AMD's Quad FX: Technically Quad Core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 30, 2006 1:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Processors
To complete the brand new Quad FX platform AMD is introducing three new processors today: the Athlon 64 FX-74, FX-72 and FX-70, running at 3.0GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.6GHz respectively. Each physical processor features two cores and a 1MB L2 cache per core, much like previous dual core FX processors, but what sets these CPUs apart from previous FX chips is that they are sold in bundles of two. So when you buy an Athlon 64 FX-74, you are actually buying two dual-core CPUs in a single box. It's not the most elegant way of getting four cores, but it gets the job done and AMD manages to do so at a competitive price. Note that these CPUs are effectively Opterons but with the memory controller configured to support un-buffered DDR2.
The Chip
Core 2 Duo (left) vs. Athlon 64 FX-74 (right), AMD's first LGA desktop CPU
AMD's pricing structure, including the new Quad FX processors, is as follows, with Intel's upper echelon CPUs thrown in for comparison:
| CPU | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | Price |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-74* | 3.0GHz | 1MB per core | $999 |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-72* | 2.8GHz | 1MB per core | $799 |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-70* | 2.6GHz | 1MB per core | $599 |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 | 2.8GHz | 1MB per core | $713 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ | 2.6GHz | 1MB per core | $403 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 | 2.66GHz | 4MB per 2 cores | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600** | 2.40GHz | 4MB per 2 cores | $851 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 | 2.93GHz | 4MB | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 | 2.66GHz | 4MB | $530 |
* Note: These processors come in pairs of two, pricing is for both CPUs
** Note: The Core 2 Quad Q6600 is an unreleased CPU and will be introduced in January 2007.
So for $999 you can either get two dual core 3.0GHz AMD processors, or a single quad core 2.66GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Later we'll figure out which is indeed faster but it seems that AMD's pricing is at least competitive.
The Roadmap
When we first heard that Quad FX wasn't going to be Socket-AM2, we couldn't help but feel that AMD was introducing yet another Socket-940 into the mix. Is there really a future for Quad FX or is it nothing more than a stop-gap solution until native quad-core CPUs arrive?
The Socket
AMD has already committed to supporting two quad-core CPUs in current Quad FX platforms, so there's at least an upgrade path well into 2007, but what happens afterwards?
AMD's most recent roadmaps show continued support for Quad FX throughout 2007; in fact, the highest clock speed AMD CPUs will always be Socket-1207 parts (3.0GHz today and then 3.2GHz by Q2 '07). It looks like AMD is transitioning the Athlon 64 FX line to be exclusively for the Quad FX platform, leaving all other chips for AM2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Yay for speech recognition!indigenous = enthusiast
we are see = we are seeing
Scratch a couple "basically" from the last paragraph.
yyrkoon - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
I though Gary was the "one" with the Texas "Twang" ;)laok - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
The current 4x4 does not look to be a mature system to me. Wait until 65nm 4x4 comes out and hopefully a better chipset will be available at that time. 65W x 2 is reasonable, 130W x2 is kinda too much.And I also want to know how 4x4 compares to dual dual-core opteron with the same frequence: performance, power consumption etc.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
It's the same chip as the Opteron, with the memory controller changed to work with unbuffered memory.JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
The first word of his subject is the best advice: WAIT! Even if the future might get better, does anyone want to spend $1000+ on what may or may not turn out to be the better platform? When the new CPUs are available, then we can evaluate and decide. Of course, once AMD launches their quad core processors, I'm almost certain that our advice will be that most people only need a single socket motherboard and CPU anyway -- if that. Many people still get by a single core CPU, and the number of people that actually need more than dual CPUs is very small, at least in the desktop workspace.DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
This is the best AMD can do against Kentsfield? They get stomped on in every benchmark, cost more, and draw nearly twice as much power. No one in their right mind would buy this over a Core2Quad. Whomever came up with this product should be fired.The last time I laughed this hard at a CPU/platform launch was when Intel rolled out the P4 dual core CPUs, and at least they came out on time in some of the multimedia benchmarks.
For the record, my current system is running an Opteron 165, so I ain't no Intel fanboy.
photoguy99 - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
You're right it's actually embarrasing isn't it?If AMD's next-gen architecture improves performance by 30% at same clock, which is huge, they still won't take the lead.
And it seems Intel is done sitting on their hands, they are working like hell to dominate again by the time K8L ramps up big.
People hate hearing this but think it's over for AMD.
And like you, for the record, my current system is an FX-60 so I'm also no Intel fanboy.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
...came out on top...photoguy99 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Seriously, I'd like to know who is selling them...Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
That such a badly engineered product was rushed out to reviewers just to have a paper launch. Did AMD believe that no one would make a big deal about the power draw? Or maybe it expected no one to even look at power draw. I was actually impressed by what AMD had accomplished with 4x4, after all, the 3.0GHz Quad FX parts were close to the QX6700, until I saw the insane power draw. Two loaded FX-62 systems (whole systems, mind you) draw about the same power as 4x4 does IDLE!