• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Quad FX VS Intel QX benches......

Cause is unclear, but the memory clock is not calculated just from the operational clock of CPU, the sea urchin it is discovered.
Click to expand...


very interesting... lol


half the power, same performance. exactly as advertised. pretty cool stuff!

zv
 
Well this completley solidified my decision on the QX6700, I had some hope for the 4x4 but it failed me. That power consumption is insane.
 
zero_vertical said:
very interesting... lol


half the power, same performance. exactly as advertised. pretty cool stuff!

zv
Click to expand...


Please tell me you actually looked at the graphs... no where close to the same performance.
 
Ockie said:
Please tell me you actually looked at the graphs... no where close to the same performance.
Click to expand...

PCMark single task
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph2.htm

PCMark multiple task
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph3.htm

Everest - Cache & Memory
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph5.htm

Power consumption was the only real standout.

Power Consumption
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...atch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph16.htm

3DMark 05/06 were comparable (although not really a great benchmark)

look pretty farking close to me. :confused:

zv
 
0-20% better is "close" to you ?

You know 4 is very close to 3 , but in relative terms the difference is huge.
 
zero_vertical said:
PCMark single task
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph2.htm

PCMark multiple task
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph3.htm

Everest - Cache & Memory
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph5.htm

Power consumption was the only real standout.

Power Consumption
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...atch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph16.htm

3DMark 05/06 were comparable (although not really a great benchmark)

look pretty farking close to me. :confused:

zv
Click to expand...


Okay so those were close, what about the rest?

IMO for something to be "the same" it has to win some and lose some and be fairly close. The FX74 only a few in low resolution 3dmark... ooohhhh big deal there... got creamed in the rest.

Sandra:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph1.htm

Sysmark:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph6.htm

Encoding test:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/graph9.htm
 
zero_vertical said:
wow, looks like i stepped into the F@nboy convention. My Bad. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume, I'd really hate to put you in your place. :rolleyes: It can be a Barbie brand processor, if it's faster I'm going to go with it, not a hard concept really.
 
Did anybody miss gthe part where Intel QX is running 333MHz slower.... :eek:
And the part that FX at 90nm won't OC much past 3.2~3.3Ghz (BIG maybe). We've already seen QX6700 OC-ed past 3.4GHz....
And if you do get 4x4 with intention of OC-ing it, you might as well drop by Home Depot for a power generator.... :eek: :D
 
PCMark Tests, Everst Tests, and 3DMark tests are all very comparable.

That seems pretty thorough (and covers gaming too! hardly "CREAMED") of course i noticed the sysmark charts, i was actually surprised it was what it was.

a f@nboy isn't made by anything but someone who throws blinders on to unabashedly defend a fricking processor. relax your knickers.

zv
 
zero_vertical said:
a f@nboy isn't made by anything but someone who throws blinders on to unabashedly defend a fricking processor. relax your knickers.
Click to expand...

LOL, I find this comment quite ironic. Yet you assume again. You will learn sometime soon young grasshopper.
 
Just to clarify here...who's on defense? AMD or Intel...
From what I can see, at this very exact time, AMD is bent over asking for more, and Intel doesn't seem to be slowing down with the swinging of the paddle.... :eek: :D :D
But I may be wrong... :confused:
 
zero_vertical said:
PCMark Tests, Everst Tests, and 3DMark tests are all very comparable.
Click to expand...

Are you obtuse or stupid ? The difference is 0-20% , 10% on average.That is far more than A64 had over the P4.Yet nobody called them comparable.
Double standards huh ?
 
keep riding that super tough [H]ardness Supreme title. lol what's next, how many more builds you've done than me? maybe your custom water cooled CPU? Please.

i think absed on the obvious superiority of Conroe, the comparability in many of these charts is a surprise. That's all.

zv
 
mzs_biteme said:
AMD is bent over asking for more, and Intel doesn't seem to be slowing down with the swinging of the paddle.... :eek: :D :D
But I may be wrong... :confused:
Click to expand...

I build with whatever's the best at the current time, and offers the best long range upgradability.. i'm currently upgrading my old 939, and buildign a new C2D. but ^THAT^ is a f@nboy. lol
 
Well, what I saw was that there were some tests where the performance was pretty much tied...
But whenever there was a significant difference, it was pretty much always to the advantage of the QX6700.

Combine that with the lower power usage, and the fact that it's a single-socket solution (fits in small and tight cases, only needs one HSF, lower cost etc), and I think the QX6700 is the winner of this round.

Thing that amazes me most (well not really) is that the 4x4 has two memory controllers and the much-lauded HTT bus, and much more bandwidth in potential, but it cannot translate any of that into higher real world performance.
People would often claim that a quadcore with a single FSB would be bandwidth-limited (the 'caveat' at pretty much every review's conclusion), but apparently that's not what's happening here. In benchmarks where I suspect the quadcore to be bandwidth-limited, the 4x4 can't take advantage either, despite its bandwidth being well over twice as high (even a single FX-processor already has much more bandwidth than a Core2 Duo, but same story, there's no real-world advantage).
 
The big difference is in power consumption.

During the Cinebench run, the FX 4x4 system used 85% more power than the QX6700!!

589 watts vs 318 watts = HUGE DIFFERENCE

(589-318) / 318 = 85.22%

WOW!

Even if they were close, which they're not really, that 85% difference in power consumption would be a very convincing arguement for the Quad Intel.
 
zero_vertical said:
keep riding that super tough [H]ardness Supreme title. lol what's next, how many more builds you've done than me? maybe your custom water cooled CPU? Please.

i think absed on the obvious superiority of Conroe, the comparability in many of these charts is a surprise. That's all.

zv
Click to expand...


I didn't know you have to build more computers than another person to tell the diffrence between charts and whats performing better... last time I checked they teach those types of things in elementary school.
 
First of all I'm a f@nboy of my wallet... Never spent more then $300 for ANY CPU I've ever had... And that included Cyrix, Via, K2, K3, K5, K6, and yes Intel... So when I wanted a dual core with some balls 6~7months ago and the only option was $300+ X2 3800+, my wallet said: "No way dude"... :mad: Then comes along Conroe, with 2 CPU's under $300, both of which clean toilets with anything AMD has in store at the time, wallet = pleased... :cool:

Now, the "AMD bent over" comment was referring to Intels continuing dominance in 65nm tech, with both C2D and Qauds, and the massive progress they're making with their 45nm tech... Something AMD will not tounch until late 2008....

Either way, I see great times for many people's wallets, no matter what side of the fence you're on...
 
Ockie said:
I didn't know you have to build more computers than another person to tell the diffrence between charts and whats performing better... last time I checked they teach those types of things in elementary school.
Click to expand...

you do to refer to someone as "grasshopper"

hey, however you need to puff up your chest, pal.
 
I've been waiting for 4x4... but not so I can drop $2,000 on a pair of FX processors... but for quad core Socket F Opterons... Honestly, it doesn't suprise me that the FX's are power hogs... they're not designed to be the coolest and most power friendly processors out there. I hope within a year that AMD will have their act together and have released 65nm quad core opties that I can throw into a mature 4x4 board.
 
RexPokinghorn said:
Ugh, I'm not paying a 50% premium over MSRP. I never thought NewEgg would be the type of company to price gouge.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it looks like Newegg has lost their way... I always price check vs froogle and other sites before purchasing now, because Newegg is definitely not as competitive as they used to be.
 
Yeah stay clear of newegg on the QX6700 for sure... thats some insane gouging.
 
RexPokinghorn said:
Ugh, I'm not paying a 50% premium over MSRP. I never thought NewEgg would be the type of company to price gouge.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow it's always out of stock... :eek: :D
Sure, you, I, and most people with fully functional brain, will not buy from them, but there are plenty others that will...
 
I would like to see some real world benches. Fuck 3d and pc mark.. That doesnt tell me a thing.

Show me some gaming benches, some photoshop benches, some winrar benches. REAL things that I actually care about.
 
zero_vertical said:
you do to refer to someone as "grasshopper"

hey, however you need to puff up your chest, pal.
Click to expand...


See, originally I agreed with your point...

But now you're just being a dick.



Sigh, it's too bad that this system will cost more, use more power and probably be a lot louder... Than intel's offering... Poor AMD.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Yet somehow it's always out of stock... :eek: :D
Sure, you, I, and most people with fully functional brain, will not buy from them, but there are plenty others that will...
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem spending $1500 on something like a QX7500, but I really can't justify spending more than what something is worth. That's just stupid :(

Then again, I guess "worth" is subjective.
 
Wow - looks like if I want to spend $2500 to play Doom 3 at 800x600, AMD's 4 x 4 setup is the way to go. :)

Color me underwhelmed. I don't understand how AMD fans can call the QX6700 a hackjob and support this power hungry monstrousity.
 
Looks like I made the jump at the right time. :) Now I have been a supporter of AMD since the K6, but this is insane.
 
fireluxx said:
Looks like I made the jump at the right time. :) Now I have been a supporter of AMD since the K6, but this is insane.
Click to expand...

Same here. QFT to ya bro.
 
I'm happy with my good ole Opty 175 for now... but I hope AMD gets their act together within a year or I'll be looking at a dual quadcore xeon board or something along those lines :confused:
 
not even worth commenting vs retarded !!!!!!s who deny everything. This means shit, the site is probaly a hoax to stir up some false advertising, seeing as the fx series wont come out untill 07.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top