AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 & Quad FX Platform Review

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by Kyle_Bennett, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    54,062
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Please Digg HERE.

    AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 & Quad FX Platform Review - AMD's much hyped "4X4" system today brings dual socket Athlon 64 FX processors to the desktop allowing two dual-core AMD processors to be used. This in effect gives us a quad-core system and paves the way for a true octo-core desktop platform next year.

     
  2. n1ce_hat

    n1ce_hat Gawd

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Wow. Now that is one hell of a computer. Shame it sucks so much juice, but I guess if you buy one of these systems that's not really a focus.
     
  3. Obi_Kwiet

    Obi_Kwiet 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,863
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    I'm surprised how well AMD's old architecture kept up with the Conroe. Still, this is kind of like comparing Crossfire for the X850XT PE vs the 7800GTX SLI. It's preview for a platform, but not much more than a curio at this point. Things will getting interesting when you put two Quad Core K8Ls in there. Even though that would probably be overkill, but then again, an E6600 is probably overkill especially once you OC it.
     
  4. Lord_Exodia

    Lord_Exodia [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,000
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Where are the 2 Kilowatt Power supplies when you need them. Imagine 2 Quad K8L's 8 cores 4hdd's 2 8800GTXs in SLi or even 2 8900GX2s in quad SLi. :D :D :D
     
  5. mpcamer1220

    mpcamer1220 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,721
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
  6. Laserbait

    Laserbait n00bie

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    I'd really like to see this to be redone with Win XP 64, so that the AMD system can take advantage of NUMA. I wonder how much of an affect this would have.

    Better yet Kyle, send the box to me - I'll let you know the results! :D
     
  7. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    54,062
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    All of that is coming in time. OCing, Vista, etc.
     
  8. mrbay

    mrbay Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    348
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Engrish? :p
    Typo on the way bottom about the Christmas present.
    Anyways, another quality article.
    I wonder how this is all gonna turn out.
     
  9. brucedeluxe169

    brucedeluxe169 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,728
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    o0o0o0o Vista benching!

    definately do that, I dont see anyone else using Vista, and I'm dying to see how that OS's performance scales with cores
     
  10. larkin

    larkin Gawd

    Messages:
    924
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    cool. i'll probabbly buy it but....

    what's with this amazing 4.5.6.7.8 cpu desktop technology boom?

    I have used an 8 CPU system for a long time, at work. It's called a server.

    If super enthusiast #1 wanted to have 8 CPUs they could buy an 8 socket or 4 socket server board already in existance. And yeah, they are comming with PCI-E now.

    So what's the big deal? is this just Intel and AMD's way of capitalizing on the eager enthusiast market by making it look like they are doing something new just for us?

    Multi core is the future, but it's also got a long history... where's the line between a server grade and enthusiast grade system, performance wise..
     
  11. osalcido

    osalcido [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,481
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    so this fx-70 is just two X2 5000+'s in one box?
     
  12. Mr. Stryker

    Mr. Stryker [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,223
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Wow, looking at the 1207 pin processors made me sad. They're so beautiful. So purty. I want one now! FInally 3GHZ AMD chips! :eek:

    Although I'm confused why AMD did worse in the game benchmarks. :(
     
  13. chris.c

    chris.c Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    358
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Uhh... overclocking?

    Sure, these systems appear to be neck and neck in your benchmarks. But the QX6700 can achieve a 1ghz overclock in many cases. How does 4x4 stack up?
     
  14. moshpit

    moshpit Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    450
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Beyond that totally valid and obvious point is another obvious point not mentioned in this preview at all it seems. Not once did I see mention of the fact that the QX6700 was running a full 333mhz slower then the FX-74 system and they were dead even. That's not something to be proud of and was the bane of Intel for too long to start letting AMD get away with it now. I find the whole Quad FX platform to be depressing and less then exciting right now. I'm sure my mind will change on that point once we get to K8L (aka Barcelona).
     
  15. duby229

    duby229 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,015
    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    My only complaint about the system is it's power consumption. It's freakin depressing. I want that number to be --half-- AMD. Get on the freakin ball

    Otherwise I think it's about time we get a consumer grade dual socket board... I'll buy one when I can get something other then Asus's craptastic junk.
     
  16. Paul_Jastrzebski

    Paul_Jastrzebski HardOCP CPU Editor

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Just wanted to share a little funny story while doing the power readings with the FX-74. I had the board sitting out so I grabbed an older 520W Vantec PSU and hooked it all up. I started smelling something burning and kept examining the motherboard to see if something was overheating. It turns out that even at idle, the FX-74 was KILLING that Vantec 520W PSU! By mistake I think we now have the ultimate PSU testing platform.

    Also, I'll be working on Vista performance and overclocking the FX-74 in the next few weeks so stay tuned with that!
     
  17. harpoon

    harpoon Gawd

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    I have one small complaint about the review:

    "We all know that Intel’s Core 2 architecture is faster than AMD’s current processors so we have to believe that we are now seeing the interconnect efficiencies that AMD engineers have bragged about for so long now."

    Eh... how about the fact that when C2D was released it was 2.93GHz Intel vs 2.8GHz AMD, whereas this time it's 2.66GHz Intel vs 3GHz AMD?

    I think the clockspeed difference would have far greater impact than the interrconnect differences.
     
  18. moshpit

    moshpit Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    450
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    ROFLMAO!!!! That does it then, Q6700 here I come. Drop in upgrade on the DS3 now :D
     
  19. MrGuvernment

    MrGuvernment Stay [H]ard

    Messages:
    19,786
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    from that review, their is no reason to go 4x4 intel beats it out on more then %70 of the tests! And thatpower consumption? Can you imagine the heat from that system in a tight case?

    how many is quite a few cause i seem to have seen intel winning "quite" a few more then AMD...........
     
  20. harpoon

    harpoon Gawd

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Yeah, overall Intel is a bit faster, the benches it loses it's by like a 1 - 3%, the ones it wins are 1 - 10% ( or more if you count the gaming benches), and it wins more than it loses. Go figure. I guess maths ain't the strong point of [H] reviewers... shhhh! :p
     
  21. tisb0b

    tisb0b [H] Pirate

    Messages:
    3,041
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    LMAO anyways how hot were those processors getting?
     
  22. oDii

    oDii Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    170
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Great review guys. From what you've put forward it looks like this really is the SLI of CPUs; we'll only start really seeing the benefits in a generation or two with the octo-core machines, although it is a good move to get the "infrastructure" out there in advance.

    One thing the review didn't make clear was the fate of consumers after AM2 - [H] says it'll be staying for another year at least in current machines, but what after that? Will we simply start seeing single Socket 1207 machines or will there be another "budget" socket?
     
  23. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    54,062
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Yeah, you are NOT going to see that with 90nm AND processors, or likely anything close to it without extreme cooling.
     
  24. Kyle_Bennett

    Kyle_Bennett El Chingón Staff Member

    Messages:
    54,062
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Most of the differences we saw were neglibible at best. I refuse call a winner on 1 to 3% personally. 1 to 3% is not distinguishable in the real world and would have no impact on a end user that is noticable. You have been here long enough to know we don't play the e-penis game....
     
  25. Tech^Cellfish

    Tech^Cellfish Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2000
    We'll, the god thing is that AMD is still in the game. The bad thing, they are lagging more and more behind. That power usage and performance is not good at all, Intel is better in almost all the benchmarks. But, as an AMD fan, I still believe AMD's design and architecture is better.

    But after reading this and my current standing as of today. I want the int€l octo-core transformed mac pro Anandtech made. AMD show me something better and I'll upgrade my X2 system!
     
  26. strikeout

    strikeout [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,373
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    thats great and all, but i want my $1500 giant killer rig offering from either intel or amd. To do that the cpu budget has to be well under $400. I'll pass on quad anything for now.
     
  27. Zinn

    Zinn Guest

    i was moderately impressed, until i saw the power requirements. i just don't see the point of quad core for desktop applications at the moment, and with price and power requirements like these i can really afford to wait :eek:

    good write up though!
     
  28. harpoon

    harpoon Gawd

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Sorry to have to link you to your OWN review Kyle... but it seems you need a bit of a refresher already! Long day huh? :p

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Since these are the tests where C2Q soundly beats FX-74, and the rest of the benchmarks and applications are neck and neck, how hard can it be to declare a winner? I won't even include the gaming benchmarks because [H] doesn't take them seriously, and I respect that.

    However, we can conclude that in 2/3 of the real world application tests, the differences between an FX-74 and QX6700 is negligible. But in the remaining 1/3, the QX6700 has a clear advantage.

    The greater multitasking ability of C2Q ALONE should give it a decisive edge over the FX-74, as it's supposedly targeted at 'megataskers', and well, it's not 'megatasking' as well as C2Q!

    Don't tell me it's hard to pick a winner here, because it's all damn clear for everyone to see.

    The way you're trying to word things, it's as if an FX-74 is the equal of the QX6700. That clearly is NOT the case when we look at the entire picture.
     
  29. SILVR 6

    SILVR 6 Gawd

    Messages:
    559
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    :mad: That power use is just sick, but then again I wasn't expecting it to be very power efficient. What i'm wondering is how the temperatures were while benching the machine. I can only imagine something idling @ 400w wouldn't exactly be the coolest thing on earth. It looks to me that for the time being intel is the way to go for QC.
     
  30. /dev/null

    /dev/null [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,998
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2001
    Amd chips have been 3ghz for a while.... see: opteron 256

    How does this compare to my Dual opteron 285 setup or say a dual 2220 or 2218 setup?
     
  31. todlerix

    todlerix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,245
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    bleh! i wanted to see a leap like intel had from pentium d to c2d

    t.t
     
  32. freddiepm61

    freddiepm61 Gawd

    Messages:
    836
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    The thing is though, right now this thing is pointless as it costs so much, uses so much power and performs less well. also noise from two coolers, bigger case etc.

    However then everyone says yes but when K8L comes out etc.

    But WHO NEEDS 8 CORES??????? when games are multithreaded then yes four will be useful, but they are not fully scaleable. 8? no way. Unless you do a billion different things at once, however does anyone actually sit down and encode mp3, video, do photoshop, rip a dvd and play a game at the same time?

    Or people say great for movie encoding and art etc. well then buy workstation parts! this is a marketing system nothing more....

    f
     
  33. Hokum15

    Hokum15 n00bie

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    In games, But what about the 4x 8800GTX's?

    Any Benches?
     
  34. D4hPr0

    D4hPr0 Gawd

    Messages:
    742
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    I have to agree. This review is worded complete opposite of the C2D review.

    Given that 4X4 needs a small nuclear plant, runs hot, and is SLIGHTLY slower than a single chip solution thats clocked 300+MHZ lower.......Id say we have a clear winner.

    Too bad 4X4 cant compete.....it could of drove C2D prices down a bit.
     
  35. mzs_biteme

    mzs_biteme [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,600
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    ^^ Ditto on that....
    Intel is the CLEAR winner here from many points of view...

    Performance: Intel wins in most test. It would win in ALL by bigger margins if run at same clock (3GHz)
    Power usage: Intel wins hands down
    Overclocking: Intel's QX chips have been seen running at 3.4GHz+ (that's from 2.66GHz). With 90nm Quad FX you'll get maybe another 2~300MHz with Vapo and 1.5kW power supply... :D :eek: ;)

    As it is, the Quad FX to me is like Intel taking Pentium D's and sticking them in a dual-socket mobo... EVERYBODY would call it a "hack-job" and a ridicule it, yet AMD gets this:

    "AMD’s Quad FX platform is big, bad, expensive, piggish, powerful, and has an extended upgrade path that will allow power users double the desktop power in 2007. You could call the AMD Quad FX the HUMMER H2 of the computer world...."

    I dunno.... :rolleyes:
     
  36. qdemn7

    qdemn7 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,016
    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    There is no way in hell I would buy one of these even if I had the money. I cannot conceive of having 800 or more watts of heat dumped into a room on a continuous basis. I mean damnnnnn… you would need a separate 15 or 20 amp circuit just for the complete system and a UPS. Plus you would need a room air conditioner just for that room. You run a central HVAC just to cool off this room; the rest of the house would be like a refrigerator.
     
  37. Psychotext

    Psychotext [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,897
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Seems the same to me. Is this the best AMD are coming out with for a while or should I just go and get a Core platform? I really don't want to give my hard earned cash to Intel but it seems like AMD have fallen behind here.

    So... are there any new AMD architectures coming out?
     
  38. mzs_biteme

    mzs_biteme [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,600
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    AMD's K8L will be the next CPU that may come close to Intels performance.
    Unfortunately (for AMD) by then Intel will simply cut their prices (Q1 2007), and introduce faster, more efficient and powerful Yorkfield CPUs (Q3 2007)...
    Doesn't look like Intel's gonna let AMD get a "shot at the title" any time soon... :eek: ;)
     
  39. EpedemiX

    EpedemiX n00bie

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Come on... You know they have to make AMD look good or else they wont send them freebies.

    Why do you think as of late most GPU reviews are sponsored ?


    Getting back to the 4x4. Its nothing new and a turn around for AMD. Prior to the Core 2 Duo they were on a marketing push with AM2 with low power useage. Now with 4x4 platform they do a U-Turn. More watts more power. Just doesn't make sense.

    Why would anyone want to waste 2x the money for CPU and Memory plus Cooling while you can get similar performance with greater OC'ing with a Intel platform.
     
  40. chris.c

    chris.c Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    358
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    So given that this AMD quad core solution is slower than Kentsfield in the majority of cases, consumes twice as much power, isn't really any cheaper, and doesn't overclock as well... why do you refuse to call a winner? Or at the very least make a more relevant, less vauge conclusion to your article. I don't care if AMD4x4 is the H2 of the computer world, and I don't need to be told it is "capable". I'm sure it is. I just want to know, bottom line, is there any point in getting this over Kentsfield?