bit-tech.net

AMD releases QuadFX platform

Published on 30th November 2006 by Wil Harris

QuadFX me.

AMD has put out the details of its 4x4 platform for enthusiasts, and it looks... interesting.

Dubbed Quad FX, for those who haven't heard about it, it's two dual-core Opterons plugged together with Dual Socket Direct Connect. The platform doesn't use registered memory, and supports Quad-SLI, using the NVIDIA 680a chipset.

We haven't had a chance to go hands on with a unit yet - ours is arriving tomorrow, so we're told - but the initial performance previews are a mixed bag.

HardOCP seems to think that it's pretty good, saying that it's difficult to call a winner between Kentsfield - Intel's Quad Core chip - and the 4x4.

Legit Reviews is more pessimistic, saying that "By doubling the scores across the board AMD was able to catch up to Intel's latest quad-core processors in a number of benchmarks, but it's clear from our use of both system that Intel still has the lead when it comes to 'quad' platforms."

Xbit Labs are even harsher: "In other words, AMD Quad FX will most likely appeal only to the most dedicated AMD fans. For everyone else this platform will most likely be none other but a unique desktop system prototype showing the possibility (or maybe even uselessness) of introducing AMD’s server technologies into the desktop sector."

The other downside of the platform seems to be the power requirements - we are talking double the power requirements of an Intel Quad core system to achieve performance that is apparently the same or worse.

We'll be sure to let you know what we think of it when we've had a chance to play tomorrow. What's your thoughts on Quad FX? Let us know over in the forums.

30 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply

overdosedelusion 30th November 2006, 15:39

its just a stop gap me thinks, just something to compete with kentsfield until their quad core chip is released

zoom314 30th November 2006, 15:57

Too expensive for Me, they may as well abort this one as It's a dead duck here.

TMM 30th November 2006, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by overdosedelusion
its just a stop gap me thinks, just something to compete with kentsfield until their quad core chip is released

I can't see why they would want to replace 4x4 with a quadcore CPU (other then the obvious cost benefits, but pfft this is AthlonFX, who cares?) - with 4x4 there is two memory controllers so you have twice the bandwidth available rather then having 4 cores all trying to access the same memory bus.

section8 30th November 2006, 16:00

I thought that the 4x4 chip was NOT going to be two cores strapped together?!?!?!? That was why AMD was going to be different from Intel? Maybe that was jsut a rumour...

_DTM2000_ 30th November 2006, 16:00

You really do get the impression that this is just a knee jerk, cobbled together attempt to keep up with Intel. I have always preferred AMD over Intel but recently AMD seemed to have lost the plot a little. I really hope QuadFX is as overdosedelusion said just a stop gap to help AMD catch up in the processor race.

Mother-Goose 30th November 2006, 16:02

Yeh, you think a quad intel costs a fair wack, then you look at 2 FX's, it is insane!

section8 30th November 2006, 16:04

Who has got them up for sale? Not yet surely?!

LoneArchon 30th November 2006, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mother-Gooser
Yeh, you think a quad intel costs a fair wack, then you look at 2 FX's, it is insane!

The new fx chips will ship in pairs so the price will not be to bad for each chip. Anandtech stated MSRP at $999 a pair for the FX-74. So the cost of the system will be around the same cost as the C2D X6800. Performance wise i think the extra memory bandwidth will help in some areas but I will wait and see the benchmarks to see how it will stacks up

section8 30th November 2006, 16:20

Hmmm I still think AMD are crapping out... Maybe just a little bit... I used to be a massive AMD fanboy... Not Conroe is looking sweeter! Still tho, COME ON AMD!!!

ychamp 30th November 2006, 16:24

well i used to be an amd fanboy but now that my mobo got vurned i'm replacing my opteron with an e6300. sticking with amd doesn;t come over price per performance ratio :( :(

ChromeX 30th November 2006, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by _DTM2000_
I have always preferred AMD over Intel but recently AMD seemed to have lost the plot a little. I really hope QuadFX is as overdosedelusion said just a stop gap to help AMD catch up in the processor race.

To be honest i've always been an intel fanboy and its not that AMD have lost the plot, they're a damn good company, its just that intel have decided to do some work instead of living off there name. The prescott was a disaster and they're just showing they can do the business when they need to! Plus amd have been busy with the whole ati thing so thats not helped I guess.

Mother-Goose 30th November 2006, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneArchon
The new fx chips will ship in pairs so the price will not be to bad for each chip. Anandtech stated MSRP at $999 a pair for the FX-74. So the cost of the system will be around the same cost as the C2D X6800. Performance wise i think the extra memory bandwidth will help in some areas but I will wait and see the benchmarks to see how it will stacks up

That, I did not realise. Thankyou for pointing it out

sicone 30th November 2006, 16:31

I've just bought my first ever Intel chip in the 15years I've owned PC's and I have to say that even if the 4x4 was available (and I could afford it), I would still have gone with the Core 2

BlueDemon 30th November 2006, 18:16

Another nice editorial can be found on PC Perspective: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=329&type=expert

Power consumption appears to be ludicrously high for similar performance compared to Intel. This should scare away consumers and business users alike.

DXR_13KE 30th November 2006, 18:42

useless.... pointless.... weak.... i hope AMD recovers soon.... i would hate to see intel have the monopoly of high end cpus.

aggies11 30th November 2006, 18:54

Read the Hard article.

Interesting.

Dual core Athlons can't really touch Conroe, but when you put two of them together they can make up alot of ground and come up pretty much even.

The biggest point here is then: AMD's architecture may scale better into the multi core realm? Ie. with the potential to drop in 2xquadcore chips, for a total of 8, the differences may be even more pronounced.

Of course few of us are running mega 3dstudio renders, so the benefits of 8 and n-core are largely abstract at this point.

The article makes a comparisson that the New 4x4 is much like the Hummer vehicles. Big, ugly, fuel innefficient, but powerfull. They really don't make much "sense", and yet they are strangely popular (In North America at least). Maybe AMD 4x4 will be the same?

Show me a majority of apps and games that will benefit totally from Dual-core, before I'll even blink at any of these *extreme* setups though.

Aggies

zoom314 30th November 2006, 19:08

Now since this quad fx(FX74) at 3.0GHz can't be overclocked very far(3.1 and crash Tom said. Maybe a better cooling setup would help, I don't know really), I'd get like Tom hardware said the FX70 package as It may overclock to 2.8, 2.9 or maybe 3.0 and It'll save $400, Of course one will need 4 ddr2-800 dimms, But then One can get what they need or think they need. But this will require a hefty psu between 750w and at least 1kw to power this beast.

Nikumba 30th November 2006, 19:20

The thing is by the time AMD get their true quad core out the door, Intel with have there and be in the process of shunting their chip production of 65nm to 45nm.

To be honest the 4x4 should not be compared to the Kentsfield as its not really a like for like situation.

Better comparison would be against Clovertown Xeons as that would be dual core chip on a dual socket mobo, esp since the 4x4 is designed for the Opertrons

Kimbie

moshpit 30th November 2006, 19:34

Boo on Quad FX! Boo, I tell ya! In the forums at HardOCP where they're discussing the [H]'s preview, their CPU editor mentions that the QuadFX killed one of their 500 watt PSU's he had sitting around to test with. Smoked it. Boo. Boo, AMD, just plain boo.

Neogumbercules 30th November 2006, 19:38

The 500 watt idle power consumption is scary.

DXR_13KE 30th November 2006, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogumbercules
The 500 watt idle power consumption is scary.

that should be forbidden.

edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by [H
]The Quad FX was using 400 watts at idle! This alone is a enough to kill any but the best 550w power supplies over time.

400W but still very scary.

Cthippo 1st December 2006, 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neogumbercules
The 500 watt idle power consumption is scary.

Yeah, but a significant chunk of that is going to the quad SLI video cards and probably just running all those fans. It's a stopgap, and I predict K8L will wipe the floor with Kentsfield, but just give it time.

Stwongbad 1st December 2006, 03:01

More like feckin supersize me if you know what I mean. All amd can try and do now is try to play catchup now that intel has the upperhand again.

r4tch3t 1st December 2006, 03:49

but wait, if I am thinking correctly, shouldn't you be able to use native quad cores in these when hey come out? If so you could still double your performance (or close enough) if you wanted to.

Cthippo 1st December 2006, 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by r4tch3t
but wait, if I am thinking correctly, shouldn't you be able to use native quad cores in these when hey come out? If so you could still double your performance (or close enough) if you wanted to.

I'm wondering about that too. What socket are these chips / boards going to be and what is their future upgrade path?

More to the point (for me anyway), what is AMD saying about the future of the Opteron platform and Socket 940 (not AM2). I just hit their site and they are showing an evolutionary split between DDR1 and DDR2 based Opteron chips, which is the first I've heard of it.

What is your understanding?

Sol Badguy 1st December 2006, 06:41

its hard to stay faithful to AMD, but i still have a good 8 months before i do a full upgrade. so we'll see what they can do. does anyone know if they are to improve theyre X2 line to compete better with core 2duo/extreme? or do they have something else brewing to blow core 2 out of the water. because upgrading to quad core is just ridicoulous no matter if its Intel or AMD. no one will need that kind of processing power unless you do some serious 3d editing, modeling, movie, blah blah etc etc.

p.s where are those Crosshair impressions you promised

Iago 1st December 2006, 12:15

According to [H]ardOCP, system consumption with a couple of those FX and ONE 8800GTX is 400W at idle and 500+ at load but with the GPU idling.

When gaming, I guess that same system (with only ONE GPU) would easily get to 600W+

vacuum cleaner much? It's simply outrageous, me thinks...

Sloth 2nd December 2006, 06:13

As was said this is most likely a quick catch-up so they can squeeze a little more profit in before releasing truly quad core chips and AM3 platform, DDR3, and the good new stuff... but remember fanboys, AMD will only get better price:performance ratios if you fund them by buying AMD products ;)

speedfreek 2nd December 2006, 21:15

I cant believe how much power all this stuff is taking to run, Im just waiting for watercooling to become a nesscity and phase change commonplace.

-equilerex- 2nd December 2006, 21:32

ffs, why the hell did they need this? they should have spent that cash on research and developing new architecture and coming up with something new to keep up with intel. sucks to be amd fanboy atm