AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 & Quad FX Platform Review

Martyr · Nov 30, 2006

Thorburn said:
I couldn't agree more, the Hummer H2 is based off of old technology (its a Chevy Blazer in a different bodyshell), is stupidly inefficient (you can manage single figure miles per gallon with ease, I guess thats a fair comparison to 400w at idle), and while it may be reasonable in a straight line thats only because it has plenty BHP (MHz), show it a corner and its around about 20% behind.

Personally I drive a sports car and run a Core 2.

i think he drives an h2 lol (cough sorislut/soccermom vehicle cough)

mzs_biteme · Nov 30, 2006

chrisf6969 said:
......

He tried to but his whole neighborhood went black. Then the electric company berated him for breaking the whole neighborhood's power gird.

Thorburn · Nov 30, 2006

You also have to assume driver support.
As a 8800GTX owner, and having previously run a 7950GX2 (and therefore SLI) I have to say I'm not a fan of 2 card SLI. Whats more the 8800GTX's drivers are hardly beyond reproach even with a single card.

The idea of running Quad SLI on any cards doesn't appeal, the idea of it and 8800GTX is somewhere between hilarious and horrifying.

And trying to find a power supply that could handle 4 x 130w (and thats a conservative estimate) graphics cards, 2 x 130w CPU's, a power hungry motherboard and the rest of a system.... Well now that really tickles me.

mentok1982 · Nov 30, 2006

For me it is all about performance in games, cost, power consumption and heat production.
AMD's FX-74 Quad setup can not compete with the QX6700 setup's cost, power consumption
and heat production.

Actaully I am assuming that the FX-74 setup runs hotter, because I did not see any
temperature readings in the review.

chrisf6969 · Nov 30, 2006

Thorburn said:
I couldn't agree more, the Hummer H2 is based off of old technology (its a Chevy Blazer in a different bodyshell), is stupidly inefficient (you can manage single figure miles per gallon with ease, I guess thats a fair comparison to 400w at idle), and while it may be reasonable in a straight line thats only because it has plenty BHP (MHz), show it a corner and its around about 20% behind.

Ouch!

The H2 comparison I think is being very kind to AMD.

I think a better comparison would be taking a Humvee "H1" and putting a ricer whale tale and new paint job on it, and calling it a new super deluxe "H 4x4" model.

THRESHIN · Nov 30, 2006

this reminds me of a good looking fat chick - you don't really want to do her, but somehow you just can't say no.

BigDH01 · Nov 30, 2006

THRESHIN said:
this reminds me of a good looking fat chick - you don't really want to do her, but somehow you just can't say no.

Only in this case the fat chick is also a hooker that you have to pay for. Watch me say no.

|CR|Constantine · Nov 30, 2006

So let's see here.

In a few months (after Vista, R600 come out) I will be able to build either:

An Intel non native Quad core rig (One socket processor) with no ability to run another processor.

or

An AMD native quad core processor with substancially better HT performance compared to FSB. With the ability to toss in another quad processor to have an effective octo system.

Tough decision....

You all can bitch and moan all you want about these new processors, but anyone buying this platform could give a rats ass about them. All we care about is K8L and if this new platform can take two 3 year old architecture processors and be neck and neck with Intel's latest and greatest 4 week old processor...I would not be so quick to say AMD got pwned.

This bad ass is definitely on my list.

BigDH01 · Nov 30, 2006

|CR|Constantine said:
So let's see here.

In a few months (after Vista, R600 come out) I will be able to build either:

An Intel non native Quad core rig (One socket processor) with no ability to run another processor.

or

An AMD native quad core processor with substancially better HT performance compared to FSB. With the ability to toss in another quad processor to have an effective octo system.

Tough decision....

You all can bitch and moan all you want about these new processors, but anyone buying this platform could give a rats ass about them. All we care about is K8L and if this new platform can take two 3 year old architecture processors and be neck and neck with Intel's latest and greatest 4 week old processor...I would not be so quick to say AMD got pwned.

This bad ass is definitely on my list.

You really need to start using sarcasm tags.

sxotty · Nov 30, 2006

Riddlinkidstoner said:
I highly dou(b)t AMD and Intel are overly concerned with the killing of sales due to low end, cheaper dual core/quad core CPUs. Lets face it, only a small percentage are aware of the ability to overclock and an even smaller percentage know how to do it and do it well and even then most of them need the warranty more than they need the speed. There will always always always be a market for higher end chips at a very high demand because people will want more speed for multiple tasks. ...

Bottom line is, if they were so concerned over it, they wouldn't release them.

And have they released them? No what is the socket? Not am2.

They are quite worried about having the power to delineate what people can and cannot do. Otherwise dual sockets would have been released long ago. Another way to look at it is what was the purpose of 939/940? It was to separate the classes of cpus and increase profits.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

BigDH01 said:
Who cares about octa-core? I mean honestly. People who need 8 cores because of their professional can already get 8 core servers from both AMD and Intel. On the desktop, you won't see 8 cores being utilized for a long time.

You don't because YOU don't need it or use it. Talk to the guys around that shoot and edit high def video. 1080i consumer cameras are getting MUCH less expensive now days and there is simple software to support them. (Windows Movie Maker in Vista will handle HiDef.) When you go to edit and render your video to back to a HiDef wmv file for streaming to your living room display to share with the family, and it takes a full day to render the video on a high end dual core processor....octa-core starts looking REALLY good.

The simple fact is that quad-core or Quad FX are not for the gamers out there and will not be for likely years to come. These systems are going to end up in the home offices of people that shoot tons of video and certainly they will start replacing some professional workstation boxes, even more so when dual Barcelona hits.

Some of you folks beating this down need to remember how hardware technology trickles down over time. AMD has taken a hugely important step in delivering a very forward-looking technology. When dual octo-core processors are all the rage, the 4X4 will be easier on the wallet and hopefully better refined in terms of power usage.

I think AMD has made a great first step. Intel's counter to it by pushing forward with multi-core will be the biggest deciding factor in how the success of the platform stands. Competition makes things much better for all consumers, it amazes me how people will turn up their noses to tech moving forward just because it does not suit your own personal and immediate needs.

Martyr · Nov 30, 2006

|CR|Constantine said:
So let's see here.

In a few months (after Vista, R600 come out) I will be able to build either:

An Intel non native Quad core rig (One socket processor) with no ability to run another processor.

or

An AMD native quad core processor with substancially better HT performance compared to FSB. With the ability to toss in another quad processor to have an effective octo system.

Tough decision....

You all can bitch and moan all you want about these new processors, but anyone buying this platform could give a rats ass about them. All we care about is K8L and if this new platform can take two 3 year old architecture processors and be neck and neck with Intel's latest and greatest 4 week old processor...I would not be so quick to say AMD got pwned.

This bad ass is definitely on my list.

you do realize intel is releasing a native 4core model?

also, i dont see much gains above 4 cores, the software is a GIANT PAIN IN THE ASS to break down into many threads. i think its time for some clockspeed wars again. and i think intel would have the lead there, with all the research they did trying to get netburst to overcome the engineering issues it ran into

IanG · Nov 30, 2006

Riddlinkidstoner said:
Ibuypower.com is carrying the Quad FX platform at < $2000 BUT...
- Comes with Windows Media Center edition...which clearly states that it only supports one physical socket...so why even offer it?

I believe MCE supports 2 cpu sockets... it's basically XP Pro with a couple additional programs.

Thinking more about 4x4, has anyone seen comparison numbers to a Mac Pro running boot camp? The mac is a similar setup (2xdual core) aimed at the desktop w/ 4x pcie slots (though no sli/Xfire.) It doesn't suck anywhere near as much power, and can be upgraded to octi-core now if you want. Damn, I sound like a mac zealot.

Yeah, I'm getting more and more underwhelmed with 4x4. At least the FX70 isn't insanely priced.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

Thorburn said:
You're a real class act.

I couldn't agree more, the Hummer H2 is based off of old technology (its a Chevy Blazer in a different bodyshell), is stupidly inefficient (you can manage single figure miles per gallon with ease, I guess thats a fair comparison to 400w at idle), and while it may be reasonable in a straight line thats only because it has plenty BHP (MHz), show it a corner and its around about 20% behind.

Personally I drive a sports car and run a Core 2.

Sorry to offend your sensibilties. I think the Barbie Dream House forum is still open and you will not find it near as rough in there.

Your knowledge of HUMMER's H2 is simply WRONG. So therefore your analogy is off the mark.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

mentok1982 said:
For me it is all about performance in games, cost, power consumption and heat production.
AMD's FX-74 Quad setup can not compete with the QX6700 setup's cost, power consumption
and heat production.

Actaully I am assuming that the FX-74 setup runs hotter, because I did not see any
temperature readings in the review.

the single CPUs come in about 95watts fully loaded on the FX-74 (so 190 for both of them) where the QX6700 should be about 130w. What really impacts the delta is the "second" 590 motherboard in the case.

Just one way to look at it.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

BigDH01 said:
You're right, I don't need 8 cores. I do work in a shop that does though and we already have them (8 cores in one machine that is).... This isn't forward looking tech, dual sockets have been around forever. I seem to remember quite a few people running dual celerons back in the day. This is AMD cannibalizing their server market to try to compete with Intel in a desktop market that doesn't really exist (4 cores on the desktop). What's forward thinking about that? BTW, they also do it while creating much more heat and using a great deal more electricity (I thought the future was performance-per-watt ). AMD's native quad core AM3 chips are neat, not this.

Well, with that logic, processors have been around for a long time too, so I guess we are seeing nothing new.

As for AMD impacting its server market, you really don't understand the market very well. There is a long list as to why this is not true...

Yes, they failed at performance per watt, let me quote myself:

Examining performance per watt, AMDs Quad FX with FX-74 processors is an utter failure compared to an of Intels quad-core QX6700 systems.

Barcelona will be the lynchpin in this entire system, we mentioned that several times.

The AMD Quad FX platform is going to prove to be an extremely capable machine but there are going to be big costs associated with ownership.

Capable now, and even more so in the future.

I think a bunch of you just want to argue about nothing today or did not take the time to RTFA.

|CR|Constantine · Nov 30, 2006

Kyle is exactly spot on.

Let me put it this way.

Let's say that today's launch was all about how Asus developed this new mobo to handle either dual CD2 cores, FX processors, K8L and Intel Quad processors will all the bells and whistles mentioned above.

Would'nt all of us be cheering from the roof tops with this leap forward?

Today's release is a huge plus for AMD because they literally went [H]ard. You know, the reason why we are all here. Many of us top end AMD platform users are not upgrading until K8L anyway so with this platform being released now, we can expect better drivers and a small sense of maturity by Barcelona's release.

I am a crazy mutlitasker that works alot in 3D Max so more cores, the better.

Yoshiyuki Blade · Nov 30, 2006

You could call the AMD Quad FX the HUMMER H2 of the computer world....

To be perfectly honest, I had a negative connotation in mind when reading that line.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

Yoshiyuki Blade said:
To be perfectly honest, I had a negative connotation in mind when reading that line.

That is exactly what was intended.

Martyr · Nov 30, 2006

Yoshiyuki Blade said:
To be perfectly honest, I had a negative connotation in mind when reading that line.

a big abortion of a vehicle that emulates the design of a function over form vehicle, except it has neither?

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

|CR|Constantine said:
Kyle is exactly spot on.

Let me put it this way.

Let's say that today's launch was all about how Asus developed this new mobo to handle either dual CD2 cores, FX processors, K8L and Intel Quad processors will all the bells and whistles mentioned above.

Would'nt all of us be cheering from the roof tops with this leap forward?

Today's release is a huge plus for AMD because they literally went [H]ard. You know, the reason why we are all here. Many of us top end AMD platform users are not upgrading until K8L anyway so with this platform being released now, we can expect better drivers and a small sense of maturity by Barcelona's release.

I am a crazy mutlitasker that works alot in 3D Max so more cores, the better.

People at AMD will tell you that one of the reasons they saw value in the 4x4 system was the amount of dual opty desktop boxes they saw being built by enthusiasts in our forums right here. They do believe there is a market for it, small, but there and it allows AMD a marketing vehicle that shows they neck and neck with Intel on that front.

I have been told that less than 10K "FX" processors are sold a year....but here we are still talking about them...mainly because we know that tech trickles into the mid and low end fairly quickly now days.

Demon_of_The_Fall · Nov 30, 2006

harpoon said:
I have one small complaint about the review:

"We all know that Intels Core 2 architecture is faster than AMDs 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.

Noone but !!!!!!s cares about the difference in clockspeeds. It's meaningles. We're comparing the best that both companies can do for a given price, anything else is just pointless.

FrgMstr · Nov 30, 2006

Martyr said:
a big abortion of a vehicle that emulates the design of a function over form vehicle, except it has neither?

You are amazingly wrong here and simply sounding like a zealot.

Actually it has tremendous function. Hummer H1 H2 and H3 are extremely capable for what they were designed for. The fact is that few people ever use them for their intended function but rather some bizarre status symbol. I don't understand it either. But I don't beat on the corvette/bimmer/(insert your fave sports car here) owner than never goes to the track or does not particpate in SCCA events.

Now the AMD 4X4 has tremendous function too, but only if you use it as intended. And as I mentioned above, very few have need of that function. I thought the Hummer H2 comparison was incredibly on the mark considering the "4x4" code name.

Mabrito · Nov 30, 2006

|CR|Constantine said:
So let's see here.

In a few months (after Vista, R600 come out) I will be able to build either:

An Intel non native Quad core rig (One socket processor) with no ability to run another processor.

or

An AMD native quad core processor with substancially better HT performance compared to FSB. With the ability to toss in another quad processor to have an effective octo system.

Tough decision....

You all can bitch and moan all you want about these new processors, but anyone buying this platform could give a rats ass about them. All we care about is K8L and if this new platform can take two 3 year old architecture processors and be neck and neck with Intel's latest and greatest 4 week old processor...I would not be so quick to say AMD got pwned.

This bad ass is definitely on my list.

This whole native quad core bullshit needs to stop. Who gives a damn, if the archatecture isnt built around quad core and its just 2 dual cores slapped onto a chip. It still performs damn good. And how exactly do we know this "Native" quad core design by AMD is actually going to be better? We dont. Im not saying AMD has nothing, im just saying there arnt any benchmarks on it and we can make say stuff like that. Its probably going to be as good as Core 2's or a little better. Its not going to be earthshattering like its being made out to be. Its just AMD F**nboys hitting below the belt and going for the cheapest shot against Intel.

duby229 · Nov 30, 2006

IanG said:
Nice review, and very good pictures of the board. From one of the shots it looks like you slightly bent one of the black sata ports.

About the power consumption - do these fx chips use cool'n'quiet, and was it enabled? I know the nforce chipsets use quite a bit of juice, so having two of them will make a difference, but c'n'q has made a gigantic difference in idle temps with my opty and A64.

It seems like we have a situation completely reversed from last year when amd was pounding intel about the scorching pentium Ds and PrescHOTs, which is hard to take as an AMD fan.

Absolutely 100% agree. I cant stand the power consumption. It makes AMD look hypocritical. That said though, the system is quite impressive, and next year when native quad core K8L's hit the market.... This will be a boon for them

IanG · Nov 30, 2006

Lazy_Moron said:
And how exactly do we know this "Native" quad core design by AMD is actually going to be better? We dont.

Well, you can look at how it panned out in the switch from single to dual cores. AMD went with the 'native' approach and Intel took the slap-two-dies-together approach (at first.) Go look up the benchies to see who 'won'.
The main difference this time around is that Intel has quads shipping now while AMD is still months away from shipping their quad parts. The dual cores were released at around the same time (Intel was again first) but they didn't really have time to build any marketshare before AMD launched theirs. Now Intel has got a better performing part and a long time to be the only quad-core in town. I think things are looking pretty rosy for them right now.

Mabrito · Nov 30, 2006

IanG said:
Well, you can look at how it panned out in the switch from single to dual cores. AMD went with the 'native' approach and Intel took the slap-two-dies-together approach (at first.) Go look up the benchies to see who 'won'.
The main difference this time around is that Intel has quads shipping now while AMD is still months away from shipping their quad parts. The dual cores were released at around the same time (Intel was again first) but they didn't really have time to build any marketshare before AMD launched theirs. Now Intel has got a better performing part and a long time to be the only quad-core in town. I think things are looking pretty rosy for them right now.

That isnt relavent though. Even back in those days the Athlon 64 was spanking Intel's Pentium 4. The Pentium 4's with HT did help against this, but from what I remember not much. When Intel came out with dual cores first for that short time they were a tab better than single core Athlon 64's in gaming but were really good in encoding and such. When the X2's came out, well that was over again. So like I said that is relavent because Intel was still getting spanked before dual cores back then.

Shotglass01 · Nov 30, 2006

Drabbit! DRABBIT! I've wanted to make my next box an AMD box, but I can't see where I'll get benefit from the AMD platform right now. The next box (to be pieced together over the next few months) is for gaming and general use. No encoding here. I've been building Intel boxes pretty much all my life and wanted to go with AMD this time. Oh, well, I'll have to look at them again in the next year to two years. I'm happy they've finally come out with something. I'm not so happy that what they have isn't the best value for me.

LstBrunnenG · Nov 30, 2006

I'm pleasantly surprised that 4x4 did as well as it did. But, as many have pointed out, what we see here is a 3 GHz AMD just even a 2.66 GHz Intel. The power consumption is also sobering.

Even when K8L comes out, how will that solve these power consumption problems?

Battleneter2 · Nov 30, 2006

AMD are marketing the 4x4 by stating you will be able to pop in 2xQuad cores.

If one thing history has told us is not to trust compatibility for a processor that is not even tapped out yet. I would NOT be surprised if that Asus 4x4 board fails to support the AMD quad cores in the future.

This is pure "marketing" fluff, don't believe it until you see it.

kush · Nov 30, 2006

I'm a little late to the thread party, and it's been said before...But holy crap the power consumption is beyond ridiculous..There's no way in hell I'd think of going QF with idle power @ 400w+, and LOAD @ *double* Intel's offering (granted those ARE w/ 8800GTX). I don't see a shift from 90nm to 65nm will really improve the situation much in the overall consumption. Add in a few more HDD's, expansion cards and SLI/CF and those with the formerly insane 900W-1.1kW PSUs will be riding high knowing they planned AHEAD

.

AMD needs to bust it's ass on both getting 65nm out in VOLUME, getting 45nm (next?) to market (and quick), and bring NATIVE quad chips out..Or we're in for a very bumpy ride for quite a while.

And the bit on whether AMD or Intel won depending on how anal you are about margins is really a matter of samntics..Whether .00001 of a second matters to you (some users; exaggerated I know), or 1-3% is not enough to call a winner ([H]) doesn't matter on it's face. But, coupled with the insane power issues and here's one AMD whore that is more than likely going to the other side for his next build. C2D and QC are too hard discount, even for the most die-hard AMD-ers around here.

My S462 system(s) were great (1700+ B still runs, 1.0 Morgan Duron sitting around somewhere too), and my current S939 Opty 165 has been great too (not upgrading anytime soon frankly barring an HTPC build or something). But given the performance, both @ stock and o/c'd in the C2D and QC chips, I'm definately going blue next time (barring a MAJOR rabbit in AMDs hat).

BigDH01 · Nov 30, 2006

Anandtech's review is up. The FX-74 did win the Cinebench test until you added multitasking. Then the Core 2 Quad once again took the lead. Anand also showed worse performance in some applications using 4 cores over 2. He also had a graph up that showed better scaling for the core 2 than for the FX. HT doesn't do much for K8 with 4 CPUs. And again, we see the 4x4 gets killed in performance-per-watt. To sum up: 4x4 scales worse with 4 cores than does core 2 quad, 4x4 sometimes performs worse than an equivalent dual core, it loses all but one benchmark, and gets creamed in performance-per-watt. Now, where can I buy one? I can't wait to get octa core now baby!

mzs_biteme · Nov 30, 2006

AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 & Quad FX Platform Review

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

n00b

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]F Junkie

2[H]4U

Limp Gawd

Limp Gawd

Limp Gawd

Weaksauce

Just Plain Mean

2[H]4U

2[H]4U

Just Plain Mean

Just Plain Mean

Just Plain Mean

Limp Gawd

2[H]4U

Just Plain Mean

2[H]4U

Just Plain Mean

Limp Gawd

Just Plain Mean

Supreme [H]ardness

2[H]4U

2[H]4U

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]ard|Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Limp Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

n00b

2[H]4U

Limp Gawd

2[H]4U

HardOCP CPU Editor

Just Plain Mean

Limp Gawd