Can AMD salvage QFX with an in-house chipset?

[1Tanker]

Every so often I am reminded to go back to Sharikou's blog. Here is what I find on the subject of 4x4:

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.

Errrr, yuh, okay. So what he's saying is that the only two people in the world who are going to buy 4x4 are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dog the Bounty Hunter, because we're all cissy boys. Or am I missing something?

I love the part about 'combat conditions', too. Perhaps it's his way of encouraging us to take a gun to our new 4x4 rigs?

You can't compare a Ford F150 truck (AMD 4x4) to a Volkswagen (Intel) by speed alone.

No. God forbid someone compare two CPUs on...speed? Speed doesn't matter! What Kind of a fool compares CPUs on their speed. Some people.

These are different parts from the entry TC has already posted, btw.

Not related at all, but I love this picture on his homepage at the moment.

"* Estimated performance by AMD internal measurements and/or indicators" I believe it says. So some real rock-solid stuff then!What a two-faced bastard. From his June 10/06 article entitled - Intel's 60% price slashing reflects true value:

But Intel's chips indeed only worth about 40% of AMD's chips. Here is why.

1) Total cost of ownership: Considering the power consumption difference and the electricity costs, running an AMD CPU saves at least $150 over three years, assuming energy prices remain stable.

I guess being electricity hogs is only okay for AMD. WHAT A DIPSHIT!!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Shakira will connect 4 monitors to 4x4 and it'll watch 4 gay-porno HDVD movies at same time. Menwhile it will masturbrate on 4x4.

If that doesn't make you ROFL, I don't know what will.

 

[mesarectifier]

If that doesn't make you ROFL, I don't know what will.

Yeah, but at gOJDO or Shakira.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Baron's my forumz buddy and all, but I must say, if you buy QuadFX you will regret it.

Quad FX is inferior in just about every single way. Quad FX is one of the most overwhelming failures I have ever seen.

I know you'll never buy an Intel machine, but do your wallet a favor and hold off on AMD quad until they actually make a quad core processor.

Over on the site which I cannot and will not name I will quote the following that made me wee myself:

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.

WHY THE (BLEEP) WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO RUN FOUR INSTANCES OF THE SAME GAME? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RUN ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE OF A GAME?

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.

I don't even know what the hell that means. Wouldn't Google run their servers on...um... SERVERS? And haven't we had huge multi-processor servers for years?

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.

Who the hell runs the same thing four times over? There's very few instances where one would do that. Basically, Shakira is trying to CREATE ARTIFICIAL BENCHMARKS that somehow put Quad FX on top of Core 2 Quad.



To ALL OF YOU.


Why are you worried about what I do with my money? Do you think I care what your opinion is?

I have never regretted a purchase I made. (Except for the souls I picked up cheap)

I have a 4400+ and an FX70 at 2.7GHz will be

AT LEAST 100% faster. Maybe 300% on multithreaded apps


That is always worth it. Intel doesn't play well with others so I may never buy another Intel chip. I would sell them to you though.

How about that C2Q. And hey it's only $1100+. I mean the best mobo is only $400.

Go for it. I see a $1500 barbones on your future.

 

[gOJDO]

It is OK, BaronBS. Now take your medicine and go to bed.

 

[evilr00t]

I look forward to seeing the benchmarks.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

To ALL OF YOU.


Why are you worried about what I do with my money? Do you think I care what your opinion is?

I have never regretted a purchase I made. (Except for the souls I picked up cheap)

I have a 4400+ and an FX70 at 2.7GHz will be

AT LEAST 100% faster. Maybe 300% on multithreaded apps


That is always worth it. Intel doesn't play well with others so I may never buy another Intel chip. I would sell them to you though.

How about that C2Q. And hey it's only $1100+. I mean the best mobo is only $400.

Go for it. I see a $1500 barbones on your future.

I don't know why, it just bothers me someone would buy that crap and post in these forums about how they think the Quad FX is good.

Baron, you can't argue about the price of C2Q. The best Quad FX pair will cost you $1000+ dollars (we don't know the actual price because of right now this is all VAPORWARE to the consumers). Plus the cost of the expensive and limited motherboard choices, plus the cost of a heavy duty power supply.

So a Quad FX costs MORE while performing LESS. A Quad FX is also more costly to run and presents MAJOR heat issues. Quad FX machines have two processor fans that can fail and extra case fans to deal with the enormous heat issues. More moving parts equals more failures.

Quad FX costs more.
Quad FX performs less.
Quad FX costs more to operate.
Quad FX fails.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Baron's my forumz buddy and all, but I must say, if you buy QuadFX you will regret it.

Quad FX is inferior in just about every single way. Quad FX is one of the most overwhelming failures I have ever seen.

I know you'll never buy an Intel machine, but do your wallet a favor and hold off on AMD quad until they actually make a quad core processor.

Over on the site which I cannot and will not name I will quote the following that made me wee myself:

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.

WHY THE (BLEEP) WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO RUN FOUR INSTANCES OF THE SAME GAME? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RUN ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE OF A GAME?

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.

I don't even know what the hell that means. Wouldn't Google run their servers on...um... SERVERS? And haven't we had huge multi-processor servers for years?

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.

Who the hell runs the same thing four times over? There's very few instances where one would do that. Basically, Shakira is trying to CREATE ARTIFICIAL BENCHMARKS that somehow put Quad FX on top of Core 2 Quad.



To ALL OF YOU.


Why are you worried about what I do with my money? Do you think I care what your opinion is?

I have never regretted a purchase I made. (Except for the souls I picked up cheap)

I have a 4400+ and an FX70 at 2.7GHz will be

AT LEAST 100% faster. Maybe 300% on multithreaded apps


That is always worth it. Intel doesn't play well with others so I may never buy another Intel chip. I would sell them to you though.

How about that C2Q. And hey it's only $1100+. I mean the best mobo is only $400.

Go for it. I see a $1500 barbones on your future.


Overclock your FX-70? Be ready to pick up to two of those 1 kilowatt PSUs with the mini nuclear power plant. That's if you can even get a 100MHz out of that POS. :lol:

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

According to these benchmarks, even the X2 5200+ is faster than the FX-74 in some instances, you sure your FX-70 will be 100% faster? You can thank your added memory latency for that

 

[r0ck]

First thing, if you don't care what our opinion is, why are you even in these opinionated forums, shoving your silliness to us?

4400+ is 2.2GHz. FX70 is 2.6GHz. 4400+ will OC better. In single threaded apps, FX70 will be at best, 18% faster. In multithreaded apps, 372% theoretical max, but considering a real world scaling factor of 70% at best, 2.6x4 becomes 1.82x4, more like 230%. 😀

 

[MrCommunistGen]

sorry about the double post... it said there was an error, i figured it didn't post it 😳

There IS an error... at least right now I see you as having "0" posts while I am staring at 2 of them.
Edit: eek... didnt realize how late that was going to come in the thread.

-mcg

 

[turpit]

To ALL OF YOU.

Why are you worried about what I do with my money?

To BARON MARTIX

Because you insist on "sharing" your illogical purchasing decisions with us....Duh.
If you dont want to hear about how a fool and his money are soon parted, then stop telling us how you plan to part with your money

Do you think I care what your opinion is?

To BARON MARTIX

Do you think we care what your opinion is?
Since you dont care, why then, pray tell, do you insist on sharing your opinions, (which have been consistantly proven to be illogical, ill-founded and ill-concieved) with us? And why, after sharing your inane drivel, in a public forum, do you expect it not to be commented on/debunked?

I have never regretted a purchase I made. (Except for the souls I picked up cheap)

I have a 4400+ and an FX70 at 2.7GHz will be

AT LEAST 100% faster. Maybe 300% on multithreaded apps

And yet it is still slower than Intels current offering. Need I remind you, before you start spewing your "Vista" and "NUMA" crap, that C2D, and C2Q came on strong right out of the box, with out any of the excuse making of ".....well, in 2011, during the vernal equinox when sagitarius is in ascension and DX 58.525 is released, $x$ will probably beat C2Q in the AMDZone artificial mutlithreading benchmark "AMD Lemming March" thus proving $x$ really was a good idea"

That is always worth it. Intel doesn't play well with others so I may never buy another Intel chip. I would sell them to you though.

How about that C2Q. And hey it's only $1100+. I mean the best mobo is only $400.

Go for it. I see a $1500 barbones on your future.

As opposed to what? $x$. Oh yeah. Another one of your brilliant comparisons. Lets see, the ONLY mobos available for $x$ are.....$400+?
Yet another one of your intelectually challenged comments.

 

[gOJDO]

it is ok turpit, BaronBS forgot to take the medicine on time. Don't worry he 'll be fine in a hour or two.

 

[dasickninja]

And yet debunking the myths and FUD never gets old.. its a constant like gravity, or the Electric Slide at a wedding.

 

[BaronMatrix]

To ALL OF YOU.


Why are you worried about what I do with my money? Do you think I care what your opinion is?

I have never regretted a purchase I made. (Except for the souls I picked up cheap)

I have a 4400+ and an FX70 at 2.7GHz will be

AT LEAST 100% faster. Maybe 300% on multithreaded apps


That is always worth it. Intel doesn't play well with others so I may never buy another Intel chip. I would sell them to you though.

How about that C2Q. And hey it's only $1100+. I mean the best mobo is only $400.

Go for it. I see a $1500 barbones on your future.

I don't know why, it just bothers me someone would buy that crap and post in these forums about how they think the Quad FX is good.

Baron, you can't argue about the price of C2Q. The best Quad FX pair will cost you $1000+ dollars (we don't know the actual price because of right now this is all VAPORWARE to the consumers). Plus the cost of the expensive and limited motherboard choices, plus the cost of a heavy duty power supply.

So a Quad FX costs MORE while performing LESS. A Quad FX is also more costly to run and presents MAJOR heat issues. Quad FX machines have two processor fans that can fail and extra case fans to deal with the enormous heat issues. More moving parts equals more failures.

Quad FX costs more.
Quad FX performs less.
Quad FX costs more to operate.
Quad FX fails.


I can't believe that just 6 months ago this forum was FILLED with 965EE and 805PD posts which were slower and hotter, but now that Intel has a faster, cooler chip, the same power expended in a wksta is NO GOOD?

I could just as easily use the same amount with 2x2218s and a G80 but QFX means I don't spend the extra for the ECC memory.

I put together a well configured QFX system at ibuypower.com for what I paid for my well-configured 4400+ - except that this one will run CrySis\D4\Q5\AlanWake 3x times faster.

You don't like my choices make others, but find the posts where I downed people for buying 9xxEE chips that were ONLY ONE chip hitting "overly-high" temps.

QFX is only slower than C2Q. It beats X6800 in mutlithreaded apps. That means it doesn't suck. I won't be looking for the fastest benchmarks or I would have an FX60, which as we all know was cool-running and stomping NetBurst.


I will buy what I want and use it as I want. Imagine a person who only needs a 7600GS with this? Can you say their power levels will be G80-like?
Even with C2Q, G80 SLI sucks up around 600W ( see Anands last QFX review).

I am not a gamer and I will wait until retail if necessary. Especially since Vista X64 is a necessity.

Again, FX70 is only $599 and is not totally embarrased in the face of C2Q. ANyone with a brain knew that thing would be a monster.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.

https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18375538&postID=6897564205464927314

Give it up Barron, you're the only one who believes 4x4 is some innovative solution from AMD. It does not close the gap as you're comparing a FX-74 @ 3GHz to a QX6700 @ 2.66GHz.

4x4 = Abondonware

And in other news AMD is chaining two trucks together to make a quad truck! Of course it uses double the gasoline, but hey it is really innovative and the trucks can be later swapped out for bigger SUV's...

Of course it's performance is not as good as Intel's car, but hey it uses twice as much gasoline and for those megataskers who need to tow 5 cars behind them (which every truck enthusiast needs to do, no?), it can do that...I think they call it a 4x4?!?!? Oh and you probably will need a new radiator to keep the engine from overheating, but you can plug in 4 CD players and 12 cigarette lighters/power adapters...I hear the other car maker can only have 2 CD players and 4 cigarette lighter so you are quite limited listening to music while chain smoking....

:lol:


You realize that you posted a link to Sharikou, right? When I buy it, I'll tell you if it's faster than my 4400+.

 

[evilr00t]

Even without C2Q, G80 SLI sucks up around 600W

Fixed it for you.

 

[the_vorlon]

AMD's quad core, I happen to like the name "FrankenQuad" because it really is just a collection of body parts sewn together, is dead on arrival.

Even if you believe Barcelona is a killer chip, the current frankenquad platform doesn't support everything to make it run right anyway.

Buy a dual core opterron system - damn near same price and it actually works right.

AMD has embarassed themselves with this one.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I can't believe that just 6 months ago this forum was FILLED with 965EE and 805PD posts which were slower and hotter, but now that Intel has a faster, cooler chip, the same power expended in a wksta is NO GOOD?

I could just as easily use the same amount with 2x2218s and a G80 but QFX means I don't spend the extra for the ECC memory.

I put together a well configured QFX system at ibuypower.com for what I paid for my well-configured 4400+ - except that this one will run CrySis\D4\Q5\AlanWake 3x times faster.

You don't like my choices make others, but find the posts where I downed people for buying 9xxEE chips that were ONLY ONE chip hitting "overly-high" temps.

QFX is only slower than C2Q. It beats X6800 in mutlithreaded apps. That means it doesn't suck. I won't be looking for the fastest benchmarks or I would have an FX60, which as we all know was cool-running and stomping NetBurst.


I will buy what I want and use it as I want. Imagine a person who only needs a 7600GS with this? Can you say their power levels will be G80-like?
Even with C2Q, G80 SLI sucks up around 600W ( see Anands last QFX review).

I am not a gamer and I will wait until retail if necessary. Especially since Vista X64 is a necessity.

Again, FX70 is only $599 and is not totally embarrased in the face of C2Q. ANyone with a brain knew that thing would be a monster.

The same justifications you use to support the Quad FX are also true of Core 2 Quad.

Core 2 Quad is faster than your 4800+.
Core 2 Quad is better at multi-threaded apps than the X6800.

The difference? Core 2 Quad costs less the Quad FX.

Why am I so persistent with my opinion? Because you came her posting yours and I think you're wrong.

If you would have come to me a year ago and said some hot Pentium was better than AMD I would have put you in your place. The tables have turned though. Intel is the top dog with the top procs. AMD's Quad FX is a joke. And even beyond that, it is currently paperware. All we have is a few pictures and lackluster benchmarks. I doubt it could even make it under your Christmas tree in time.

I don't care if you buy it, I do care if you come on here and start saying all these nonsensical things about why anyone should even consider buying such a dud.

 

[BaronMatrix]

AMD's quad core, I happen to like the name "FrankenQuad" because it really is just a collection of body parts sewn together, is dead on arrival.

Even if you believe Barcelona is a killer chip, the current frankenquad platform doesn't support everything to make it run right anyway.

Buy a dual core opterron system - damn near same price and it actually works right.

AMD has embarassed themselves with this one.

Doom and Gloom. Domm and Gloom. AMD made a platform faster than FX. If they really did it to compete with Core 2 and not their own products then in 6 months it will have sold three units.

I'm sure you guys get a kick out of MAD being slower and hotter, but truth be told, who cares.Do a poll on how many people upgraded from OC'd netBursts that were heating the house without being in striking distance of C2Q.

I hate the high power, but love the high power, especially from my preferred vendor.

As far as vendors who have reportedly dumped the platform, that means a whole lot of work with no reward. Smart move. Maybe I can sell them a 4GHz Celeron.

 

[dasickninja]

Wait a minute, I thought AMD was competing with Intel, and the point was to beat Intel. all this, "Its a gateway, its a stepping stone, its a design bed" sounds like grade A bullshit and backtracking.

 

[evilr00t]

Who wouldn't like Quad FX's super secret nifty feature: the Quad Core Spaceheater?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Wait a minute, I thought AMD was competing with Intel, and the point was to beat Intel. all this, "Its a gateway, its a stepping stone, its a design bed" sounds like grade A bullshit and backtracking.

When Porsche releases a new engine it isn't to be faster than Ferrari's new engine, it's to be faster than Porsche's old engine.


There's plenty of room for two X86 (or should I say X64) manufs. I don't think you'll ever hear me agree with Sharikou about it even being possible for Intel to CH11.

I just think they don't play well with others. I remember the razor thin margins of OEMs before AMD "grew up."

The only difference between 2xxx and QFX is buying it for SLI. I'm not. I mean Valve's test can sell this thing. It is designed for multicore apps. The main apps I use VS2005, Virtual Server, SQL.

To even post Sharikou in my thread is blasphemy for those would do so.

 

[1Tanker]

I put together a well configured QFX system at ibuypower.com for what I paid for my well-configured 4400+ - except that this one will run CrySis\D4\Q5\AlanWake 3x times faster.

Cool...blow your bucks now for a game coming out in (late?)2007/2008(good deal, if you ask me).

According to a report on Total Video Games, the upcoming "psychological action thriller" from Remedy Entertainment has been postponed and now won't make it to store shelves until some time in 2008.

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/11372

 

[BaronMatrix]

First thing, if you don't care what our opinion is, why are you even in these opinionated forums, shoving your silliness to us?

4400+ is 2.2GHz. FX70 is 2.6GHz. 4400+ will OC better. In single threaded apps, FX70 will be at best, 18% faster. In multithreaded apps, 372% theoretical max, but considering a real world scaling factor of 70% at best, 2.6x4 becomes 1.82x4, more like 230%. 😀

What's sad is he doesn't even understand what a theoretical max is.... 372% is a number pulled from the dark, dank, passage of the inner anal region and blurted without any undrestanding of what he talks about....

He does not understand multithreading, it is quite sad.

What's sad is that you can't imagine a professional uses multithreaded apps.

I mean REALLY SAD!!

Go away!

 

[BaronMatrix]

I put together a well configured QFX system at ibuypower.com for what I paid for my well-configured 4400+ - except that this one will run CrySis\D4\Q5\AlanWake 3x times faster.

Cool...blow your bucks now for a game coming out in (late?)2007/2008(good deal, if you ask me).

According to a report on Total Video Games, the upcoming "psychological action thriller" from Remedy Entertainment has been postponed and now won't make it to store shelves until some time in 2008.

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/11372

Doom and Gloom, 1 planned multithreaded app won't come out and QFX won't run any games at 60fps.

BooHoo, poor AMD buyer.

BooHoo.