Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Affordable Quad Core: AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 vs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700
AMD doesn't have any quad-core CPUs on the market today, but you can get four cores in a single motherboard by going with a Quad FX platform. AMD's attempt at building a enthusiast class dual socket, dual core platform is far from the most elegant solution in the world, but it does provide an interesting upgrade path. The Quad FX platform uses Socket-1207 CPUs and will be able to be upgraded to dual quad-core chips when they are available, giving you eight cores on a desktop motherboard. Intel has a similar offering called V8, but the AMD Quad FX platform uses standard desktop DDR2 memory which makes it infinitely more attractive.
The problem with Quad FX is that the motherboard is expensive, the whole platform consumes a great deal of power, and you can just as easily get a single socket, quad-core solution from Intel for less money. We haven't revisited Quad FX vs. Quad-Core since AMD introduced the platform, and since then there have been some price cuts on both sides of the fence. AMD now sells two Socket-1207 Athlon 64 FX-74 processors (3.0GHz) at $599 for the pair, making it quite cost competitive with Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6700 ($530).
If we forget about the added cost of a Quad FX motherboard for the moment, how do the two similarly priced processors stack up? The chart below shows the performance advantage/disadvantage the Q6700 holds compared to the FX-74:
That's not very pretty for AMD. The Athlon 64 FX-74 ends up being 1.1% faster in Cinebench but on average, the Q6700 is 14.1% faster than the more expensive Quad FX platform. The only benefit you get with Quad FX is the ability to eventually upgrade it to eight cores, but in our opinion for the majority of users the upgrade path is simply not enough to justify the means to get there.
Taking advantage of four cores on the desktop is tough enough today, and if you really need 8 cores today buying a platform that will support it in the future isn't going to help make your applications faster now. The market for Quad FX continues to be limited and our original recommendation from the first Quad FX review stands: you're better off with Intel's quad-core.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
again, you're probably right if the silent PC is build with dual core CPU. in my case I've got single core CPU since I don't need any dual core functionality (I mostly play games like Doom 3 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.), and while dual cores from intel are very solid choice for silent PC - single cores from Intel pretty much suck. hence my choice of AMD San Diego single core chip - that chip turned out to be the best "price/performance/watt for gaming" ratio I could find on ebay :) again, this is all about single core CPUs. I have no idea how the picture looks for dualcores, probably Intel got stronger offer here - by the time I'm about to upgrade to dual core Phenom would be around and we'll see again who wins - AMD very often wins by better price, even when their CPUs are slightly inferior to Intel onesutube545 - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Oh, STFU already, you dumb fanboyPirks - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
what, you forgot to put some lube on your blue intel dildo again?Zak - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Looks like the Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz) is a decent pick for gaming machine until games take full advantage of quad-core CPU.Z.
jay401 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Or if you're a budget-conscious gamer, pick up an E4400 for less than half the price and run it at 3.0GHz/1333fsb (drop the multiplier to 9x) which seems to be a pretty common and easy oc with any motherboard capable of 1333fsb.Should show little or no performance difference considering the only hardware difference is it has half the cache which doesn't seem to impact games much if at all.
sprockkets - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Yep, you want a nice fast platform, get Intel. But I've tested power usage of my Abit nview + 3800+ dual core 65nm processor from AMD, and it takes around 115 watts of energy at full load.I think nowadays either you get an ATX gaming system or now try to build the smallest and quietest and coolest mini itx system since they are powerful enough now for most.
bobbyto34 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Yeah for normal home usage, it is interessant to find the best power consumption/ price / performance Ratio.AMD X23800+ @ 65€ was an excellent bargain (good performances ingame, though not as good as C2D).
In some cases, you want only raw performance: usually for work, less time spent waiting, gives you more productivity. At work we have to treat 1gigabyte text files, so the E6700 rocks vs other stations we have (A64 3000+ or P4 3.2Ghz) !
kataras - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Hello, just wanted to know is this the Core 2 Duo CPU which has no IHS (internal heatsink) on. Was it hard to remove it, do you need special tools? Did it decrease the temp significantly? I am asking this because i am thinking of either removing IHS or lapping my E6320 as it runs really hot indeed. i would be very pleased if you could answer my questions regarding IHS.Thanks
Ron
AMDfreak - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
You can find lots of info about removing the IHS over a the xtremesystems.org forums.microAmp - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
"... whole 7MHz faster than its predecessor may..." on page 2. Should be 70Mhz faster.