Quadfather compared to Kentsfield [Archive]

DanTheBanjoman

Nov 30, 2006, 05:21 AM

While it has been discussed on the forums a lot already there were no official comparisons between AMDs Quadfather and Intels Kentsfield. So PC watch did exactly that, they compared a 3 GHz Quadfather to a 2.66GHz QX6700. The first major issue found was that the AMD system used up to 80% more energy, not exactly something to ignore. Even though the AMD system didn't score bad, it only won a single benchmark and performed worse or the same at best in every other benchmark.
It seems AMD let their fans down for now. Lets hope they make up to them with their 65nm CPUs. For now, take a look at the results:

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture014_thm.jpg (http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture014.jpg)http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture015_thm.jpg (http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture015.jpg)http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture016_thm.jpg (http://www.techpowerup.com/img/06-11-30/Capture016.jpg)
Thanks to Tweakers.net for making nice tables of the results.

Source: PC watch (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/tawada92.htm)

tvdang7

Nov 30, 2006, 05:29 AM

not bad. i would get the lower clocked ones and overclock instead of paying the high price premium.

Tory

Nov 30, 2006, 05:32 AM

www.amd.justgotowned.com

Homeless

Nov 30, 2006, 05:34 AM

80% more power usage? oh my

EastCoasthandle

Nov 30, 2006, 05:35 AM

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx.html
there's more here. The major issue is that the quad-father cannot be overclocked.

Track

Nov 30, 2006, 05:41 AM

AMD loses big time. I dont care if its 90nm vs. 65nm, they should have gotten to 65nm by now, its their fault they didnt.

Chewy

Nov 30, 2006, 05:51 AM

4 cores better than 2x2... intel wins round 2 who knows amd might come out with a real 4core chip like intel did with 2core...
I nvr read the link just peopels posts, busy busy.

Edit: This is a good battle :D, keep bringing out better processors intel amd, I want 52 cores for my nexted upgrade.

EastCoasthandle

Nov 30, 2006, 06:17 AM

maybe if AMD concentrated on CPUs instead of ATI maybe, just maybe we would have some competition. It looks like we are waiting for K8L now to bad that's the only card they have left. From the looks of it so far, they can't compete with 2 cpus, I take a grain of salt with K8L

tigger

Nov 30, 2006, 10:03 AM

maybe k8l(oser) aint gonna be the fanboys holy grail after all.maybe amd got their fingers in too many pies now to concentrate on one good pie.

DanTheBanjoman

Nov 30, 2006, 10:32 AM

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx.html
there's more here. The major issue is that the quad-father cannot be overclocked.

Because they couldn't it doesn't mean it can't be done. Woodcrest couldn't be overclocked either, however pinmods allowed 1066 to run at 1333 and W1z actually adopted systool to raise the FSB even more. Now the limit is memory on that platform, though once the 5:4 multiplier can be forced even higher clocks will be possible. It's all a matter of time.
There will be tricks to get those CPUs past 250, if not the platform will really die fast. The enthusiast at whom it's aimed won't be interested for long.

Alec§taar

Nov 30, 2006, 10:45 AM

INTEL's come back this round it appears, w/ a vengeance...

:)

* AMD's stuff's great, I use it now (generally I was an INTEL man mostly thru my entire PC experience since 1992 or so) & has held a heck of a lead in many areas over INTEL the past 3 years or so now, iirc...

(So, it makes some sense INTEL'd come "roaring back" THIS round!)

APK

P.S.=> And, the AMD "Quad Father" above really DIDN'T do badly by way of comparison as Dan noted, but INTEL still takes 1st place... Still, it appears that AMD's work is cut out for them to try to take back the title next round! apk

Nov 30, 2006, 11:19 AM

is this quad father 90nm or 65nm?

TXcharger

Nov 30, 2006, 11:23 AM

ya and intels got that penryn coming out to, which is gonna own everything lol until intel comes out with their next processor

and i think amd is gonna drag ati down with them:mad:

Alec§taar

Nov 30, 2006, 11:26 AM

ya and intels got that penryn coming out to, which is gonna own everything lol until intel comes out with their next processor

and i think amd is gonna drag ati down with them:mad:

Naw... this is to be expected (1 of them taking the lead over the other), & history from the past decade has shown us all this (@ least me, I am a bit older than most folks here).

(Purely cyclical, imo & experience @ least!)

* It's only a matter of time before AMD retakes their performance crown, & once they do? Intel will come back w/ a faster unit in retaliation/answer!

APK

P.S.=> I'm NOT really "Brand Loyal" in this area (CPU) or in GPU/vidcards even + have owned INTEL & AMD/ATI & NVIDIA componentry - imo, both rock in any event!

I only buy every 4 years or so (totally new rigs I pop together myself), & whatever's the faster performer @ the time? I go w/ it... in vidcards & CPU's!

Doing it that way? I see HUGE boosts, purchasing once every 4 yrs. on average (w/ MAYBE a vidcard upgrade on them midway @ the 2 yr. mark)... apk

Munkul

Nov 30, 2006, 11:30 AM

DanTheBanjoman

Nov 30, 2006, 11:36 AM

i kinda feel sorry for AMD because intel could easily get away with having crappy netburst, because of their corporate muscle and bully-power.
however, AMD dont have as much power and resources, so they better get an ass-kicking product out SOON
:mad:

I feel sorry for Intel because AMD got away with cheap Intel clones for years.

That's sarcasm, your argument works both ways and is obviously pointless.

lemonadesoda

Nov 30, 2006, 12:34 PM

This is terrible for AMD. On average, AMD is down about 20% in performance (rough average of benchmarks shown).

But wait, thats 2.66Ghz vs 3.0Mhz. Bump up the intel clocks to 3.0Mhz and that performance gap widens to 35%.

OUCH

Chewy

Nov 30, 2006, 12:57 PM

I only buy every 4 years or so (totally new rigs I pop together myself), & whatever's the faster performer @ the time? I go w/ it... in vidcards & CPU's!

Doing it that way? I see HUGE boosts, purchasing once every 4 yrs. on average (w/ MAYBE a vidcard upgrade on them midway @ the 2 yr. mark)... apk

gotta like seeing huge boosts in proformace :D, its even worth the wait for that bigger leap sometimes :P

breakfromyou

Nov 30, 2006, 01:15 PM

AMD was supposed to make a big splash with the K8L, now it seems it barely reaches decent performance when compared to a lower clocked processor form intel, and uses almost twice the power, meaning it must run almost twice as hot as well, what a let down! :(

Dang, seems AMD is in for a rough ride unless they come out with something really revolutionary!

At least these procs are much cheaper than intel counterpart, at about $559 for AMD's quad core entry level proc you can get two of these babies for the price of a single QX6700, but even that edge will be very short lived for AMD, as Intel is just about to introduce the Q6600 at a much lower price than the QX6700, and I bet it'll spank K8L ass as well, with it's lower power consumption, lower heat envelope and killer performance.

The future looks very grim for AMD for the middle, high end and enthusiast markets, though I guess they'll continue to dominate the low end market...

This isn't K8L...

EastCoasthandle

Nov 30, 2006, 01:21 PM

AMD's 2 processors cannot beat Intel's single processor. Wait, AMD's 2 higher clocked processors that require more electricity cannot beat Inte;s single processor that is clocked lower. That look real bad in my book no matter how you "cut the sauce". And, what are they doing with ATI besides bring it down with AMD labeling anyway? Wait, I know combine the awesome powers of GPU and CPU :shadedshu. Wasn't that already done with Cyrix Media GX Processor? Yup but they can do it better. Are you for real :wtf:? Come on, been there done that:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/Media_GX.jpg
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaGX)

Following the buyout of Cyrix by National Semiconductor and the sale of the Cyrix name and trademarks to VIA Technologies, the core was developed by National Semiconductor into the Geode line of processors, which was subsequently sold to Advanced Micro Devices.

As you can see AMD now has the rights of the Cyrix Media GX Processor. Gee that's where AMD got the idea from :laugh:

breakfromyou

Nov 30, 2006, 01:26 PM

I'll just wait for benchmarks of "K8L" to come around, then i'll say something. Yes, this is absolutely ridiculous. AMD, start thinking. nobody is going to want to buy this...the only chance of the whole dual socket idea sounding impressive, is with 2 K8L based quad cores. that will be interesting, and expensive.

overcast

Nov 30, 2006, 01:43 PM

DanTheBanjoman

Nov 30, 2006, 01:54 PM

It's pretty ridiculous to read these discussions, when all of you people were saying the same exact thing when AMD was on top. It's called competition and one or the other is going to be on top. When AMD gets it back, you'll be saying LYKE OMG INTELS FUCHAR IS TEH FINISHEDS. If you're in the market for new hardware, buy what is the best at your budget at the time. What does it matter whose name is on the chip, just pick the winning combination for the time period.

Well, AMD had only 1 series that ever beat Intel. So I assuming that AMD will strike back again isn't that logical. AMD might not be able to reclaim the throne that fast. They don't have as much research capacity or production capacity. Intel now has the chance to run past AMD really fast. If the next architecture is as succesful as Conroe it could be extremely bad for AMD.

tvdang7

Nov 30, 2006, 02:38 PM

i think it would strike more interest if they released some kind of cheap 2.0 ghz chip or so for it.
maybe 200 bucks per chip. 400 for 2 of them. and if boards get cheaper. cant beat them on the high end beat them on the low end.

ryboto

Nov 30, 2006, 03:07 PM

At least these procs are much cheaper than intel counterpart, at about $599 for AMD's quad core entry level proc you can get two of these babies for the price of a single QX6700, but even that edge will be very short lived for AMD, as Intel is just about to introduce the Q6600 at a much lower price than the QX6700, and I bet it'll spank K8L ass as well, with its lower power consumption, lower heat envelope and killer performance.

The future looks very grim for AMD for the middle, high end and enthusiast markets, though I guess they'll continue to dominate the low end market...

You do know that those prices are for TWO dual core cpu's, right?

EviLZeD

Nov 30, 2006, 03:32 PM

thats strange there quad core cpu design looks very similiar to intels :S pins are on the mobo now i think

jocksteeluk

Nov 30, 2006, 04:49 PM

www.amd.justgotowned.com

i am a tweener (on the fence) but that is funny!!!

i_am_mustang_man

Nov 30, 2006, 05:03 PM

not too good for amd, but intel is really bringing some solid prouducts to market, and that is great!

like was said above, maybe amd can't take high end market, maybe they can take the low end though, and that is where most of the money is anyways. so if they get more money, they will have more funds for research, so maybe they will be able to retake the high end.

then again, if intel drops a 250~$quadcore, amd might be in serious trouble for a few years

jocksteeluk

Nov 30, 2006, 05:13 PM

since Amd seems to have abbandoned energy efficientcy with this product what will the new angle the use now be? industrial room heaters for winter and cold climates?

oh well atleast we all know where the EX-Intel Pentium 4 staff went.

Thank goodness for AMD because if it wasnt for them we would all still be thinking the P4 was the dogs bollocks still.

DanTheBanjoman

Nov 30, 2006, 05:34 PM

then again, if intel drops a 250~$quadcore, amd might be in serious trouble for a few years

Try $450 quad core already available.

Judas

Nov 30, 2006, 05:38 PM

When the 65nm cores come out Amd will catch up some ..when s AM3 coming ?

largon

Nov 30, 2006, 06:01 PM

^
Rev.G (65nm) K8 should be out next week.
AM3 will be out ~1½ years from this date.

wtf8269

Nov 30, 2006, 07:04 PM

Considering the AMD was 90nm, I'm fairly impressed with the results. Once AMD comes out with 65nm I'm sure it should be a good competitor. Maybe not be better, but damned close.

EastCoasthandle

Nov 30, 2006, 07:25 PM

Wait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...

overcast

Nov 30, 2006, 08:02 PM

Wait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...
:twitch: That was sarcasm I hope....

AsphyxiA

Nov 30, 2006, 08:06 PM

at least AMD got something right. The Xbit labs post claims that the processors feature a cache that is shared between the cores. nothing huge but a lot better than having 1 mb of cache for each core.

Nov 30, 2006, 08:46 PM

Wait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...

it helps reduce power comsuption a lot, meaning that it will heat less, and suck less power ;)

lemonadesoda

Nov 30, 2006, 09:57 PM

it helps reduce power comsuption a lot, meaning that it will heat less, and suck less power ;)
ONLY if there is a voltage drop. Die shrink without voltage drop increases current leakage decreases efficiency and increases heat. For an example of this effect, see Pentium Prescott

tigger

Nov 30, 2006, 10:15 PM

the cache on my 6300 is shared between both cores.it is 1x 2mb.

EastCoasthandle

Nov 30, 2006, 11:48 PM

ONLY if there is a voltage drop. Die shrink without voltage drop increases current leakage decreases efficiency and increases heat. For an example of this effect, see Pentium Prescott

My thoughts as well. In other words, just because it's a die shrink doesn't necessarily mean less heat or less voltage. It all depends on the arch that you are shrinking.

Dec 1, 2006, 12:19 AM

My thoughts as well. In other words, just because it's a die shrink doesn't necessarily mean less heat or less voltage. It all depends on the arch that you are shrinking.

there will be, they are trying to reach 1.3v :)

randomperson21

Dec 1, 2006, 02:41 AM

this is $600. in comparison to the qx6700 from intel ($1500 on newegg last time i checked) the 4x4 platform is actually a good platform for someone wanting to get started in quad core.
but i think i'm going to wait a bit for it, until mobo prices drop and they get the new iteration of the htt bus out the door.

largon

Dec 1, 2006, 08:07 PM

this is $600. in comparison to the qx6700 from intel ($1500 on newegg last time i checked) (...)QX6700 for $1100 (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=qx6700&btnG=Search+Froogle&lnk=pruser&price1=&price2=1%2C100.00&btnP=Go).

QuadFX boards are $300-400 and also require 4 dimms (+200$) to run DC. Thus overall costs equal a QX6700.