Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Quad FX Vs Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 29, 2006 8:56:50 AM

Here are some early benchmarks using two Athlon64 FX-74 CPUs
against a QX6700.
LINK
November 29, 2006 9:12:28 AM

Wow, the QX6700 beats the FX-74 even more than I'd expected, and the 4X4 system uses a staggering amount of power.
November 29, 2006 9:23:36 AM

If these benchmarks are true, than 4x4 really really sux compared to Core2 Quad!
In 95% the 2.67GHz Core 2 Quad is faster than 3GHz 2xAthlon64 FX-74 .
Related resources
November 29, 2006 9:52:15 AM

Nice find, looks like AMD's going to have a lot of pressure on them... as if they don't already have enough...
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2006 9:55:26 AM

oh for f**k sake...it's starting already...here's comes the flood!
November 29, 2006 10:03:59 AM

Good find.
Well, i think that these results, if confirmed, are not surprising at all...
November 29, 2006 10:34:38 AM

All I needed to see. The QX6700 owns in gaming. And where the FX does win, its marginal. Combine that with drop in vs new system....
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2006 10:38:34 AM

Quote:
Here are some early benchmarks using two Athlon64 FX-74 CPUs
against a QX6700.
LINK


so much for better scalibility :oops: 
November 29, 2006 10:45:25 AM

Interesting.....I was actually looking foward to buying an amd next...coz of all the fanboys it has......but amd is going down hill.
November 29, 2006 10:46:28 AM

Quote:
All I needed to see. The QX6700 owns in gaming. And where the FX does win, its marginal. Combine that with drop in vs new system....


The win (marginal as it is) occurs when it becomes GPU limited, probably due to slightly better overall interconnect scheme, less than a percent or 2.

What is just jaw dropping is the difference in power:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph16.ht...

@ Parrot -- again, nice find. I knew that there had to be some place that would leak a rouge bench or something.

This feels exactly like Pentium D 965 vs FX-60 Benchmarking back about 9 Months ago.
Only that the FX-74 has been dropped into the Pent D 965 place and the Qx6700 had taken the FX-60 spot.
HOLY FCUX That kind of power consumption would take a 800W Power supply At Minimum. 1KW (recommended)
November 29, 2006 11:34:20 AM

2 Ninja's, unless the mobo is made from adamantium, two ninja's will probably snap that thing in half... or how about 2 Titan Amanda's...

Yeah, the Kentsfield OC's very nicely, but it would push off a ton of heat... 150W I suppose? That will challenge even some water-cooling set-ups out there.

By the time second get 4x4 gets around, then native quad-cores should be out by Intel, and maybe AMD, so then we can see an apple to apple comparison. I'll leave 4x4 as a 2 quad-core solution for enthusiasts, which I probably won't talk because of the prohibitive price...

Wonder if Intel will make any dual 775 socket mobo's...
November 29, 2006 11:38:21 AM

2 Titans don't fit on a server board. *sniff*
November 29, 2006 11:46:34 AM

Quote:
Here are some early benchmarks using two Athlon64 FX-74 CPUs
against a QX6700.
LINK



No wonder why AMD has been so quiet about 4x4. :lol:  Look at those power consumption levels, for the dismal performance it provides.
November 29, 2006 11:53:41 AM

Quote:


Yep --- good point, at 600 watts for cinebench 800 watt is a bare minimum -- not to mention the two Ninja's you will need to cool, I would almost recommend water cooling as the case temperature will be hard to manage. It will take a quality case with ample air flow that is certain.

I wonder if there will be any chance for overclocking??

We already know that Kentsfield can clock up to 3.2 GHz fairly easily (reported at various sites) --- I wonder what a 3.2 GHz Kentsfield power consumption is?

I was thinking the first round of 4x4 would land with a loud thud -- it may be worth simply holding off until K8L/Quads come along before looking into dual socket.


The real problem here for AMD is overclocking:
C2Q will do 3.6 to 4 GHZ i.e. 50+% OC
4x4 will do 10% at best*


*Ive owned a dual proc Opteron system for a year effectively identical to the 4x4 (4x4 is just a re-badge of AMDs dual Opteron rigs) and I have plently of dual proc K8 arch OC experiance with it.

The K8 arch is old and has pretty much reached its clock ceiling. (Even K8L clocks will debut below 3 GHz)
November 29, 2006 11:53:43 AM

Jack, twin 8800GTX's, would require you having access to a small fusion reactor. If the power consumption necessitated a 850W PSU, then using the power hungry 8800 series would not only require a 1kW PSU but possibly a secondary PSU. Theres a reason they probably didn't test it with one.
November 29, 2006 11:58:45 AM

Another thing, is there a big difference OC'ing 2 procs on one board? I never tried it, much less heard about it, so anyone with experience on this matter shed some light? I assume what you do with one proc the other one goes with it? I.E. you can't OC one proc 5% faster than the other? Or does the speeds not have to be the same?
November 29, 2006 12:05:49 PM

Doing a quick calculation with a online PSU calculator, I'll estimate that 4x4 with 8800GTX's in SLI mode will require at least 1113W of continuous power. Thats without an OC, and also looking at the 4x4 setup Asus/AMD previewed at Digital Life.
http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine
November 29, 2006 12:12:58 PM

Man a 1kW+ PS is going to cost you beeeg bucks 8O

Still ... its aimed at l33t gamers who think a $300 killerNIC is a good deal :roll:
November 29, 2006 12:14:30 PM

Cool!

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph15.ht...
Shows that AMD have significantly less raw power.

As we all know more cores is not the requirement for gaming.
Never understood where AMD was heading with this setup.
Totally heading in the wrong direction.

Plus we all know C2x has excellent overclocking capabilities.
November 29, 2006 12:16:24 PM

A $300 card that'll net you as much performance gain as OCing your CPU 1MHz. Uber-l33t for sure.
A $2500 and up system that'll net you marginal gains over either a Core 2 Duo or a Quadro.
High end for sure, but I'm disappointed. *sniff*
November 29, 2006 12:19:36 PM

Quote:
Man a 1kW+ PS is going to cost you beeeg bucks 8O

Still ... its aimed at l33t gamers who think a $300 killerNIC is a good deal :roll:


OMG, i saw the website for this card, or something similar the other day. It was hard to tell if it was a joke or not. I guess retards will buy it though.
November 29, 2006 12:24:49 PM

It seems more and more likely that AMD will put less time and effort into the enthusiast market and concentrate more on servers and maybe consumers... which I believe would be a decent buisness move for them. They have already been making in-roads into the server space and a lot of their initiatives that they have been pushing have also been targeting said space.

Guess we'll see after 4x4 really launches..
November 29, 2006 12:27:08 PM

Quote:
Here are some early benchmarks using two Athlon64 FX-74 CPUs
against a QX6700.
LINK
:lol: 
November 29, 2006 12:53:40 PM

Man, I thought Quad FX was going to be closer to QX6700. Even AMD's dual socket 1 kilowatt vaporware can't beat Intel.

If other sites publish benchmarks confirming these AMD is going to throw in the towel for Quad FX.
November 29, 2006 1:03:57 PM

Eh, throwing in the towel would be bad for AMD, they might try to use lots and lots of spin (and might be as succesful as Watergate, but they can still try to spin it)... Either way, companies usually never say they're wrong. But we'll have to see...

And the Killer NIC card.. ugh...
November 29, 2006 1:06:33 PM

It wasn't that bad.... okay it was. I rated it a 6.5....
November 29, 2006 1:09:12 PM

Out of 100?
November 29, 2006 1:12:56 PM

Ah man... this just confirms what I have believe since AMD originally announced it. Where are you BM? What do you have to say now, huh?

Anyways, just to play devils advocate: Wonder what will happen when you can drop in 2 quad cores next year? I realize Intel is shooting for 8 cores, but just for agruements sake.

AMD = Owned
Intel = King

Until we get another flip flop. 8O
November 29, 2006 1:13:15 PM

Well it seems AMD is in big trouble if these benchmarks are going to stay like this when the final product arrives.
The Author of this Japanese site says he only got his hands on a evaluation kit . His kit is based on a L1N64-SLI WS from ASUS while NVIDIA and AMD used a L1N64-SLI Deluxe by Asus. The author does not know the difference between his kit he got and the one NVIDIA/AMD used during the anouncement today. The bechmarks speak for them selves so I wont translate everything the author is saying about the benchmarks. In his final words the author says that the results, as you all mentioned too, are really dissapointing. But he says that there is still much of tuning in the bios and the drivers to be done and that after the tuning is done the benchmark results could change a lot. He also says that the 4x4 platform is the nearest to a 8core system since the 4x4 will be compatible with the Barcelona CPUs. He also says that there are more facts for hesistating to buy such a system at the moment. But he concludes with the opinion that this system has undiscovered/yet to be known attractivity.
November 29, 2006 1:24:19 PM

Thing is, I'm certain AMD has a QX6700 in their labs, and they test everything themselves before they would even think about sending out evaluation versions. Why send out products to test against others when you know yours are inferior... I feel they are either desperate because 4x4 isin't generating the necessary interest, or that is about all they can do and they're just like, screw it, whatever...

But that's my take.

Killer NIC card... same people who will buy windowed raptors =P
November 29, 2006 1:28:08 PM

Not exactly.
Raptor = actual gaming performance. (windowing is just for modders like 3lf)
Killer NIC = marginal to nill performance gain (only buy it if you will review it)
November 29, 2006 1:28:15 PM

Quote:
Thing is, I'm certain AMD has a QX6700 in their labs, and they test everything themselves before they would even think about sending out evaluation versions. Why send out products to test against others when you know yours are inferior...


They had no choice. It takes 18-24 months to develop a new chip. They had the X2 and the Opteron all based on the K8 core, the best they coud do was rebadge the Opteron, pitch it at enthusiasts and hope for the best. And thats just exactly what they did ...
November 29, 2006 1:29:49 PM

Which is what I meant when I said, AMD was probably like screw it, can't do anymore with this, send it out and hope for the best...

Reminds me of some of the homework assingments and papers I had to write in college... and that is never a good feeling :?
November 29, 2006 1:33:31 PM

Those numbers are about EXACTLY what I expected. The power is higher than I should get since I won't be using RAID or SLI.

All I want for XMas is my QFX.
November 29, 2006 1:38:45 PM

I guess Baron is in so much shock that he can't really formulate a response and just claims that the mediocre performance was just what he wanted...

Oh well, AMD's $1500 worth of proc's can't beat Intel's $1k worth...
November 29, 2006 1:44:37 PM

Quote:
I guess Baron is in so much shock that he can't really formulate a response and just claims that the mediocre performance was just what he wanted...

Oh well, AMD's $1500 worth of proc's can't beat Intel's $1k worth...


Well if you want to have sexual intercourse with AMD you have to be there for them when they need you the most.
November 29, 2006 1:46:58 PM

4x4... its not good. Just good enough....
November 29, 2006 1:58:24 PM

Quote:
I guess Baron is in so much shock that he can't really formulate a response and just claims that the mediocre performance was just what he wanted...

Oh well, AMD's $1500 worth of proc's can't beat Intel's $1k worth...


Doom and Gloom. Doom and Gloom. Give it a rest. I will be interested to compare the total CineBench tests, since X6800 seemed to have a much higher lead over FX62. I will definitely report on all the comparisons to determine

1: If it gets the 5-10% in games
2: If it makes up ground per core to C2Q in terms of FX62 vs X6800
3: What the ACTUAL price of FX74 is (I heard they dropped it to undercut C2Q)
4: What CnQ will do for idle numbers
5: What a 8800 GTS will do
6: If any tests were on Vista

I'll do a thorough analysis, but just to shut you up, not to change my mind about it.
November 29, 2006 2:13:30 PM

Quote:
It seems more and more likely that AMD will put less time and effort into the enthusiast market and concentrate more on servers and maybe consumers... which I believe would be a decent buisness move for them. They have already been making in-roads into the server space and a lot of their initiatives that they have been pushing have also been targeting said space.

Guess we'll see after 4x4 really launches..



The funniest thing is that NONE OF YOU noticed that using SMP Doom3 QFX does have more power at the lowest resolution. All of you swore on C2D having more power at CPU bound resolutions.

Where is your noise about C2Q being less powerful?
November 29, 2006 2:19:01 PM

Yeah, but see... no one plays Doom 3 on the lowest resolution so it's CPU bound anyways. Thus I consider gaming benchmarks with processors fairly irrelevant since a top of the line proc adds almost nothing to gaming right now.
November 29, 2006 2:19:19 PM

Darn - I was hoping AMD will put some type of scare into Intel.
If AMD gets squeezed out of the desktop arena and concentrates mainly of servers - Intel won't have nearly as much reason to lower their prices for us. :( 
November 29, 2006 2:21:58 PM

Quote:
It seems more and more likely that AMD will put less time and effort into the enthusiast market and concentrate more on servers and maybe consumers... which I believe would be a decent buisness move for them. They have already been making in-roads into the server space and a lot of their initiatives that they have been pushing have also been targeting said space.

Guess we'll see after 4x4 really launches..



The funniest thing is that NONE OF YOU noticed that using SMP Doom3 QFX does have more power at the lowest resolution. All of you swore on C2D having more power at CPU bound resolutions.

Where is your noise about C2Q being less powerful?


And how many tests did the single QX6700 @ 2.67GHz outpace the twin FX-74 @ 3GHz?

Not to mention you can easily overclock the QX6700 to 3.6GHz+. Can we say the samething for the green team's 1kilowatt vaporware?
November 29, 2006 2:23:26 PM

Quote:
Careful everyone BMs getting his panties in a twist :wink:

Heres a machine translation of the article done on an AMD server: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecont...



It's also interesting that none of you quoted that FX74 is $999

NOT $1500

It's still worth it. I would like to see it with both an 8800GTS and GTX. AMD has said this isn't "just for gamers." People who do hook up 4 GPUs will get low end ones for 8 monitors.

The better idea for gamers would be to get the 5200+ and wait for Agena. Psychos who just want two sockets will outfit these to be as "power-conscious" as possible.

I was definitely impressed by the low res scores where QFX wins by just under 10%. Again, it was what I expected.
November 29, 2006 2:25:18 PM

AMD is selling 2 brand new FX dual core processors for under a grand? Can you say, in the red?
November 29, 2006 2:25:36 PM

Quote:
It seems more and more likely that AMD will put less time and effort into the enthusiast market and concentrate more on servers and maybe consumers... which I believe would be a decent buisness move for them. They have already been making in-roads into the server space and a lot of their initiatives that they have been pushing have also been targeting said space.

Guess we'll see after 4x4 really launches..



The funniest thing is that NONE OF YOU noticed that using SMP Doom3 QFX does have more power at the lowest resolution. All of you swore on C2D having more power at CPU bound resolutions.

Where is your noise about C2Q being less powerful?

I noticed that. Wondered when someone else would mention it.
But i think it's quite easy to see that test is totally fucked and the results are due to some other factor.

Oh btw, thats 1 out of 4.



*cough*



Their results are totally different to the toms ones.
November 29, 2006 2:27:49 PM

Quote:
I was definitely impressed by the low res scores where QFX wins by just under 10%. Again, it was what I expected.


In 1 single test?!!
haha you get more stupid by the day.

So...If all you do all day is play doom 3 at 800x600 with dual 7900GTX's, spend stupid money on a 4x4.
Else just look at tomshardware.com main page and see what the best hardware on offer today can do.
November 29, 2006 2:28:02 PM

Actually, that would probably indicate a human error while making the graph.
November 29, 2006 2:28:45 PM

Seriously, who with SLI or Crossfire plays at 800x600?
!