- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,487 (1.40/day)
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:
Thanks to Tweakers.net for making nice tables of the results.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
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:
Thanks to Tweakers.net for making nice tables of the results.
View at TechPowerUp Main Site