hothardware.com — AMD aims to re-capture the hearts of hardcore enthusiasts with the official launch of their QuadFX platform. News about QuadFX has been trickling out for months under the "4x4" banner. Today we can show you all exactly what QuadFX is all about. At its most basic level, QuadFX is AMD's vision of a high-end quad-core desktop computing platform.
Nov 30, 2006 View in Crawl 4
bigwophhNov 30, 2006Submitter
Intel's manufacturing capabilities are second to none. It gives them a huge advantage that won't be easily overcome. Intel is firing on all cylinders right now. AMD needs a new micro-architecture to put the heat back on Intel. For competition's sake, I hope K8L does the trick.
inanitywarlordNov 30, 2006
Looks like it could be time for Amd to borrow once again from Ibm on new and improved soi. Maybe it's what's needed to get this next leap forward.
nohandleNov 30, 2006
Was there a hidden pun in there or was "firing" just coincidental?
geronimoNov 30, 2006
err this shows the 5320 being faster (see make -j which taxes all CPUs)<a class="user" href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=585&num=6">http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=585&num=6</a>
alcorrNov 30, 2006
This is good and bad. First of all, the value looks incredibly tempting. Consider this, you can get whats basically a quad core system for the cost of only 600$ cpu wise. Thats pretty impressive. Once games get more and more multithreaded (source engine anyone?) then two fx 70s are gonna be WAY more powerful than a single dual core 6800. Give this thing into summer of 2007, and this will be pretty impressive. The bad (for me at least) is that I need to build a new system but really want to wait until amd gets native quad core going so I might get 8 cores. Waiting an entire year really sucks when my current rig is a 2.4ghz p4 and ati x1600 with 768MB of ram.
thunderchunksDec 1, 2006
Its a completely false economy. Unless you are into heavy video processing your better of sticking with a high end dual core at the mo. How many applications actually use dual core let alone quad core. Looks like we are heading towards 'core wars' whereas they should be looking to optimize the dual core tech thats out there at the mo. No good having a quad core beast if it only gives the same performance as current dual core models in single apps.
cavengerDec 1, 2006
Please stop it with the, "Wait for this!" bulls**t. People told us to wait for socket AM2 processors and that ended up being worthless. Then I was told to wait for 4X4. Here we go again. This power hog is just not as cost-effective as its competitor. Maybe it will play games better in the future, maybe it won't. We do NOT know.
jayrodDec 30, 2006
I see this as a desperation move for AMD. Why not just shrink the die to 45nm and do a quad core on "One" chip. Easier said than done I guess. Having two dual core processors and selling them in pairs doesn't seem right. Maybe if they were quad core and have two of them for 8 cores would make more sense. I've always been an AMD fan since the days of the K6-III 450 can beat their Pentium III 450 days. But this will force me to go with Intel on this one. Keep same motherboard for Core 2 and just pop in the quad core later. Sorry AMD, upgrading to that 1 kW power supply is not in my immediate future.