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
mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
If you would bother to read, you would see those IDLE numbers are Without C'n'C.Witch C'n'C the IDLE number is be more like 250W than 380W.
mino - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - link
Hell, I should REALLY read after myself more thoroughly...JKing76 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
What have you got against pickup trucks?Genx87 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
I think it is safe to say Intel has caught AMD with its pants down this round with their Core 2 Duo line of products. Intels product line is much more compelling and performance\watt is scary good for Intel.Hell Intel's offering must be good, it got me to buy their product for the first time in nearly a decade! ;)
mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Actually not.AMD has caught Intel pants down in 2003. It took Intel 3!!! years to come back to game.
Those 3 yrs Intel was NOT price competitive.
Intel has just caught up in midle of 2006, this was to be expected and WAS expected by AMD.
AMD is about to catch up to Intel after 1 year..
This 1 year AMD IS price competitive, hence it is still in the game..
The 2008 Intel CSI may catch AMD with pants down. May.
Actually, in 2008 AMD will have some 30-35% marketshare and be so well entrenched in the corporate market that some mild performance(as now) hiccup is not gonna hurt them in any serious manner.
Roy2001 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
If you need quad-core/CPU system, kentsfield is a much better choice, no question asked.sprockkets - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Why is it that just putting the other 2 cores on the same package reduces power consumption so much?Anyhow, yeah, Intel is ahead, though this would be good for servers, not for desktops. Even so, Intel for now is still better.
But, I found for perhaps 90% of all people, an old s754 board with a $45 dollar Sempron works fast enough. I wish Anand would check out the new C7 processor mini ITX boards to see how well it works for so little power consumption.
Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
The QX6700 pretty much draws twice as much power as the E6700, the big benefit of going for quad-core in a single system is that you only have one motherboard, harddrive, one set of RAM sticks, one video card, etc. The 4x4 is horribly engineered, I think even 400W at load is too much for two Opterons at 3GHz.mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Two Opterons DO NOT employ 8000GTX usually ...Two Opterons do have 95W TDP(lower voltage) ... compared to 125W for FXs
Two Opterons are available in 68W TDP ...
Two Opterons are NOT available in 3GHz flavour ....
Two Opterons are twice as expensive ....
Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
The 4x4 motherboard, that is...