2 X athlon 64 FX-70 (2.6 GHz) - > $599
2 X athlon 64 FX-72 (2.8 GHz) - > $899
2 X athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0 GHz) - > $1199.
Processors will be sold by pairs, and although each one of them will be able to work separately, it will be hard to buy such cpu in the official retail network. dual core processor athlon 64 FX with the frequency of 2.6 GHz and 2 X 1 mb cache will cost $299 - completely tempting sentence.
Just found this out. Looking at the benchmarks and then this price, it's really justifiable to buy this vs kentsfield. Quadcore for 600$ vs 1000$? Fine by me. I can't really compare this to benchmarks, but i think it's gonna be some hot stuff. I don't think it'll swing people over from core 2 duo, but i'm sure it'll prevent loads of people from getting kentsfields. I wonder though if these FX's have locked multi's? Whats that you say? A freely unlockable dual core for 300$ each? Done! Assuming it's unlocked
2 X athlon 64 FX-70 (2.6 GHz) - > $599
2 X athlon 64 FX-72 (2.8 GHz) - > $899
2 X athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0 GHz) - > $1199.
Processors will be sold by pairs, and although each one of them will be able to work separately, it will be hard to buy such cpu in the official retail network. dual core processor athlon 64 FX with the frequency of 2.6 GHz and 2 X 1 mb cache will cost $299 - completely tempting sentence.
Just found this out. Looking at the benchmarks and then this price, it's really justifiable to buy this vs kentsfield. Quadcore for 600$ vs 1000$? Fine by me. I can't really compare this to benchmarks, but i think it's gonna be some hot stuff. I don't think it'll swing people over from core 2 duo, but i'm sure it'll prevent loads of people from getting kentsfields. I wonder though if these FX's have locked multi's? Whats that you say? A freely unlockable dual core for 300$ each? Done! Assuming it's unlocked
So QFX is
1) Slower
2) Power hog (almost double of C2Q)
3) Lacks overclockability
4) Requires expensive mobo
5) Requires larger case + more fans = noisier
6) Requires beefy 800W+ rated PSU just to guarantee stability
Considering anyone who buys 4x4 or C2Q will hardly be short of change, why settle for 2nd best?
I know you're trying to put a positive spin on 4x4, but talk about beating a dead horse.
Only someone like Baron would consider 4x4 ahead of C2Q, all things considered.
So QFX is
1) Slower
2) Power hog (almost double of C2Q)
3) Lacks overclockability
4) Requires expensive mobo
5) Requires larger case + more fans = noisier
6) Requires beefy 800W+ rated PSU just to guarantee stability
Considering anyone who buys 4x4 or C2Q will hardly be short of change, why settle for 2nd best?
I know you're trying to put a positive spin on 4x4, but talk about beating a dead horse.
Only someone like Baron would consider 4x4 ahead of C2Q, all things considered.
After all of this, why would you even consider the Core 2 Quad QX6700?
All I have to say is I'm glad I'm not one of the chiefs at AMD. Well on second thought I would be considerable more wealthy, so I guess it's not all bad.
I have a feeling you and Baron are the only ones that are going to buy QFX. Not many are diving into Kentsfield either, but if I had to go either route...I choose the single CPU setup with a good upgrade path.
I agree with the other posters. C2Q is really just a better way to go, so the best AMD can do for now is be cheap enough (which I find doubtful) and rely on a fan base.
That said, I think that the AMD platform sounds exciting and I won't be suprised if AMD pulls another ace out of it's sleeve.
All I have to say is I'm glad I'm not one of the chiefs at AMD. Well on second thought I would be considerable more wealthy, so I guess it's not all bad.
You'd be praying that you have a "Golden Parachute"
I found a few reasons why someone might choose 4x4:
1) quad SLI possibility
2) you can upgrade to 8 cores with K8L
3) a shitload of serial ATA connectors
And the FX-70 at 599$ is not too bad a deal.
And of course, it would be interesting to see some tests on a NUMA-aware OS (Vista) first.
But obviously, for the majority of people, Kentsfield is by far a better option.
Processors will be sold by pairs, and although each one of them will be able to work separately, it will be hard to buy such cpu in the official retail network. dual core processor athlon 64 FX with the frequency of 2.6 GHz and 2 X 1 mb cache will cost $299 - completely tempting sentence.
Just found this out. Looking at the benchmarks and then this price, it's really justifiable to buy this vs kentsfield. Quadcore for 600$ vs 1000$? Fine by me. I can't really compare this to benchmarks, but i think it's gonna be some hot stuff. I don't think it'll swing people over from core 2 duo, but i'm sure it'll prevent loads of people from getting kentsfields. I wonder though if these FX's have locked multi's? Whats that you say? A freely unlockable dual core for 300$ each? Done! Assuming it's unlocked
You should think about it, really. THG managed to overclock it by 5% barely. The price of a single FX for 300$ is tempting. Yet, if you think about it, the price may be good, but its not good enough. For that money you can get a solid core 2 duo which is faster and can be overclocked by far more than 5%.
And i´m just talking about the processor here. The 4x4 platform as it is right now, is no good choice. Yes, you can save a few bucks to get quadcore compared to intel - but only if you look at the processor price only. If you factor in that you need four RAM modules, that you need a really big power supply, that you need lots of fans and that you need a super rare and expensive nvidia 680i prototype board, the costs keep adding up and a Intel quadcore suddenly becomes a lot cheaper in comparison.
I still can understand people wanting 4x4. Its manly computing. Heck, if there were a retail box for the motherboard, i´d bett there would be a cigar in it...
I found a few reasons why someone might choose 4x4:
1) quad SLI possibility
2) you can upgrade to 8 cores with K8L
3) a shitload of serial ATA connectors
And the FX-70 at 599$ is not too bad a deal.
And of course, it would be interesting to see some tests on a NUMA-aware OS (Vista) first.
But obviously, for the majority of people, Kentsfield is by far a better option.
Basically put, its pretty disappointing. We in DaClan were planning to do a QuadFX system against a Quadro system, but I'm starting to reconsider it unless I see an improvement in the 4x4 tech. I want an actual review with competition, not a one sided slaughter.
Basically put, its pretty disappointing. We in DaClan were planning to do a QuadFX system against a Quadro system, but I'm starting to reconsider it unless I see an improvement in the 4x4 tech. I want an actual review with competition, not a one sided slaughter.
disappointment n 1: a feeling of dissatisfaction that results when your expectations are not realized; "his hopes were so high he was doomed to disappointment" [syn: letdown] 2: an act (or failure to act) that disappoints someone [syn: dashing hopes]
I think everyone expected the 4x4 to be less stellar than a real quadcore. Yet, the 4x4 even disappoints considering the already lowered expectations. And that´s quite disappointing in itself.
This whole thing seems kind of silly... 250W for 2 of them... 1 Quad-core puts out the same power as one of these procs...
Another thing, who needs 12 SATA connectors (Well, I would like 12 SATA connectors, but I would also like a case with 12 3.5" drive bays which is fairly impossible to find)...
Shrug, good attempt by AMD, but falls kinda short, kind of like the Zune...
Maybe 2nd gen will be much better, first gen, I wouldn't even touch it with a dead ninja...
If you were to test the 2 side by side and it got slaughtered it would only cause Baron to speak up about something being unfair or "rigged" in kentsfields favor.
