AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 & Quad FX Platform Review

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,620
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.

The AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 and Quad FX platform are exactly what many hardware enthusiasts have always wanted. 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. 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.


The Quad FX ain’t your momma’s PC.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Laserbait said:
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
Click to expand...

All of that is coming in time. OCing, Vista, etc.
 
without sound like a total homo...
Click to expand...
Engrish? :p
Typo on the way bottom about the Christmas present.
Anyways, another quality article.
I wonder how this is all gonna turn out.
 
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
 
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..
 
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. :(
 
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?
 
chris.c said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Paul_Jastrzebski said:
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!
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!!!! That does it then, Q6700 here I come. Drop in upgrade on the DS3 now :D
 
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?

Our real world testing today disproves my preconceptions entirely, and shows that in quite a few cases, the FX-74 is as fast, or even faster than the QX6700
Click to expand...

how many is quite a few cause i seem to have seen intel winning "quite" a few more then AMD...........
 
MrGuvernment said:
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...........
Click to expand...

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
 
Paul_Jastrzebski said:
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!
Click to expand...

LMAO anyways how hot were those processors getting?
 
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?
 
chris.c said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are NOT going to see that with 90nm AND processors, or likely anything close to it without extreme cooling.
 
MrGuvernment said:
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...........
Click to expand...

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....
 
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!
 
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.
 
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!
 
: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.
 
Mr. Stryker said:
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. :(
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
harpoon said:
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

1164762316TkkLXtB7nv_6_2.gif

1164762316TkkLXtB7nv_9_1.gif

1164762316TkkLXtB7nv_9_2.gif

1164762316TkkLXtB7nv_9_3.gif


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
^^ 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:
 
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.
 
mzs_biteme said:
^^ Ditto on that....
Intel is the CLEAR winner here from many points of view...
Click to expand...
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?
 
Psychotext said:
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?
Click to expand...

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: ;)
 
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.
 
Kyle other reviews have show at higher resolutions the fx out performing the intel quad in gaming could you run some high resolution gaming tests and see if thats true the other sites have been in other languages.
 
moshpit said:
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).
Click to expand...

QFT.

The power consumption is ridiculous. If you didn't know better, you'd swear that was a pair of Pentium D (8xx) series chips!

There is nothing compelling about 4x4. It runs hotter, uses more juice (a LOT more), and is SLOWER to boot. Coupled with the pricing and limited availability, I can conclude only a diehard AMD fanatic would even consider this platform.

Disappointing is an understatement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top