AMD's Quad FX: Technically Quad Core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 30, 2006 1:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
AMD is going to have a very tough sell with Quad FX; although the CPUs are priced competitively, if the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS ends up just shy of the $400 mark it's a platform that is simply too expensive at no benefit to the end user. When only running one or two CPU intensive threads, Quad FX ends up being slower than an identically clocked dual core system, and when running more threads it's no faster than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700. But it's more expensive than the alternatives and consumes as much power as both, combined.
There is the upgrade path argument, that eventually you will be able to put a total of eight cores in this Quad FX platform, but we can't help but wonder if the market for someone who wants a non-workstation 8-core setup for desktop use is a very small one. Although to AMD's credit we were able to create a scenario where even four cores won't cut it, making a case for the need for 8-core setups in the future. But the promise of eight cores in the future doesn't do a great job of justifying the Quad FX purchase today.
For those users who won't migrate to eight cores, once AMD's new micro-architecture debuts next year with native quad-core support, this expensive Quad FX platform will be notably slower than cheaper single socket systems. Quad FX is simply a very niche product, and in the era of power efficiency and performance per watt, AMD has released the proverbial SUV of high end desktops.
AMD hopes to sell more Quad FX processors than any FX processor in the past, which to us means that either AMD sees much more opportunity in this platform than we do, or that the previous FX processors simply didn't sell very well. Either way you slice it, there's only one AMD CPU we're really interested in and we won't get it until the middle of next year. Luckily for AMD, Intel doesn't appear to be doing anything huge between now and then either, so it looks like the CPU wars will cool down for a while after a heated few months.
Prepare to revisit this discussion in less than a year's time, and next time AMD will hopefully be much better prepared, armed with a new architecture and a cooler, smaller 65nm process. Until then, there's always Quad FX but you're better off with Kentsfield.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
Neosis - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
However (in my opinion) since all these four cores share the same 8MB L2 cache and Intel's memory disambiguation forces all cores to use L2 cache more, additional latencies are not significant as the Amd's 4x4 platform. But you are right again that connecting the dies through the FSB requires all die to die communication to go back to the Northbridge and into the system memory. That can be a serios perfomance issue when Amd has competing processers.
mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Kentsfield == 2 Conroes stuck on 1 FSB. They have _separate_ 4M L2 cache. No 8M L2 on the horizon..Neosis - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Where is edit button?The first sentence should be "I think ..."
Neosis - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
I don't think AMD can compete with Kenstfield even with this platform. Enthuiasts usually don't care power consumption and heat problems. A water cooling system (with a large radiator and a strong pump) will do just good. The main concern is neither the power consumption nor the heat problems. When you install two dual core processor, you are going to have performance down due to the increased latency. Nearly in all benchmarks Intel is leading. No suprise that only one motherboard manufacturer was in on.Even though I'm an AMD user, I don't see any particular reason people will buy this. But I can say why not:
- no one knows how long Amd will support this platform. In the past years Amd has beem changing sockets almost each year and half. We know Socket Am3 will use Ddr3.
- pricing
Griswold - Saturday, December 2, 2006 - link
Well the first part isnt quite true or very precise, as for the second part, we also know that AM3 CPUs will run in AM2 sockets (but not vice versa). On top of that, we're talking about Socket F here and not AMx.
If you want to name a good reason to not buy this: The other option is just that much better. End of story. If you want quad AMD, wait 6 months.
Gigahertz19 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
On black Friday I was at Circuit City and some store employee near me was telling this woman who was looking for a computer to make sure she buys a computer with a AMD processor because their faster and all around better. I couldn't stand there and let him lie to that woman so I went over there and told her she needs to buy a comp with a Core 2 Duo and gave my reasons. Then the Circuit City guy went into this rant about AMD and the 5000+ processor and how it's the best, haha apparently he hasn't updated his knowledge for quite sometime. I could of stood there and argued it but I just said okay and walked away, didn't walk to make a scene...plus how geeky would that be arguing over processors in the middle of a store where customers are.Anyways looks like Intel Core 2 Duo tech is the thing to get. I'm stilling running a old XP-M overclocked with a DFI Socket A mobo. I want to upgrade to Core 2 Duo sometime soon probably get the Core 2 E6600 only because it has 4Mb cache and the slower speed ones don't. Overclock that baby to 3GHz which should be a given with the right mobo like the Evga one and I'll have a awesome system, probably buy a X1950 XT or Pro for around $250 then upgrade to DX10 when it gets cheaper.
madnod - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
i am really into AMD and i was buying AMD since the last 4 years, but this time intel isreally pushing ahead.there is a major thing that intel is doing these days and it's really funny to see the way AMD is responding to that, it kinda remind me of the 3DFX approach, start stacking more things that u already have and wish that things will be better.
AMD should expedite their transition to the newer CPU desgin, the current K8 architecture can't keep up with the core technology.
THX - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Very nice tests. I can't believe the power draw AMD is dealing with here.Ecmaster76 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
The pin count of AM2 probably isn't an issue. It has as many pins as 940 which can handle multiple HT links and dual channel memory.AMD just moved it tot he other socket to people from buying the bundled CPUs and selling them individually for a profit. The 2.6 GHz model for example runs about $100 less per chip than the standard X2 does.
punjabiplaya - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Are we going to see updated benchmarks with 64 bit performance and/or Vista and when there is a BIOS fix for the NUMA issues on the board (not the WinXP shortfalls as far as NUMA is concerned, Vista should take care of that)?Just curious.