Slobogob
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2006
- 1,431
- 0
- 19,280
It´s nice to see that THG remembered AMDs 4x4 and decided to review it. Yet it´s ugly to see that AMD failed to improve their 4x4 platform at all. Performance is still horrible and i have no doubt that a simple nvidia 680 board with a q6600 and two 8800GTXs would outrun AMDs solution and would be cheaper to boot.
I still like the idea of 4x4 but i wonder if that concept can be salvaged or if it will just vanish.
I still like the idea of 4x4 but i wonder if that concept can be salvaged or if it will just vanish.
Why is this still using XP? The memory management on the QuadFX platform is horrible under XP. (For the record, you can get Vista with this computer.) I remember AMD made this point several months ago that all benchmarks of QuadFX should be re-done under Vista. It would be nice to see what would happen to the benchmarks if Vista were used. Of course, I think the SLI might not work then...
chunkymonster
Splendid
- Jan 12, 2006
- 3,672
- 0
- 22,960
Memory management with XP still seems to be an issue for the 4x4 with the frames per second for the outside benches of Oblivion being much lower than expected for 8800's in SLI. Still, 108fps in FEAR @ 2048x1536 with 4xAA/8xAF is more than the average gamer will ever need.
Regardless of the benches, 4x4 is in impressive platform with a lot of potential. I expect the 4x4 to stay around and mature as AMD releases the AM2+ AM3 line of procs. I also hope the memory issues go away as they move towards DDR3 and HT3. I also noticed that the Asus mobo was using the 680aSLI chipset and think the 4x4 could greatly benefit from a "specialized" or "tweaked" chipset and BIOS. The dual sockets of 4x4 could also easily fit into the Fusion roadmap.
Fanboy-ism aside, as an enthusiast and an SMP builder from the P3 and AthlonMP days, I look forward to seeing more of the 4x4 platform and it's further development. I'm glad to see that THG remembered it, nice article.
Regardless of the benches, 4x4 is in impressive platform with a lot of potential. I expect the 4x4 to stay around and mature as AMD releases the AM2+ AM3 line of procs. I also hope the memory issues go away as they move towards DDR3 and HT3. I also noticed that the Asus mobo was using the 680aSLI chipset and think the 4x4 could greatly benefit from a "specialized" or "tweaked" chipset and BIOS. The dual sockets of 4x4 could also easily fit into the Fusion roadmap.
Fanboy-ism aside, as an enthusiast and an SMP builder from the P3 and AthlonMP days, I look forward to seeing more of the 4x4 platform and it's further development. I'm glad to see that THG remembered it, nice article.
burntham77
Distinguished
- Jul 30, 2006
- 67
- 0
- 18,630
If AMD encounters a worst-case scenario and has to delay their Barcelona chips for, oh, another 6 months to 1 year, perhaps a stop gap solution would be to release lower powered 65nm dual core FX chips. That would let people still have a quad core system that uses less power than the current crop of FX chips without having to switch to Intel. If I knew I could get a QuadFX system that had reasonable power draw (and maybe an ATI chipset), I'd buy one now.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
sailer
Splendid
- Apr 9, 2006
- 4,970
- 2
- 22,810
I'm not quite sure of the purpose of the article, since most people here already know how bad the QFX runs. Perhaps as a warning to those new to computers, or a reminder that nothing has gotten better? Don't know the answer to that. It is sad though, and I hope that AMD can somehow salvage this platform with better CPU's. But for now, it just shows how far behind the QFX is.
chunkymonster
Splendid
- Jan 12, 2006
- 3,672
- 0
- 22,960
NO!!!!! Copy your XP disc over to a directory, download your RAID controller drivers and download nLite to slipstream. Create the ISO and burn, no floppy required.
Huh?! Help me out with this one. Maybe I am missing something.
If you are doing a brand spanking new Windows install on recently formatted RAID0 array, to what directory do you copy the XP disk over to let alone have the software installed on to burn an ISO of?
NO!!!!! Copy your XP disc over to a directory, download your RAID controller drivers and download nLite to slipstream. Create the ISO and burn, no floppy required.
Huh?! Help me out with this one. Maybe I am missing something.
If you are doing a brand spanking new Windows install on recently formatted RAID0 array, to what directory do you copy the XP disk over to let alone have the software installed on to burn an ISO of?Why not simply burn the contents of the floppy (a boot disc and everything on it) onto a CD-R, pop the CD-R in and boot from it, then copy the drivers over to the 500GB storage drive? From there, install XP and redirect the installer to look on the 500GB drive for the drivers for the RAID0.
Given that the conclusion of the article focused on value/performance, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the disparities between the hardware outfitting of the two systems.
The Dell was outfitted with:
A Blu-Ray v. DVD writer ($500 delta)
2xUltras v. 2xGTX ($400 delta)
1TB v. 500 GB Storage drive ($280)
and a Physx card ($150)
This additions (which didn't add much to the benchmark results) put an additional $1300ish to the Dell.
So instead of a $2300 delta, the price diff can be reduced to only $300-400 (dropping all of the "goodies" and monitor ($670)from the Dell to make it "look like" the Quadfather). Any affect on the benchmarks? I'm by no means an expert....but wouldn't think so. (The Ultras and GTXs were clocked the same)
54% increase in performance for $300-400 (7%) more?
The Dell was outfitted with:
A Blu-Ray v. DVD writer ($500 delta)
2xUltras v. 2xGTX ($400 delta)
1TB v. 500 GB Storage drive ($280)
and a Physx card ($150)
This additions (which didn't add much to the benchmark results) put an additional $1300ish to the Dell.
So instead of a $2300 delta, the price diff can be reduced to only $300-400 (dropping all of the "goodies" and monitor ($670)from the Dell to make it "look like" the Quadfather). Any affect on the benchmarks? I'm by no means an expert....but wouldn't think so. (The Ultras and GTXs were clocked the same)
54% increase in performance for $300-400 (7%) more?
Luscious
Distinguished
- Apr 5, 2006
- 525
- 0
- 18,980
I think the 4x4 as a platform does have potential, it's just unfortunate that the FX-74 doesn't cut the mustard.
I've been a fan of dual sockets since the days of the BP6. The Asus mobo on this system isn't a bad one but it still cannot compete with a striker extreme.
Factor in the price of two FX-74 CPU's (~$800) versus a very-overclockable Q6600 (~$530) and the balance will tip heavily against 4x4.
Incidentally, this system should have been compared with the Ibuypower ultra gaming system that was reviewed last time. It's silly that you guys at THG cannot find a common denominator and keep changing your comparisons with each review.
Also, Intel has released the QX6800 for retail (~$1300), so those looking for this CPU can now build their own instead of buying prebuilt.
I've been a fan of dual sockets since the days of the BP6. The Asus mobo on this system isn't a bad one but it still cannot compete with a striker extreme.
Factor in the price of two FX-74 CPU's (~$800) versus a very-overclockable Q6600 (~$530) and the balance will tip heavily against 4x4.
Incidentally, this system should have been compared with the Ibuypower ultra gaming system that was reviewed last time. It's silly that you guys at THG cannot find a common denominator and keep changing your comparisons with each review.
Also, Intel has released the QX6800 for retail (~$1300), so those looking for this CPU can now build their own instead of buying prebuilt.
The QX6700 and QX6800 are basically the same... the only difference is the former has a lower default multiplier while the latter has a higher default multiplier. Other than that, they're basically the same. I myself would go with the Q6600 once price drops to $230.
Well, an E2140 would be enough for me... 
But, regarding those benchmarks... I think cheaper computers could have better performance. Looks like actual software is not ready for Quad Core. Hell, is not even ready for a real use of Dual Core. Tweaking, tweaking, tweaking...
But, regarding those benchmarks... I think cheaper computers could have better performance. Looks like actual software is not ready for Quad Core. Hell, is not even ready for a real use of Dual Core. Tweaking, tweaking, tweaking...
Evilonigiri
Splendid
- Jun 8, 2007
- 4,381
- 0
- 22,780
What Amd needs to is lower the prices of the Fx series. I'm pretty sure someone in AMD knows that they're being pwned by intel and the only chance they got is better pricing.
Totally agreed. This proves that AMD needs to lower their prices.
Totally agreed. This proves that AMD needs to lower their prices.
did ya happen to notice the dell xps 720 h2c processor was overclocked to 3.75 ghz? did ya ever think that the memory, video cards where overclocked too? the vigor had NOT been overclocked at all.
Wish in future comparisons theyd alike rigs. or should have said 1 is overclocked and the other is not can u tell the overclocked rig?
Wish in future comparisons theyd alike rigs. or should have said 1 is overclocked and the other is not can u tell the overclocked rig?
Honestly...no I didn't notice the overclock.
But....the GTX was actually clocked higher (GTX 630/1800, Ultra 612/1080 probably a typo...1800)
Can't tell on the mem.
Good point by Crashman on the overclocking...
It would be nice, however, to just once be able to compare apples to apples rather than allowing bias (no matter how "innocent") to play in the picture.
But....the GTX was actually clocked higher (GTX 630/1800, Ultra 612/1080 probably a typo...1800)
Can't tell on the mem.
Good point by Crashman on the overclocking...
It would be nice, however, to just once be able to compare apples to apples rather than allowing bias (no matter how "innocent") to play in the picture.
Evilonigiri
Splendid
- Jun 8, 2007
- 4,381
- 0
- 22,780
Ah so now that means the time and cost of overclocking is included in the price. So without the overclock, the dell should be cheaper by some amount.
Slobogob
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2006
- 1,431
- 0
- 19,280
I noticed it but didn´t really bother to put my calculator to work. It was obvious that AMD can´t compete in the high end single socket market. As it looks 4x4 can´t even outmatch a single socket system.
It would´ve been interesting to compare the 4x4 against an opteron workstation. I somehow believe that a workstation will perform better than that 4x4 monstrosity. SLI might be a problem with server boards though.
About what you'd expect. No NUMA support under XP so the memory is actually worse than with Intel. Unless you can run games under Vista, the Quad-FX is going to be worse than Intel, period.
Now under 64-bit Linux (no games), there's no comparison. My Quad FX-72 systems get 15 GB/s of sustained memory bandwidth which is about 2.5 times faster than Intel (check Tom's on CPU charts if you don't believe it). Those Nvidia 8800GTX that stink for games with AMD make nice floating point clusters (CUDA) under AMD.
I have to thank all the gamers out there for making floating point much cheaper per Mflop.
If you do games, AMD sucks.
If you do floating point, Intel sucks.
Sad to say, but Intel is so slow at increasing memory bandwidth (they are actually slower now than with the Pentium 4 EE) that AMD is going slow and not implementing HT3 in Barcelona.
The QuadFX saturates the HT1 memory bus with 2 processors. Even one FX-74 (8 GB/s) exceeds all the memory bandwidth of Intel 1-4 core processors. Barcelona may not even exceed QuadFX in memory bandwidth under a NUMA OS.
Another 3 year industry wide memory bandwidth stall...
Thanks to Nvidia there is a floating point workaround if you can run parallel.
Cheers, DRHO
Now under 64-bit Linux (no games), there's no comparison. My Quad FX-72 systems get 15 GB/s of sustained memory bandwidth which is about 2.5 times faster than Intel (check Tom's on CPU charts if you don't believe it). Those Nvidia 8800GTX that stink for games with AMD make nice floating point clusters (CUDA) under AMD.
I have to thank all the gamers out there for making floating point much cheaper per Mflop.
If you do games, AMD sucks.
If you do floating point, Intel sucks.
Sad to say, but Intel is so slow at increasing memory bandwidth (they are actually slower now than with the Pentium 4 EE) that AMD is going slow and not implementing HT3 in Barcelona.
The QuadFX saturates the HT1 memory bus with 2 processors. Even one FX-74 (8 GB/s) exceeds all the memory bandwidth of Intel 1-4 core processors. Barcelona may not even exceed QuadFX in memory bandwidth under a NUMA OS.
Another 3 year industry wide memory bandwidth stall...
Thanks to Nvidia there is a floating point workaround if you can run parallel.
Cheers, DRHO
Eurasianman
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 883
- 0
- 19,010
Is the Quad FX CPUs still using the Athlon 64 architecture?
If that's the case, I don't think there's any point to these benchmarks. As of last summer (July 2006), everyone knows that Intel's Core microarchitecture kicks Athlon 64's architecture.
I do agree though, if Intel could beef up their floating point in their CPUs as well as the memory bandwidth, they'd be far superior.
Than again, I'm not the type of person that goes around looking for software that doesn't use a lot of floating points on my computer, nor do I look for software that doesn't require better memory bandwidth (well, actually, all software could use better memory bandwidth, but yea). I built my computer so that I could game, but at the same time, still get work done on it
If that's the case, I don't think there's any point to these benchmarks. As of last summer (July 2006), everyone knows that Intel's Core microarchitecture kicks Athlon 64's architecture.
I do agree though, if Intel could beef up their floating point in their CPUs as well as the memory bandwidth, they'd be far superior.
Than again, I'm not the type of person that goes around looking for software that doesn't use a lot of floating points on my computer, nor do I look for software that doesn't require better memory bandwidth (well, actually, all software could use better memory bandwidth, but yea). I built my computer so that I could game, but at the same time, still get work done on it
its not up to th to overclock the hardware its up to the vendor,, and why didnt they use 1 of the 5 versions of the dell xps 720 h2c series(not all are overclocked) so in my view this comparison is no good.
did th put in a watercooling unit for the processors and video cards when the overclocked the vigor? or just try and oc with air? the dell has water.
last, its not just 1 processor oc, its 4 cpus that are oc. 3.75x4 compared to 3.00x4. do the math.
_________________
Commodore 128
1571 diskdrive
Phrozt
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2002
- 565
- 0
- 18,980
Did anyone notice that the THG high end marathon PC did better than the Vigor and cost $1.3k less??
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/10/system_builder_marathon/page15.html
High end THG PC - $3,590
When compared against the XPS, the XPS was 46% better.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_recon_qx4/page11.html
Vigor PC - $4,900
When compared against the XPS, the XPS was 56% better.
So basically, the THG PC is 10% BETTER than the Vigor PC, and costs 27% LESS than the Vigor PC....
GG AMD
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/10/system_builder_marathon/page15.html
High end THG PC - $3,590
When compared against the XPS, the XPS was 46% better.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_recon_qx4/page11.html
Vigor PC - $4,900
When compared against the XPS, the XPS was 56% better.
So basically, the THG PC is 10% BETTER than the Vigor PC, and costs 27% LESS than the Vigor PC....
GG AMD
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram