you get the memo? We're all using Linux now.
- clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a CPU. of course they are going to look the same. What do you want flowers sticking out the size of a basketball shaped object?
Doesn't say anything for who's more innovative, hell if you really want to get into it... intel stole the design from SUN 15 years ago. And SUN "stole" the design from someone else. CPU's, other than that slot1 thing, haven't really changed in outer looks "design" for 20-30 years. OK maybe a IHS here and there, but it's pretty much still the same layout.
Yup, you really picked up on AMD not being an innovator all right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Right, it's to be expected nowadays from Kyle Bennet and his crew from [L]ameOCP. If I recall didn't Kyle Bennet get laughed off digg about a year or two ago for constantly posting his own articles.? Regardless his reviews are always biased, and only favor whichever company is feeding money into his pocket for the week.
- djcgmcse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1$500 less is just speculation, i haven't seen any prices yet. If anyone's seen them, please share.
From what I've heard you're looking at maybe $1200 at the lowest for 2 FX-74s, and right now the QX6700 is just under $1500. - tagliaerbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another interesting and complete review is available here:
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/cpu/10/quad-fx-the-first-quad-core-amd-platform_index.html - caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No, the exchange server was down. ;-)"
Ouch, that hurts. ;) - ibby0338, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I saw no mention of overclocking. People have been able to get the QX6700s overclocked an additional 1ghz, so I'd be curious to hear what the FX-74 can do.
As an enthusiast solution, it sure seems a bit lacking to not even have mentioned it in the article. - briangabriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The other 4 is quad SLI.
- Assassinator23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still like AMD, as well as Intel. Both companies are great for each other. But the thing i hate is not being able to build a scalable system. I'm still stuck with AGP and the socket 754 Athlon 64. I mean YES I AM A ENTHUSIAST, but aint no way in hell i'm spending a crap load of money for the newest thing, and if i do such a thing, its gonna last for 3 yrs!
Intel was ***** up with the P4 revisions, tryin pass off clockspeed as if its the greatest thing....WRONG!! Mutlicore and good architechure is key, was as having good Thermal Power Design. Core 2 Duo does that well. I'm lookin at a 6300 or 6400 Core 2 chip, a asus board, 1.5 gigs of ddr2 ram, a geforce 7 series or 8 series ( if prices drop on the 8800s, i'll grab one). I try to be buget minded. PC chips, avoid that board like the plauge! - youdigit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0even if daamit sells these nuke plants they'll be losing money for every chip they sell!!!!! queer how nvidia made the chipsets thuogh is't it now that daamit is makking r600 chipsets hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
- Neilyos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1hey, anyone else notice that AMD's new physical chip design looks EXACTLY like Intel's has for YEARS now? What with the Land Grid Array and all, and even the IHS looks the same... Yep, AMD is the innovator all right.
- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Intel one still comes out better (not just this review).
Also it is a much neater solution that dual cpu sockets. -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 