Can AMD salvage QFX with an in-house chipset?

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Well, tell the Intel fans to stop saying that I have to compare to C2Q and not to my current system.
Click to expand...

Errr, well BM the only person who gives a flying **** about your current/future system here is you. You're the only person who mentioned it.

When people have said that QFX sucks for the many, many reasons outlined on the last 20 pages it's not to say that you shouldn't buy it. It's to say everyone shouldn't buy it.

As for saying people aren't 'allowed' to compare QFX to it's logical rival - C2Q - and that it must only be compared to whatever rig you're running now is, for want of a better phrase, f***ing rediculous.

By only 'allowing' yourself comparison to your current rig instead of the better rival, you're being - in it's most literal sense - ignorant.
 
Well, tell the Intel fans to stop saying that I have to compare to C2Q and not to my current system.
Click to expand...

Errr, well BM the only person who gives a flying **** about your current/future system here is you. You're the only person who mentioned it.

When people have said that QFX sucks for the many, many reasons outlined on the last 20 pages it's not to say that you shouldn't buy it. It's to say everyone shouldn't buy it.

As for saying people aren't 'allowed' to compare QFX to it's logical rival - C2Q - and that it must only be compared to whatever rig you're running now is, for want of a better phrase, f***ing rediculous.

By only 'allowing' yourself comparison to your current rig instead of the better rival, you're being - in it's most literal sense - ignorant.


It's my money. It's my choice. I told you you guys are embarrassing and I don't want to be associated with you. If that means losing some fps or paying $5 more per month for electricity I'll be the first one in line.
 
Baron :

Your arrogance is surmounted by your ego and both are overcome by your complete and overwhelming supidity.

Do you really think anyone here cares about what you buy or don't buy?
 
And the topic jumps back towards lockage.
Click to expand...

I agree with you...the reason for my post was that I thought perhaps Baron should be made aware that people aren't bothering to post because of concern for his electricity bill or are losing sleep over his pending stupid upgrade and more that we want to discuss tech, not his new computer.
 
Yes Baron. We have issues with you promoting a technology that is dead out of the box. The only thing QFX has is the octo-core upgrade. That is it's only advantage. Since you can't even get any FX-70 series processors or motherboards that support them it is a PAPER LAUNCH at this point.
 
Something QFX would have going for it, were the motherboards cheaper, would be the total cost of ownership of a 4 logical CPU system, simply because the FX-70s are cheap.

I'd put money on the FX-70s overclocking just as well as the FX-74s anyway, so I see no reason to buy anything but FX-70s

Lets hope that a cheaper ATI based motherboard can make QFX competitive, at least on price. Competition is good for us all.

Yeah QFX is a paper launch atm, but then C2Q isnt much better outside the US. Those qx6700s are like gold dust here in the UK 🙁
 
I agree with you...the reason for my post was that I thought perhaps Baron should be made aware that people aren't bothering to post because of concern for his electricity bill or are losing sleep over his pending stupid upgrade and more that we want to discuss tech, not his new computer.
Click to expand...

SO why is it a "stupid ipgrade?" Because I'm not buying Intel? Oh well.
 
Yes Baron. We have issues with you promoting a technology that is dead out of the box. The only thing QFX has is the octo-core upgrade. That is it's only advantage. Since you can't even get any FX-70 series processors or motherboards that support them it is a PAPER LAUNCH at this point.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I mean. Possibly

1 out of 10

multi-threaded apps show X6800 above even FX70 much less fx74. How is that not

AWESOME PERFORMANCE?

Oh I know cause you only allow people to buy Core 2 now.

Talk about a pawn.

BTW, I posted 5 different e-tailers that have the systems. I also posted that AMD planned it to be for systems only at first. Do you want the links?


ALL HAIL QFX!!!
 
Ehrmm, those 9 out of 10 applications and benchmarks that the QuadFX wins in can be most accurately described as marginal even against a dual core setup.
Click to expand...


Faster than an X6800 is no small feat as you I'm sure can attest as you state that you have one. That means everything else is not even close.
 
4 cores faster than 2 cores, HOLY SH1T!! [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...


So it's OK that 5600+ is not faster than C2Q? I mean, you acted (before C2Q) like X6800 was the be all and end all. I don't say that to mean QFX competes with X6800 or C2Q but first and foremost with FX62. It improves upon it and it should never have been considered as an "answer" to C2Q. I think QFX was announced first.

It's purpose is to better differentiate FX from X2 when the quads come around.

My point was that even with a more expensive mobo FX70 is still a few 100 less than X6800 or C2Q. With a slightly better overall price, price/perf tips back to AMD at the high end.
 
So it's OK that 5600+ is not faster than C2Q?
Relevance? You don't compare 4 cores to 2 when both companies have 4-core solutions for consumers.
I mean, you acted (before C2Q) like X6800 was the be all and end all.
Did I? I don't recall where.
I don't say that to mean QFX competes with X6800 or C2Q but first and foremost with FX62.
QFX competes with C2Q.
FX-62 competes with X6800.
It improves upon it and it should never have been considered as an "answer" to C2Q.
Assuming there was no 4-core AMD consumer system:
FX-62 competes with C2Q.
X2 5600+ competes with X6800.
I think that's even worse for AMD.
I think QFX was announced first.
Relevance?
But C2Q was released first.

It's purpose is to better differentiate FX from X2 when the quads come around.
No, its purpose was to retain the illusion of momentum, and remain competitive.

My point was that even with a more expensive mobo FX70 is still a few 100 less than X6800 or C2Q. With a slightly better overall price, price/perf tips back to AMD at the high end.
Wrong. You have to get a much better power supply for QFX
Click to expand...
 
So it's OK that 5600+ is not faster than C2Q?
Relevance? You don't compare 4 cores to 2 when both companies have 4-core solutions for consumers.
I mean, you acted (before C2Q) like X6800 was the be all and end all.
Did I? I don't recall where.
I don't say that to mean QFX competes with X6800 or C2Q but first and foremost with FX62.
QFX competes with C2Q.
FX-62 competes with X6800.
It improves upon it and it should never have been considered as an "answer" to C2Q.
Assuming there was no 4-core AMD consumer system:
FX-62 competes with C2Q.
X2 5600+ competes with X6800.
I think that's even worse for AMD.
I think QFX was announced first.
Relevance?
But C2Q was released first.

It's purpose is to better differentiate FX from X2 when the quads come around.
No, its purpose was to retain the illusion of momentum, and remain competitive.

My point was that even with a more expensive mobo FX70 is still a few 100 less than X6800 or C2Q. With a slightly better overall price, price/perf tips back to AMD at the high end.
Wrong. You have to get a much better power supply for QFX
Click to expand...


Since I am going by what AMD has said, you are stating opinion. C2D was NOT released to defeat or even compete directly with X2, it was released to improve upon NetBurst.

And no you don't need a better PSU. The average Opteron PSU will do just fine and those are usually between 600W and 700W (my current PSU is 500W). This is further exacerbated by SLI


WHICH I WON'T HAVE.

Anand showed that full load on 8800GTX/RAID/FX74 was 456W. That's higher than C2Q but not cause for rewiring the house. The power it gives me with Visual Studio and SQL Server/Exchange/BizTalk for development makes it worth it.

Everytime you say the same nonsense about two chips taking more power than one, it makes me want it more.
 
Since I am going by what AMD has said, you are stating opinion.
You are stating AMD's marketing, not facts.

C2D was NOT released to defeat or even compete directly with X2, it was released to improve upon NetBurst.
The market doesn't agree. The market sees C2D competing with X2.

And no you don't need a better PSU. The average Opteron PSU will do just fine and those are usually between 600W and 700W (my current PSU is 500W). This is further exacerbated by SLI
Oh, yes it does need a better PSU. With the same components, QFX will need 130W+ more than an equivalent C2Q system. More power consumption is more power consumption... there is no free energy source in QFX systems

WHICH I WON'T HAVE.

Anand showed that full load on 8800GTX/RAID/FX74 was 456W. That's higher than C2Q but not cause for rewiring the house. The power it gives me with Visual Studio and SQL Server/Exchange/BizTalk for development makes it worth it.
Ever considered C2Q? Faster and cooler!

Everytime you say the same nonsense about two chips taking more power than one, it makes me want it more.
Well, I never said that...[/b]
Click to expand...
 
Wow, 24 pages of total crap.

Who do i see about getting the last 10 minuets of my life back? I could have been shagging my uber-hot GF or getting drunk instead of reading this boring ass bitch-fest.

All of you, get a life, and go and post your 'emo' comments somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom