Friday, December 01, 2006

Quad FX for $2000

AMD Power! George Ou at ZNET was dancing like crazy saying Quad FX was "slaughtered" by Intel's double cheeseburger. Idiot. Quad FX is never designed to be a little sports car for ladies in pink. Quad FX is for big masculine men who like to drive Hummers which can last 10 years under combat conditions. Gas mileage is a non issue in this case. It's horse power, torque and towing weight that matter.

You can't compare a Ford F150 truck (AMD 4x4) to a Volkswagen (Intel) by speed alone. Try throw some weight at the system, you will find Intel choked down. An Intel system doesn't have enough bandwidth to handle DDR2 800. The 4x4 can allow 4 gamers play 4 different games at the same time without a glitch.

I expect Quad FX to become a cheaper server alternative. 12 SATA drives, 8TB, cheap ram, one such beast can handle 8000 Google mail users or more. With 100,000 such machines, you can kill Google.

Retarded dudes like Anand (who proudly discovered negative scaling on MySQL--adding CPU leads to lower performance) would reach retarded conclusions. But true multitasking benchmarks would show Quad FX fragging anything Intel has in stock. As I said long time ago, the right way to measure multitasking performance is to launch multiple instances of the same program and measure the completion time. In this case, one should launch four copies of the same program at the same time.

77 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Power consumption doesn't matter? But when Intel processors consumed more power than their AMD counterparts, it did matter didn't it Sharikou? Since AMD uses more power now it doesn't matter? Hah.

9:57 PM, December 01, 2006  
Blogger Jori said...

Its a complete waste right now when the Quad Core 2 still beats it when its clocked even slower. It has high energy use, and no benefits over Quad Core 2, except for the massive amounts of SATA ports and the 4 PCI-E ports.

10:24 PM, December 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh wait, so Quad FX outperforms Kentsfield?

11:19 PM, December 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What more, Quad FX doubles as a space heater! You really do get something extra by buying Quad FX over Intel's unsuitably cool running Kentsfield

11:37 PM, December 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's horse power and torque that matter

But Quad FX was slaughtered by Intel Kensfield which has much more horse power and torque.

11:48 PM, December 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom's CPU benches for Core2Q vs. Quadfx. Not even close, C2Q takes the QFX out back and beats it like a stepchild.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=604&model2=609&chart=188

11:58 PM, December 01, 2006  
Blogger Mikolaj said...

The problem is that it is not a horse power and energy cost money.
AMD is late with 65nm and instead of producing QuadFX they should deliver more X2-s to the shops. If you cannot win on price, performance, energy save - where is the reason to play?
QuadFX is a crap - I think first crap in AMD history...

12:16 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quad FX may not have been originally designed to fight Kentsfield, but it does. In this regard the Intel system will win, unless you multi-task for an army.

It's a good indicator for 'Octo FX' as a cheap workstation platform - if you run Vista, anyway.

2:46 AM, December 02, 2006  
Blogger N4CR said...

Pretty cheap for dual fx's... nice.

I'd buy it because the asus board they featured on hardocp looks so darn sexy and gruntus. When you're buying that sorta power a few % ain't doing a world of difference. And obviously a power bill means nothing for you as an enthusiast, even so it's pretty piggish.

Can't wait to see the scores the 8 way K8L setups will have next year. muahahaah!

Loving the 16 way task manager in the AMD virutual/K8L thread.

2:56 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're really clutching at straws now, aren't you?

First you claimed that 4x4 would revolutionise the industry and finally kill off Intel for good. It turned out to be just a cheaper and more enthusiast-oriented version of Opteron. Which wouldn't be so bad if AMD actually admitted that was what they were trying to do.

Then you claimed that using the awe-inspiring power of NUMA and HyperTransport, it would wipe out the Core 2 Quad. And guess what? Even with a NUMA-aware OS, it still performs (at best) barely as well as a processor clocked nearly 400MHz slower.

Also, you keep shrieking about how when K8L rolls around, we'll be able to run oct-core systems. But with hardly any software using even four threads right now, what are the odds that you're going to be able to take advantage of having that many cores?

And now you're claiming that 4x4 isn't supposed to actually be better that Kentsfield, it's just for showing off how big your balls are?

3:19 AM, December 02, 2006  
Blogger Reuben said...

Two problems with your SMP, "Sucks More Power", monster:
1) According to most reviews the system consumes 600+Watts at load. No one wants to sit in a room/office around that heater!

http://www17.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page12.html

2) The computer is slower than a Quad core. Just like HUMMERs, SMP owners are expecting to be bigger and faster than anyone else at the lan party. Unfortunately, when your SMP is 10 frames slower than the Intel Quad Core, you cannot boast about anything.
http://www17.tomshardware.com/2006/11/30/brute_force_quad_cores/page8.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879

Wait, I was wrong, you can boast... "My rig sucks 600+ Watts at full load dude!"

Note: I am not an "Intel fanboy". I crunch SETI and follow the price/performance ratio very closely. When the AMD quad's come out, I will be first in line if they can out perform Intel. I run a dual Xeon 5120 workstation @ 2.7Ghz on air currently. The system cost me $1300. I outperform anything AMD has on the market. It's even called "FourxFour", look for it in the SETI@Home top computer list.

3:31 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bah! you're talking non-sense. 4x4 is no better than kentsfield as opposed to what you preached/predicted.

google the reviews/benchmark dude..

3:46 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi,
you should add something to your article "4x4 will frag kentsfield".
regards

4:12 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too bad Quad FX has neither of those...
Summing up, Quad FX is:
damn slow
damn expensive
damn hot
damn loud
damn power consuming

4:16 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you get it to 2000$? And just having 2 sticks of memory on 4X4 is plain stupid, so you need to buy dubble up.


Anywho, just the AMD enthusiast would consider WxW.

5:40 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's horse power and torque that matter."

Of which QuadFX has very little of. Around the level of an electric wheelchair.

5:51 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

--yes... less performance for 2x the power consumption. this machine is for the "enthusiast" who thinks AMD can do no wrong. you are a sad AMD apologist.

6:51 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sharichump: you claimed 4X4 was "90% faster than Conroe in 90% of the benchmarks". Were you intentionally lying or just ignorant?

Also, you post that "By the time Kentfield is out, AMD will have true quadcore already, and 4x4 will have 8 cores". Again, was this a bold face lie or ignorance on your part?

7:23 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What can I say, i've seen biased blogs but this is the funniest. What can I say.. Mr.Sharikou, you're an idiot, a brainless reporter wannabe who can't distiguish a processor from the keys to your home, your ability to report is strictly limited to what uncle Ruiz (actually the marketing department) wants you to think.

Core is a GREAT architecture, FAR better than AMD's K8, period, there's no doubt about it, the only problem is that its expensive ATM (like all new processors), AMD had its share of the best processor for almost 3 years and they'be been great at it (I OWN a 64 3800+), but you can't compete when the other
company delivers a great product.

I'll have to see K8L, at the moment, for all we can see.. K8 is dead from the performance point of view, bon voyage, it was good while it lasted.. now AMD is doing what Intel did for 3 years, trying to squeeze a little more speed from that antique architecture, trying to catch up with the competiton.. COME ON, you've seen Intel doing that and YOU SHOULD KNOW! it won't work!.

For all the FX-74 fanboys, yes, you can get both processors for $999 (est. I haven't seen lots of them to be honest, but let's be fair, those top of the line processors aren't easy to get) but you also have to change your mobo (at least i can upgrade my P965 to support an Extreme Edition por at most $200) to one manufactured by ONLY ONE company (Asus).. how much will this mobo cost ? .. less than 200 ?.. don't think so..

Oh, almost forgot, to those who say "but the integer performance of the AMD64 is better, and if i want to do some serious job, Opteron is the way to go".. nonsense, if I want to do some serious job, I'd get a P5 or a T1, or some real integer-crunching machines.. plus, I wouldn't care much about the cost, after all.. the job's the only thing important, not who made the processor.

Did I mention this blog is laughable at ?.. did i ?.. oh yes, this blog is laughable at .. Sharikou, go get yourself a nice K5-133 and convince yourself that it's the best processor ever..

7:24 AM, December 02, 2006  
Blogger Dave said...

Well, you've certainly changed your tone. I remember back when P4's were current, power consumption was evil and destroying the planet. Why the sudden change of attitude?

I realize that Intel has done some bad things, as a company. But that doesn't mean you should just throw away your credibility(what little is now left of it) and your beliefs about things like power consumption, efficiency, performance per watt, etc...

The fact is, Intel has the faster processor out right now. They've had it out for a few months. Yes, AMD has one coming that will probably beat it, but currently, Intel leads in both performance and performance per watt.

You should really try to regain your style of writing from about a year ago. more relevant news, more accurate(although a bit skewed) analasis's of new products and news items. That's what drew people to this blog, and that's what people want to see.

7:42 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thermaltake Toughpower 750 Watt V2.01 Power Supply [SLI Ready]
8)

1024MB [512MB X2] DDR2-800 PC6400 Memory Module Corsair-Value or Major Brand More Options
A $2000 system with just 512MB usable RAM per PC?

3D Premium Surround Sound Onboard
*tinny noise*

[Black] Logitech X-530 5.1 Surround Speakers + Subwoofer
Enjoy your tin at 200 decibels!

No Monitor


No Firewire
Great, a POS motherboard with a POS CPU. Now we can totally make up the time in waiting for USB with quad!

No Power Protection
The poor souls:(

You get what you pay for.

8:53 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, QuadFX is for *men with no brains*, never mind how much 'muscle' they do or don't have.

PC Magazine just rated QuadFX an 'F'. They did their best to say completely useless garbage -- "if you need 9 TB of disk and 8 monitors..." i.e. "total waste".

Not only is QuadFX a horrible product, it is also alienating Opteron customers as AMD is pricing Opteron processors at fire sale for QuadFX.

The ever-slipping KL8 will not be any sort of salvation for AMD. It is the sign of a company that cannot build and ship new technology because the original Opteron team is gone.

Unless AMD turns it around, I am moving back to Intel. I'd like one easily cooled low power quad-core processor. That works for 99% of what I do. AMD can keep their high complexity, high cost, high noise, high power usage garbage. The only thing QuadFX is good at is increasing your utility bill.

Unfortunately for AMD, all QuadFX has done is cement in everyone's mind that AMD is the company that just doesn't get it.

AMD poured hundreds of millions of dollars of "green" marketing down the drain by putting out QuadFX, the Ford Excursion of microprocessors.

9:42 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And like Hummers, it's for guys who are compensating for an extremely small penis.

11:14 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No comments yet...


Why not comment as penix or anonymous to make it look like that there are like minded bloggers out there.

-funnyguy

11:29 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With a numa enhanced os Quad FX is pretty decent. However, it doesn't matter what you say, you can't justify the power consumption. If they both (QX6700 and Quad FX) consumed the same amount of power Quad FX would actually be a rather attractive solution, especially the FX-70 due to being much cheaper than kentsfield. The problems is that the motherboard burns power like two boards and the processors also consume a lot of power, even at 2.6 Ghz.

11:58 AM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Holonist said...

"I expect Quad FX to become a cheaper server alternative. 12 SATA drives, 8TB, cheap ram, one such beast can handle 8000 Google mail users or more. With 100,000 such machines, you can kill Google."

Quote on our host ...


With 100,00 machines like that you will be pulling 80k+ Kwatts/h ... the only thing you will be killing its your bank account .

12:16 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With 100,000 such machines, you can kill Google.
Literally, with all that heat.:K

12:20 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha, you are an idiot

12:34 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The 4x4 can allow 4 gamers play 4 different games at the same time without a glitch."

It doesn't take much to have 4 versions of solitaire in play at once, or do you have some actual demo that what you said is true (yet alone even needed)

I would like to see the quad FX for 2K... $600 for the low end chips/350mobo is 1/2 of that budget... throw in 4 graphics card to run your 4 simultaneous games, minimum of 4 RAM sticks to run dual channel mode on both CPUs either 1GB or 2 GB each, a 1K power supply, 12 750GB harddrives (isn't this alone ~$2K), and then all the random stuff (case, optical drive, extra cooling fans to push the massive 4GPU, 2CPU heat). And all of this is $2K? Please configure this 2K system for us...

And on a side note for the Hummer I assume you mean the origninal Hummer and not the H2/H3 which are glorified SUV's which use SUV frames... I find your analogy apt in one specific area - when you consider fuel efficiency of a Hummer and then look at power consumption of 4x4.

1:03 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kentsfield outperforms 4x4 in most things that matter-that's true enough. Kentsfield is even clocked slower-that's VERY difficult to debate. Haha. I made a funny.

But think for a moment what kind of predictions anyone sane (no offense) would have made about 4x4 3.0ghz on 90nm AMD processors versus Kentsfield.

I, for one, am suitably impressed-they fared better than I thought they would. Of course, they still fail in comparison. The power draw is the thing that kills it in my eyes.

IMHO, it sucks. It just doesn't suck quite as bad as everyone thinks it does. And if you know someone who wants to buy one...by all means, let them buy one.

Also, I'd be curious to see if anyone can get the FX-70s to overclock decently-it'd save $400 or so, wouldn't it?

Not that I'd buy one myself. *shudder* Don't have that kind of cash, either. But I'm still curious.

2:12 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL the Pretender is more stupid then even his exploding lap tops and BK statements with this one.

Yup you want that 4x4.

2:49 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's look at Sharikou's past comments on 4x4:

"AMD64 4x4 ready to frag Conroe XE by 60%....the 4x4 will outperform Con XE 6800+ by about 64%. In other words, Intel needs at least a Conroe at 2.93*1.6 = 4.8GHZ to compete against 4x4 at 2.8GHZ." (6/17/06 Blog)

"Only a handful of people in the world can explain why and how DCA is better. The rest will just enjoy the fact that their 4x4 computer frags Conroe by 60% at lower cost."
(comments in 6/17/06 blog)

"4x4 will have the more effect on INTEL. Con XE 6800 will be sold at $300." (comments in 6/17/06 blog)

"Yes. That's true. But remember, there are people who needs two FX62s, or those who buy one FX62 and buy one more when they have the money." (cooments in 6/17/06)

This was back in the days where you were ASSUMING AMD would allow this to happen (you also were assuming you could drop in X2 3800's as well)... but of course AMD was nice enough to do a socket change to screw all of the AM2 FX owners...

"Alienware shows 4x4 power, Conroe does not worth mentioning. It's highly probable that a K8L chip will be used in 4x4 demo." (Blog - "4x4 is the game in town", 10/09/06)

Highly probable? The funny thing this was <2 months ago, just a bit off prognosticating...and when you said "show power" I didn't think you meant shows power consumption.

"4x4 almost doubles system performance with the efficiency of the Direct Connect Architecture. As both AMD and Intel are expected to be closely matched in multi-core CPU development, 4x4 is a long term solution to pin Intel at 50% of AMD's performance on the desktop." (6/10/06)

I may have misread the benchmarks - can you show me where Intel is at 50% of the 4x4 again?

"If you look at AMD's AM2 chips, they have even higher potential value
2) They support 4x4. You can't get that from anywhere else." (6/10/06)

Actually you can't get that anywhere, not even with AMD! So much for all those past upgradeability, buy 'em one chip at a time, use a cheap 3800 and frag Intel, eh?

In fairness to AMD, I would like to point out AMD NEVER stated that 4x4 would use AM2, it was just all of the fanboys assuming it would to paint a better picture of 4x4.

"AMD 4x4 will command the desktop high end also." (6/08/06)

Indeed it will command........power consumption!

"AMD's Henri Richard stated at Computex that 4x4 will soon get an upgrade.

"This platform, which is second to none, will soon be (upgraded to) '8x4,'" Richard said. "It will have eight CPUs very, very soon."

This was June 06, by very, very soon this means more than 1 year later?

"Of course, the AMD 4x4 technology will permanently pin Intel at half of AMD's performance." (6/5/06)

Permanently pin Intel at 50%...interesting analysis...

"AMD's 4x4 technology gives you near 100% improvement at the blink of an eye." (6/04/06)

And by near 100% you meant?

"I estimate a 4x4 motherboard will cost $150-$200" (6/4/06)

Just a bit off...

"Those CPUs with 4x4 stickers can sell with a 20% premium." (6/02/06)

Funny isn't the paired approach selling at lower than the old FX pricing scheme (at $700-$1000/chip). Doesn't sound like a 20% premium to me....

"Others may just start with one CPU, reserving the right to add another one." (6/02/06)

"I hope it can mixed CPUs, say one dual core and one quad-core, or a dual-core and an FPGA co-processor. Or, you can have one 4GHZ single core CPU for single threaded games, and one dual core for multithreaded ones. I also wonder about the rumored inverse threading." (6/01/06)

Hopes and dreams and rampant, unsubstantiated, speculation.

"The AMD 4x4 technology will give AMD 80% higher performance on 80% of the benchmarks." (6/01/06)

No comment necessary - actually, I do have one, don't mistake INQ as an actual news source!

2:49 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best way to kill Google with 4x4s is to sneak a bunch of 4x4s into the Google HQ, and run them 24/7.
Google will go bankrupt when the electricity bill arrives:D

3:24 PM, December 02, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Kentsfield outperforms 4x4 in most things that matter-that's true enough. Kentsfield is even clocked slower-that's VERY difficult to debate.

Well, you may find a volkswagen or a dodge neon faster than a Ford F150 truck, but the F150 will crush either any day. Quad FX is for men who need a lot of payload to be delivered.

3:29 PM, December 02, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Then you claimed that using the awe-inspiring power of NUMA and HyperTransport, it would wipe out the Core 2 Quad.

If you pay attention, Core 2 Quad was beaten by Core 2 Duo in most benchmarks. This only means that benchmarks are primitive in measuring systemn capability. A motorcycle is faster than a Ford F150, but only on speed. Once you measure other things, the motor cycle becomes less attractive. Try do something heavy duty -- and see who wins. To see the strength of Quad FX you need to run at least five heavy duty tasks at a time.

3:43 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD should have tried hard to release this with 65nm. This can not be used as a server alternative with such poor performance/watt.

Personally I thought that AMD with DCA and HT would scale at 80-85%, I was very disappointed with the scaling, it was actually worse than Intel's QX scaling.

I think AMD should rethink the use of bigger cashes in K8L. Also, AMD should target 3.0-3.2 GHZ clock speed for it's K8L quad release.

AMD needed K8L yesterday and 65nm in middle 2006, not now.

Yes AMD is still making profit and will have good profits coming from ATI, but the core business for AMD is CPUs and it needs to still make profit in 2007 in order to launch fusion in late 2008.

3:56 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you pay attention, Core 2 Quad was beaten by Core 2 Duo in most benchmarks.

If you paid attention, you find the FX-74 gets beaten by the FX-62 in even more benchmarks. At least the QX6700 avoids embarassing situations like in Oblivion:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=10

Not much of a gaming enthusiast platform when you lose 3-4 speed grades compared to your older single socket solution.

And for all that talk of megatasking, Kentsfield still manages to win almost all the megatasking benches.

4:29 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you pay attention, Core 2 Quad was beaten by Core 2 Duo in most benchmarks. This only means that benchmarks are primitive in measuring systemn capability. A motorcycle is faster than a Ford F150, but only on speed. Once you measure other things, the motor cycle becomes less attractive. Try do something heavy duty -- and see who wins. To see the strength of Quad FX you need to run at least five heavy duty tasks at a time"

What heavy duty task are you referring to, because every heavily multi threaded benchmark that is out has Kentsfield beating an 4X4. Also you forget that the 4X4's motor is running about 15% faster and it still can't keep up with the Kentsfield. Just give up dude. Using you stupid auto analogy, both the Kentsfield and 4X4 are Hummers, and unless you have data that proves otherwise, they both can handle heavy loads. Only difference is that the Kentsfield can handle it more efficiently (less power + less speed 3ghz vs 2.6ghz). Oh and by the way, yes you are correct that the Core2 duo 2.9ghz did beat the Core2 quad 2.6ghz in some benchmarks, BUT!!! you mr phd should easily know why.....it's the software stupid. Most software such as games is not even written to take advantage of 2 cores, much less 4.

4:40 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quad FX is for men who need to drop a big load;)

4:42 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sharikou: you still haven't offered an excuse for why you were wrong in so many of your previous posts about 4X4. Was it intentional misinformation or ignorance?

5:01 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To see the strength of Quad FX you need to run at least five heavy duty tasks at a time."

And of course you have some actual data to support this statement or is there more rampant speculation on your end? (Ala 80% better INQ article...)

Sharikou must really like his inefficient 3 gallons per mile (intentional) vehicles which follow the bigger is always better mentality.

I for one like my Hummer able to megatask - when you are offroading with the Hummer, who doesn't also need to be towing a 3 ton payload behind you, watching a DVD, and winching someone else out of a mud trap, all at the same time of course!

AS PT Barnum once said "There's one born every minute"

1 sucker per minute, 1440minutes/day, 365 days a year --> that's 525K potential 4x4 sales per year!

7:37 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Base Components » 2. Software, Accessories » 3. Services and Support
$2,999.00


They must've screwed up the pricing before LOL 8800 GTX+FX74 alone are $1600+.

8:20 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel folks are still struggling with the concept . There are race horses and there are plow horses. A race horse couldn’t possibly handle the big loads all day. I agree it’s to bad the plow horses is burning so much hay.

Raised on a farm I can assure you that you can’t tie four race horses together and expect to get any real work done. The Budweiser team of draft horses; no problem.

My example sucks, what can I say; I like AMD’s stuff and besides I own to many shares

8:26 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I said long time ago, the right way to measure multitasking performance is to launch multiple instances of the same program and measure the completion time. In this case, one should launch four copies of the same program at the same time.

In other words, make up some totally weird non real world situation. 4x4 sucks. And you title is messed up, it's $2999 not $2000.

9:23 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that horse analogy makes better sense when you use bulls instead. Like sharikou is full of bull $%it. Clydesdales are the horses that you are referring to. Kind of funny how you fanboys are now portraying the 4X4 as the Hummer of the computer world, when only a few months ago you were saying that the amd chips were the efficient toyota, honda, etc. and the intel chips were the Hummers. I guess blind devotion to a brand will make you rationalize things a certain way.

9:40 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute. What the he&% happened? I thought that you said that the 4X4 was going to be the definitive thing in the high end with core2Q only being in the middle. Intel must of bought all these sites out so that the 4X4 would look bad right? I think that you are right sharikou, Intel can't even compete with the mighty semprons, much less the turions, and the almighty atholons, and forget about the opterons they are the gods of the processors. All hail might AMD as it will unleash its might processing power on those intel havens. May Lord Ruiz have pity on your souls.

9:49 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Retarded dudes like Anand (who proudly discovered negative scaling on MySQL--adding CPU leads to lower performance) would reach retarded conclusions. But true multitasking benchmarks would show Quad FX fragging anything Intel has in stock. As I said long time ago, the right way to measure multitasking performance is to launch multiple instances of the same program and measure the completion time."

But in your previous posts you stated that 4X4 would be 90% faster in 90% of the benchmarks. Why the backtracking?

9:55 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous edward said...

"AMD needed K8L yesterday and 65nm in middle 2006, not now."

Honestly, it that was true, so would be Sharikou's "Intel BK" prediction.

10:54 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree the 4x4 is a Hummer.

The Core 2 is an F-150 crew cab with two ATV's in the bed, towing a 37 foot RV with a 36 foot boat on the roof, going up a 8% grade into a 50mph headwind getting 35 miles per gallon and passing the Hummer because its only going 65.

10:58 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous edward said...

"to those who say "but the integer performance of the AMD64 is better, and if i want to do some serious job, Opteron is the way to go".. nonsense, if I want to do some serious job, I'd get a P5 or a T1, or some real integer-crunching machines.. plus, I wouldn't care much about the cost, after all.. "

1. K8's integer performance is not better. I don't know what the sh*t you're talking about.

2. Integer performance is not better by P5 or T1, either. C2/K8 and P5 or T1 are very different animals.

10:59 PM, December 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF CODE NAMES WERE REAL

AMD's "QuadFX" 4 core solution would be named:

QuadFuXor.

And when AMD finally ships their 8 core solution sometime, well, in 2008:

OctoPussy.

Fat gamers will be all over it.

1:54 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you are again, talking like a guy in high school who just got a Hummer versus a compact car -- again, no phd needed here. Don't be like that tough/brash high school student who makes fun of the nerds, then 10-25 years later, can't make a decent living nor get into college. In this case, the nerd may drive a compact car, but he/she knows that better things will come down the road anyway.

If this phd stuff you mention is accurate, you certainly are WAY too overqualified for the content you write. You're mind's going to waste.

Having that Hummer isn't going to much good anyway, if you're just driving around the suburbs, with zero combat conditions. Most Hummer owners outside of the military have not even gone to war. And those in the military driving around Hummers, well, they're not exactly putting tax dollars to good use, if there are no combat conditions.

With the phd, you don't even illustrate any use of spreadsheets, charts, and even simple block diagrams on Visio/Dia. Your blog doesn't even get close to Scientias. You simply look outdated.

The trend on the comments indicate that people visit your blog to bash your thinking. That includes us AMD owners as well. So what exactly are you getting out of this?

From an engineering standpoint, well, you don't have much working for you. "Tunnel vision"/narrow minded.

5:18 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey intel fanboys I tried out the intel quad core and the fx-74 to compare there work through put.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 12 sata drives on the intel system.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 4 video cards either.
I did find that 12 sata drives have more data though put than 2 sata drives.
I found that 4 video graphics engines have more horsepower and though put than 1 graphics engine.
When the quad fx is tested with its full array of easy to run equipment, it exceeds the data though put by a factor of 12 times faster than intels quad.
Quad fx has 4 times more video thoughput than intel quad.
I will await your scores for the 12 satas and 4 video cards with your quad intel system on the 5 th tuesday from never.
The new AMD Quad FX series takes us to a new level of performance at affordable prices beyond any other platform in this World.
AMD first in features and in price how exciting.

5:49 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theirs one thing the AMD 4x4 can shine over its Intel completion. Virtualization.

6:54 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou said: "I expect Quad FX to become a cheaper server alternative. 12 SATA drives, 8TB, cheap ram, one such beast can handle 8000 Google mail users or more. With 100,000 such machines, you can kill Google."

With 100,000 of those machines you would melt down the buildings if you would not ruin yourself from the cost of cooling them down. Ah, wait, you would also need to power the machines. The chips alone use twice the power of a matching Kentsfield.

6:55 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

shari: you gotta be loving all of these great 4X4 reviews and those killer benchmarks shown on the native quad core demo. Buy all that AMD stock on margin for $36/share sure was a smart move on your part.

7:15 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this summarizes 4X4's debut:

http://www.amd.justgotowned.com/

10:02 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intel’s current multi-core solution is as temporary as AMD’s new 4x4 is in the real world. Both species have there strengths and weaknesses, but both have severer limitations. Multi-core future belongs to K8L and architectures like it. Intel has similar silicone in the works. This argument is not futile, just temporary.

10:08 AM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hey intel fanboys I tried out the intel quad core and the fx-74 to compare there work through put.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 12 sata drives on the intel system.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 4 video cards either.
I did find that 12 sata drives have more data though put than 2 sata drives.
I found that 4 video graphics engines have more horsepower and though put than 1 graphics engine.
When the quad fx is tested with its full array of easy to run equipment, it exceeds the data though put by a factor of 12 times faster than intels quad.
Quad fx has 4 times more video thoughput than intel quad.
I will await your scores for the 12 satas and 4 video cards with your quad intel system on the 5 th tuesday from never.
The new AMD Quad FX series takes us to a new level of performance at affordable prices beyond any other platform in this World.
AMD first in features and in price how exciting. "

Wow. You must have hit the bong pretty hard to come up with this gibberish. I salute you.

3:30 PM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey intel fanboys I tried out the intel quad core and the fx-74 to compare there work through put.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 12 sata drives on the intel system.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 4 video cards either.
I did find that 12 sata drives have more data though put than 2 sata drives.
I found that 4 video graphics engines have more horsepower and though put than 1 graphics engine.
When the quad fx is tested with its full array of easy to run equipment, it exceeds the data though put by a factor of 12 times faster than intels quad.
Quad fx has 4 times more video thoughput than intel quad.
I will await your scores for the 12 satas and 4 video cards with your quad intel system on the 5 th tuesday from never.
The new AMD Quad FX series takes us to a new level of performance at affordable prices beyond any other platform in this World.
AMD first in features and in price how exciting. "

This guy wasn't hitting a bong, he was hitting the Ruiz meat pipe.

7:56 PM, December 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey intel fanboys I tried out the intel quad core and the fx-74 to compare there work through put.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 12 sata drives on the intel system.
I cant find anyplace to plug in the 4 video cards either.
I did find that 12 sata drives have more data though put than 2 sata drives.
I found that 4 video graphics engines have more horsepower and though put than 1 graphics engine.
When the quad fx is tested with its full array of easy to run equipment, it exceeds the data though put by a factor of 12 times faster than intels quad.
Quad fx has 4 times more video thoughput than intel quad.
I will await your scores for the 12 satas and 4 video cards with your quad intel system on the 5 th tuesday from never.


You'll be accessing the sata drives a LOT because of the terrible cache of the 4x4. So yeah, that's very important.

Also, you'll want 4 video cards, because in order to compete with a quad Core2, well, you'll need to take the extra load off your 4x4.

Accept it, 4x4 is a dud. It SHOULD be kickass, but it's not. It's not any sort of viable alternative to anything, really. The only people that will buy this are the hardcore AMD fanatics just because of its name.

I notice that you're also very quiet these days, Sharikou.

Nothing important to write about, or are you just humbled by AMD's terrible performance?

Comparing Hummers and Fords to CPU's is desperation at its best.

8:20 AM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Impressive system.

Kudos for AMD to bring such an impressive system to desktop market and at very good prices. The FX70 and the motherboard is a total bargain.
Impressive platform no doubt.

Too bad they didn’t do tests with quadSLI that would have completely annihilated the Intel System.

Good courage by Asus again supporting AMD with a new product like they did in the K7 times. And good show by Nvidia that even after ATI acquisition didn’t abandoned AMD.

9:33 AM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Sharikou, you think also masculine men are stupid? 'coz to buy this 4x4 platform means to be stupid for sure. It's too expensive, too power hungry, too slow... get seriuos! Without a fast and furious, 65nm K8L couple this is only a waste of money. Also for AMD enthusiasts as me.

9:41 AM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To bad we didn’t see Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965 or 840 in the review, that would be extremely interesting.
After all there are 4 CPUs in there with Hyper-Threading.

That would be the good, the bad and the guy with the gun, ups sorry I mean The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

9:50 AM, December 04, 2006  
Blogger Jeach! said...

What do I think of this product? To tell you the truth, I've got mixed opinions about this.

This is probably (time will tell) AMD's first miss-step in the last few years, and here is why!

I believe AMD was premature and are confused as to which market this product is for.

Servers - No one will ever build a cluster of 4x4's. At most this product is good when you buy a single one to be used as a small server in a low budget IT firm to run an array of daemons and services.

AMD should not have released this 2P system with anything less than quad cores on 65nm.

As someone has said, it just makes AMD look stupid by comparing/marketing a 2P (dual core) with a 1P (quad core). These are totally different systems aimed at the same people. But who would buy 4 cores on two chips when a version is available with 4 cores in a single chip.

This will drain AMD's margins and not to mention take up useless FAB capacity, while they are short on other products.

Workstations - A very limited amount of people who have very intensive multi-threaded applications (such as Adobe) will utilize this system effectivly. I know people who have Adobe, a 3D render app and various video production apps running simultaniously. This system is perfect for them. But useless for just about every other home users, including gamers.

So what is the positive of this product? Well, unfortunalty for AMD nothing until their 65nm quad cores come out!! (SHIT!!)

Even the name (QuadFX) is a very bad marketing name. AMD should have branded the 2P aspect of this product, so that when the quads are available they will be the only system available with 8 cores and/or 2P. Could be selling like hot cakes. What are they going to do when the quads are available? Re-brand it? QuadFX name won't due it justice?

All in all I'm extremely disapointed by AMD... (couldn't tell I'm their biggest fan with this blog could you?)

AMD is bad at playing catchup! They should go back to concentrating on their own agenda. Good results always come out of that.

Jeach!

10:11 AM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quad FX sucks. No boutique or well established gaming PC vendor like VoodooPC/HP, Dell/Alienware, Falcon NW wants it (they already selling Kentsfield OVERCLOCKED). Sucks big time in gaming!

They wouldn't touch 4x4 with a ten foot pole. Alienware abandoned it right after launch. Imagine the bad rep they will get!

Only less known vendors and system integrators like IBuyPower picked them up cheap. This is definitely fire sales. AMD is either selling with little or no margins, or with loss altogether.

Motherboards will be scarce since ASUS will be the only one. So only the vendors and system integrators have them. You need more expensive licensed OS such as Vista Ultimate to use that extra socket, a requirement Kentsfield doesn't need.

The astronomical electricity bills, fan noise and excessive heat will drive you nuts.

Quad FX is ABANDONWARE. Period!

11:14 AM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"QuadFX is a crap - I think first crap in AMD history..."

Lets name it "CRAPTRON"

5:13 PM, December 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

QUADFX Featuring AMD Craptron processors! ahhaah! AMD powered notebooks featuring AMD Turdion mobile technology!

1:31 AM, December 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD is bad at playing catchup! They should go back to concentrating on their own agenda. Good results always come out of that.

Jeach!


Finally, a SANE AMD fan! This is about the smartest and most apt thing I've heard in this posting.

Like I said above, AMD needs to focus on improving its dual core and server processors (forgetting quad processors and laptops), and only in this way will they keep Intel at bay. Skip 65nm production and work on 45nm.

Multicore processing has no software available yet to take advantage of it. Why waste your time trying to come out with multicores? Give it two years and consumer acceptance will take over in the quad cores.

AMD is wasting it's time with 4x4 and looking bad while doing so, it would have been better NOT to release it.

6:56 AM, December 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I will await your scores for the 12 satas and 4 video cards with your quad intel system on the 5 th tuesday from never."

So, what we're looking at is a system with a Core 2, a nForce 590SLI, a pair of 7950GX2s, 12 SATA drives and a PCI/PCI-E SATA controller to run the extra drives off? Shouldn't be too hard to throw together...

12:21 PM, December 05, 2006  
Anonymous AMD1979 said...

i'm a real big amd fan, but i still find you to be a gigantic blubbering vagina. go stick a telephone pole in your giant hole.

3:57 PM, December 05, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you pay attention, Core 2 Quad was beaten by Core 2 Duo in most benchmarks. This only means that benchmarks are primitive in measuring systemn capability."

doc, it is true that they are primitive in measuring scalability, the ones where core 2 duo wins are the ones where the benchmark can use two cores as opposed to the four. So since the C2Q is clocked lower it will of course loose, however in the ones where C2Q does win, it is a good showing of what all four cores are capable of.

1:26 AM, December 06, 2006  
Anonymous Columbus said...

LOL Craptron! I suggest to name FX74-76 CPU as Crapteron, at least the 90nm parts...

11:23 AM, December 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm....crapteron, turdion, QuadSUX, and Sharidouche...a winning combination all around...

12:37 PM, December 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm... $100 price cut before the chips are even available.

As AMD is capacity constrained already this must mean they are anticipating huge demand for these chips, no? Isn't the second law of economics say that as demand increases prices decrease? (I'm using Shari-kook logic here)

For those who are also curious, the 3rd law of economics says when you are capacity constrained and demand is high for your product, you should LOWER prices in order to minimize profits...

Or maybe they saw the benchmarks and decided folks would need the extra $100 to pay for electricity and buy those 1000+ Watt power supplies?

11:09 PM, December 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you lost your mind? QX6700 has more "horsepower and torque" and has better "gas mileage" than 4X4. I bet you'd be dumb enough to buy one, too. There are NO advantages to a 4X4. "4 gamers can run games on it!" Who the hell is going to try an idea like that? And if so, who is to say Kentsfield can't do the same, if not better? In theory, it should do better, because 4X4 AND QX6700 are both essentially packaged the same way: 2 Native dual core chips thrown together. Since Intel kicks AMD's teeth into the curb, do tell us, how is it that 4X4 would be better in ANY aspect? It has worse performance and uses a hell of a lot more power.

3:26 AM, December 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, 4 games played by 4 gamers at one time. Amazing technology. Too bad it solves a problem no one had.

Hypocrites like you criticize Intel for gluing dies together on a chip, and then praise AMD for gluing sockets together on a motherboard.

Yet for any practical application, the Intel part is faster, cheaper, and less likely to cause a house fire.

You who were so critical of Intel's power consumption are now so eager to toss that metric to the wind and declare "it doesn't matter" when AMD couldn't develop a real quad core solution.

3:38 PM, December 15, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home