Can AMD salvage QFX with an in-house chipset?

[BaronMatrix]

I guess the only question is, Would you buy a dual socket system that wasn't QFX and why.

At work for my datacenter, no.

However, the REAL question is, Would you buy a quad-core system that wasn't Core 2 Quad?

Well, I think that answer should be pretty obvious. Of course I would. FX70 is up to $900 less and I believe will clock to 3.0GHz (not that I will).

FX-70 MSRP = 599 per pair

This recovers the extra $150 to $200 caused by a more expensive motherboard.

This also recovers the extra $50 to $100 for a more expensive power supply.

So a FX-70 would cost $100-200 less than a Core 2 Quad system when you factor the motherboard and power supply issues in. However, the performance hit you take from going 3.0 to 2.6 is tremendous (13%).

So even the cheaper FX-70 is still going to have price\performance issues when battling the Core 2 Quad. You can't just factor in processor prices when the "platformance" of Quad FX requires you to have a very expensive motherboard and a beefier more expensive powersupply.


But what you have to remember is that because I have 4400+, I don't lose anything by NOT buying C2Q vs QFX. Also, I am not comparing against C2Q, so I dont' care if it's faster.

The Inq has shown that most PSU reqs are grossly overstated as they got 3 8800GTS running in one mobo with C2Q and a 620W PSU at load with 3dMark.

Anand got idle power of FX74 with 8800GTX and Raptor RAID to 213W. You are all exaggerating because I have yet to see anyone complain about dual Opteron.

 

[1Tanker]

As a person who worked on components (test and automation) for 5 versions of Windows, I think I know how the kernel works.

I think if you knew what you were doing, they wouldn't have fired you. You're probably the reason that Windows is such a sh!tty OS. I bet the memory leaks in 98/ME are your doing. Or by "components" do you mean wrapping the CD's?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I am not comparing against C2Q, so I dont' care if it's faster.

Baron, this is why people say you use your own brand of Logic.
BaronMatrix nLogic



Factors for purchase and debating on forumz:

Does AMD make it?: Factor.

Does it have (noob impression) "more mhz"?: Factor.

Does it have at least one (does not need to be more) benchmark that it does better in?: Factor.

What about all the other benchmarks where it failed to do better? Not a factor.

Does it need to be cost competitive? Not a factor.

Do unusually large energy requirements matter? Not a factor.

Does availability matter? Not a factor.

Does it matter if it uses an additional 100+ watt CPU? Not a factor.

Does it matter if the mother board has the extra power requirements of a second northbridge? Not a factor.


Or, to simplify the above:

Does it favor AMD? Factor.

Does it favor Intel? Not a factor.



If Quad FX spanked the Intel system you'd be touting it's performance, not it's "megatasking platformance". If Quad FX was truly better you'd be pointing all of its strengths instead of making them up and disregarding the weaknesses.

 

[1Tanker]

I am not comparing against C2Q, so I dont' care if it's faster.

Baron, this is why people say you use your own brand of Logic.
BaronMatrix nLogic



Factors for purchase and debating on forumz:

Does AMD make it?: Factor.

Does it have (noob impression) "more mhz"?: Factor.

Does it have at least one (does not need to be more) benchmark that it does better in?: Factor.

What about all the other benchmarks where it failed to do better? Not a factor.

Does it need to be cost competitive? Not a factor.

Do unusually large energy requirements matter? Not a factor.

Does availability matter? Not a factor.

Does it matter if it uses an additional 100+ watt CPU? Not a factor.

Does it matter if the mother board has the extra power requirements of a second northbridge? Not a factor.


Or, to simplify the above:

Does it favor AMD? Factor.

Does it favor Intel? Not a factor.



If Quad FX spanked the Intel system you'd be touting it's performance, not it's "megatasking platformance". If Quad FX was truly better you'd be pointing all of its strengths instead of making them up and disregarding the weaknesses.You missed one.

Is it Baron and Hector's "Love Child" ? Huge Factor

 

[BaronMatrix]

This has proberly been remarked upon earlyer in the topic, i just cba to read it all. Wasnt all the AMD fanboys going on about the crappyness of a dual/quad core cpu that wasnt a "true" dual/quad core cpu, just two single/dual cores superglued together?

Doesnt this smack of "superglued" crappyness? To unhijack this topic, QFX cannot be salvaged with a chipset. It needs faster and cooler CPU's to be of any use to anyone

If so, that definitely means that I am not a fanboy as I don't care how C2Q is constructed. I want two sockets, he says mentally feeling everything rumble from the repeated nature of the statement.

Asfar as your "salvaged" statement, if you do look throuh here you'll see that people say Opteron Dual is OK, but they are the SAME EXACT THING separated by 6W TDP.

Should all OpteronDual workstations and servers be scrapped too? if not, then people are mad because AMD pulled a fast one and killed X6800 in multitasking and multithreading under Vista. And then they priced FX70 ate less than FX62 s I knwo people are pissed.

I guess we all forgot AMD is no stranger to operating in the red and will do what is necessary to keep people liek me inupgrades I might find useful.

Foolish or no. Increasing my power bill or no, I find the dual bandwidth and two sockets useful. others will also.

There si a big story abotu The Inqs bias because Fuad thinks that the extra power is worth it because of the extra power.

Even though there is a C2Q, the only people for whom QFX WOULDN'T be an upgrade ALREADY HAVE C2Q.

Since you find no use for ti, I would say, AMAZINGLY,

DON'T BUY IT.

 

[heartview]

Baron just divides all of reality by zero to come up with his version of reality.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

AMD pulled a fast one and killed X6800 in multitasking and multithreading under Vista. Ok, so you compare a quad core to a dual core in multi-tasking, congrats.


And then they priced FX70 ate less than FX62 s I knwo people are pissed. Then, after talking about the FX-74 you quickly start talking about the price of the FX70. Misleading, but ok...

I guess we all forgot AMD is no stranger to operating in the red and will do what is necessary to keep people liek me inupgrades I might find useful. But I thought you buy into all the "Intel is going to BK" stuff the Shakira speaks of.

Foolish or no. Increasing my power bill or no, I find the dual bandwidth and two sockets useful. You can have all the bandwidth you want and enjoy it. However, Core 2 Quad owners will be enjoying PERFORMANCE, which many people seek out more than bandwidth.

There si a big story abotu The Inqs bias because Fuad thinks that the extra power is worth it because of the extra power. That'd be great if the Quad FX actually did better than the Core 2 Quad, but it simply doesn't. So you're using MORE POWER but getting LESS in return.

Even though there is a C2Q, the only people for whom QFX WOULDN'T be an upgrade ALREADY HAVE C2Q.

Since you find no use for ti, I would say, AMAZINGLY,

DON'T BUY IT.And this is what gets "us" relied up. You are telling OTHER people to do something with their money that just wouldn't be in their best interests.

 

[mesarectifier]

I guess the only question is, Would you buy a dual socket system that wasn't QFX and why.

Yeah, a Mac Pro, because it's better than a QFX system and starts at a lower price. And is just as upgradeable, and (here's the kicker) it runs Mac OS as well! Score!

I can't believe this has reached 19 pages. Well done BM, you can truly be proud of what you have created. I would use a car analogy...but there are not any cars bad enough to represent your arguments here Baron. Sucks be to you.

 

[hcBunny]

Sure, I wish they released 65nm shrinks, but other than that I only see a HUGE upgrade from my 4400+ for what I buy a PC for, and it's not games, for the 1000000th time.

The same thing will happen. But even if QFX STILL LOSES 10% off of FX62 scores that's still (including the 8800GTS) at least 70% faster than my 4400+/7800GT at Doom3. That means I can finally buy FEAR.

 

[atp777]

Dang, even newcomers like hcBunny are raggin' on BM.

 

[BaronMatrix]

AMD pulled a fast one and killed X6800 in multitasking and multithreading under Vista. Ok, so you compare a quad core to a dual core in multi-tasking, congrats.


And then they priced FX70 ate less than FX62 s I knwo people are pissed. Then, after talking about the FX-74 you quickly start talking about the price of the FX70. Misleading, but ok...

I guess we all forgot AMD is no stranger to operating in the red and will do what is necessary to keep people liek me inupgrades I might find useful. But I thought you buy into all the "Intel is going to BK" stuff the Shakira speaks of.

Foolish or no. Increasing my power bill or no, I find the dual bandwidth and two sockets useful. You can have all the bandwidth you want and enjoy it. However, Core 2 Quad owners will be enjoying PERFORMANCE, which many people seek out more than bandwidth.

There si a big story abotu The Inqs bias because Fuad thinks that the extra power is worth it because of the extra power. That'd be great if the Quad FX actually did better than the Core 2 Quad, but it simply doesn't. So you're using MORE POWER but getting LESS in return.

Even though there is a C2Q, the only people for whom QFX WOULDN'T be an upgrade ALREADY HAVE C2Q.

Since you find no use for ti, I would say, AMAZINGLY,

DON'T BUY IT.And this is what gets "us" relied up. You are telling OTHER people to do something with their money that just wouldn't be in their best interests.

Dude I won't quote each response but to start


ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY


doesn't sound like I think or want Intel to go out of business.

Also, get off your C2Q high horse. I have a 4400+ and saving up to $900 on JUST THE CHIPS is worth it for th espeed increase under Vista X64.

I tell people if they find no value don't buy it.

The perf you speak of is useless above 60fps or instantaneously opening an app. if you sit encoding DVDs to your HDD you will save 20mins a day but then I'd wonder if you have a life.

The FX74 is wholesaled by AMD for $999. FX70 is at $599. Of course a person who refuses to pay $450 for a GPU will not buy FX74 or C2Q.

I was acually thinking about 5600+ and 8800GTS and then getting Agena. That would get me 8GB RAM, btu I want two sockets with a quad core upgrade path. Worse come to worse I can Ebay my Asus and FX70 and replace them with the Agena FX and mobo. even still, I can just get the lower clock AgenaFX and power planes will be less of a factor.

Since AMD has shown with their 4400+ 65nm, they are not concerned about having the highest clock speed or perhaps even the greatest desktop perf, I can be confident that they will produce more than adequate solutions.

They seem to be concentrating on the server space where power is paramount when we're talking 300-1000 of whatever system they have in the DataCenter.


ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY

AND QFX!!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Also, get off your C2Q high horse. I have a 4400+ and saving up to $900 on JUST THE CHIPS is worth it for th espeed increase under Vista X64.

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY

Whoa, please explain this $900 figure. Are you referring to $1,500 C2Q(high newegg price) - $600 FX-70 (MSRP, not market price) = $900 savings?


Because you forgot to factor in the following:
- You can't take the highest price for a C2Q and compare it to an MSRP for the FX-70
- You can't use a market price for an FX-70 because said processor is currently in paper-launch mode therefore no market for said product can exist
- You fail to factor in the extra expense of having only one $300 motherboard available for Quad FX (err, well, it's not actually "available")
- You fail to factor in the extra cost of a beefier power-supply, but I'll let you have this one because the power requirements of the FX-70 are hopefully not as bad as the FX-74


I do agree with you on one thing:

All hail the duopoly. Without it would have a sucky monopoly.

 

[atp777]

Also, TC, a top end motherboard is not required for the QX6700. Most of the P965 Intel Chipsets will work with a BIOS Flash, the Gigabyte S3 is on the list as supporting Kentsfield even with FSB 1066. So $1,099.00 QX6700 + $124.99 GA-P965-S3 = $1,224.98.

Considering you have a decent PSU and DDR2 RAM already there is a nice Quad Core setup. Added benefit if you already have a capable motherboard which most of them are. Complete list HERE.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I guess the only question is, Would you buy a dual socket system that wasn't QFX and why.

Yeah, a Mac Pro, because it's better than a QFX system and starts at a lower price. And is just as upgradeable, and (here's the kicker) it runs Mac OS as well! Score!

I can't believe this has reached 19 pages. Well done BM, you can truly be proud of what you have created. I would use a car analogy...but there are not any cars bad enough to represent your arguments here Baron. Sucks be to you.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but the key to this thread is consumer choice. You can't take mine from me.

Why are you so worried whether my electric bill goes up?
Why are you so concerned that it won't be the fastest possible system?
Why can't you just be happy that we have technology like this?
Why can't anyone tell me why Opteron Dual is a good idea but QFX isn't?

 

[hcBunny]

Dang, even newcomers like hcBunny are raggin' on BM.

I've read enough to realize how unintelligent and illogical Baron is... anyone with an IQ over 5 can figure that out.

 

[hcBunny]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but the key to this thread is consumer choice. You can't take mine from me.

Why are you so worried whether my electric bill goes up?
Why are you so concerned that it won't be the fastest possible system?
Why can't you just be happy that we have technology like this?
Why can't anyone tell me why Opteron Dual is a good idea but QFX isn't?

Maybe we're just trying to help you make SMART choices and not choices solely based on what brand you like... If AMD were the leader in performance today and not Intel, I'm sure everyone here would be buying AMD, not Intel. I don't know how many times it has been said, but it isn't about who the hell makes the product, it's about the better (based on real world testing, not your bullshit) product.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Because you forgot to factor in the following:
- You can't take the highest price for a C2Q and compare it to an MSRP for the FX-70
- You can't use a market price for an FX-70 because said processor is currently in paper-launch mode therefore no market for said product can exist
- You fail to factor in the extra expense of having only one $300 motherboard available for Quad FX (err, well, it's not actually "available")
- You fail to factor in the extra cost of a beefier power-supply, but I'll let you have this one because the power requirements of the FX-70 are hopefully not as bad as the FX-74

I factored in everything. The biggest need for a beefy PSU is the GPUs not the CPUs. I said "up to $1500." Even taking both MSRPs you still save $400, the suspected cost of the QFX mobo.

As I said 800000000000000000000 times, Anand had a Raptor RAID setup with FX74 and 8800GTX down to 213W idle/456W load. I have a dual rail PSU now that would run that especially since during times that I hit peak it will NOT be with the GPU.

My 4400+ runs all Q4 scenes at 1280 at about 75% CPU. That includes the inevitable Flash running in the browser I don't close.

FX62 would cut that down to about 50% CPU for ONE dual core chip. Extrapolating Anands numbers gives under 200W idle with FX70, one 7200 HDD, and 8800GTS.


That's more than worth the increase in power reqs. Amazingly enough the 65nm tests posted the other day show E6300 using ~165W at load. How is 213W blowing out lights and dimming neighborhoods? My 5.1 Onkyo amp uses 550W and my lights don't dim when I turn the DVD volume up to 50 (max is 60). That's not even including the 400W TV connected to the same surge protector.

 

[boduke]

[
Why are you so concerned that it won't be the fastest possible system?

Because it won't be.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Also, TC, a top end motherboard is not required for the QX6700. Most of the P965 Intel Chipsets will work with a BIOS Flash, the Gigabyte S3 is on the list as supporting Kentsfield even with FSB 1066. So $1,099.00 QX6700 + $124.99 GA-P965-S3 = $1,224.98.

Considering you have a decent PSU and DDR2 RAM already there is a nice Quad Core setup. Added benefit if you already have a capable motherboard which most of them are. Complete list HERE.

Wait, you'd buy a $1000 CPU and put it into a $125 mobo? That's crazy.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Considering you have a decent PSU and DDR2 RAM already there is a nice Quad Core setup. Added benefit if you already have a capable motherboard which most of them are. Complete list HERE.

Unfortunatly I have a Socket 939 system which means my 2 gigs is DDR1. However, I'm happy with my Opty. And also, I must say after blowing a 300W and a 350W that I'll never skimp out on a power supply again.

 

[boduke]

Why is it crazy if the motherboard is a proven solution that thousands of people have used? Not crazy at all. Crazy is spending $300-$400 on a mobo for a cobbled dual socket quad core solution.

 

[BaronMatrix]

[
Why are you so concerned that it won't be the fastest possible system?

Because it won't be.


So that's for me to deal with. Why is it your concern? The only thing I can think is that you only want people to buy Intel while I will sell Core 2 to anyone who wants it.

 

[boduke]

Considering you have a decent PSU and DDR2 RAM already there is a nice Quad Core setup. Added benefit if you already have a capable motherboard which most of them are. Complete list HERE.

Unfortunatly I have a Socket 939 system which means my 2 gigs is DDR1. However, I'm happy with my Opty. And also, I must say after blowing a 300W and a 350W that I'll never skimp out on a power supply again.

Cheap PSU's blow.

Anyway - if the opty works for ya more power to ya, people should use what they want. Same goes for Baron however his belligerent ill informed defense of his choice when other people simply voice opinions is worthy of the abuse he gets.

Example of cheap upgrade ot C2D....My Linux box:

$50 ECS Socket 775 Mobo with DDR1 and DDR2 slots and AGP, Radeon 9800 Pro video card, and a C2D E6400. So it's possible to reuse DDR1 with C2D. Was a cheap way to use a proc that was sitting on my desk collecting dust...

Baron's probably stupified as to why I'd use a $50 mobo for my C2D.

 

[mesarectifier]

Duno if anyone's noticed, but it's BARONMATRIX'S ONE YEAR THG FORUMZ ANNIVERSARY! (*Soz if this has already been posted, but I only just noticed + cba to read through the reams of this thread)

Well done Baron, you have spent exactly one orbit of the sun spewing crap and getting people in a huff on these forums.

And in reply to....

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but the key to this thread is consumer choice. You can't take mine from me.

You asked if anyone would take a different dual socket setup over QFX and I provided you with a few reasons why I'd take a Mac Pro-style setup over it. Which you are entitled to ignore, but I'd advise you not to as you're about to waste a sh*tload of money!

 

[BaronMatrix]

Why is it crazy if the motherboard is a proven solution that thousands of people have used? Not crazy at all. Crazy is spending $300-$400 on a mobo for a cobbled dual socket quad core solution.

So you would buy the cheapest proven tires and rims for your $50,000 Z3?

No let me guess you'd buy a Bluapunkt system and put Radio Shack speakers on it.