AMD unveils processors for "power" computer users

[EnlightenedPixel]

This is great news. I think I'll invest in the dual board so I can upgrade to quads later. I cant wait to play with Max9 and MentalRay with that much power added to it.

[Rabid pitbull]

Yeah this is really good news to hear that a upgrade path is available with these processors. I am really interested to see the benchmarks when they start to appear.

[Spin99]

The second scenario included Video Editing with DrDivX together with Video Encoding in Windows Media Encoder 9 and we ran the Battlefield 2 at the same time. We didn’t have any hiccoughs in the games and two video files were decoding at all times. This is just amazing as you can run some serious stuff in the background and play a full-on game.

>> Link to original article (http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36064) <<

[VolumeViz]

Here is a review of the new Quad FX platform:

Link (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)

[3DDave]

Here is a review of the new Quad FX platform:

Link (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)


"The Quad FX ain’t your momma’s PC"

Oh yea!

[Rabid pitbull]

After reading that review posted by Volumeviz I am not so sure this is really progress. Way to much power use hopefully they will iron out the efficiency soon, but it doesnt sound like it. AMD is making fantastic heaters!? :(

[Nando]

its isnt something new, Just a repacked Opteron with Higher clocks and a better price point.

IF you want something close to it now it would be the sorta like a Tyan Dual AMD Opteron Mobo with Dual Core 285's.

[daart]

Power consumption is a big problem right now for AMD.
But hey, AMD has just demonstrated their new native quad core server processor, and yes, it's faster than the intel quad Xeon 5355 (Kentsfield@2,66GHz) :)

http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=290990

AMD is back!

[pgp_protector]

Just in time for winter :bounce:

[VolumeViz]

In many ways I find the Quad FX concept interesting. AMD did not make this platform for casual users; this is a solution for people in need of more processing power. In many ways I think this platform can be a great solution for CG artists that do a lot of rendering or multi-tasking with processor-intensive applications.

If you don`t need that much processing power or mainly use applications that has not been optimized for parallel processing a Quad FX will probably be overkill for your purpose.

To sum up my impressions of the Quad FX platform so far:

Pros:

A lot of processing power - works very well with CG renderers (FX-74 is as fast as QX6700 in 3DMax and Maxon Cinebench tests)
Relatively affordable - $600-1000 for a set of two processors (compared to server-processors and QX6700 -> $1500 at Newegg))
Can be upgraded to a total of 8 cores (2 sockets with 4 cores each)
Performance might increase under Windows Vista (better support for NUMA memory management)
Allows multi-tasking with processor-intensive applications simultaneously
A lot of goodies on the motherboard (12 S-ATA, 2 Gb lan, 8 USB 2.0, 2 firewire, 2 x16 PCI-E + 2 x8 PCI-E, HD audio)
Cool and quiet reduces power consumption when idle (FX-74 uses only 45 watts more than QX6700 when idle)

Cons:

Uses about 140-200 watts more than QX6700 under full load (means more expensive PSU)
Slower than QX6700 in games and some applications

I think you could build a relatively affordable Quad FX system looking something like this:

Quad FX-70 (overclocked to FX-74 levels) $600
ASUS motherboard $300-350
Seasonic 700w PSU $210

And then adding something like 2-4 Gb of Corsair memory, a WD raptor hard disk for your OS, Seagate hard disks for storage, a suitable ATX case with good ventilation and available slots for some 12 cm Nexus or Noctua fans, a single mid or high end graphics card and hopefully some quiet CPU coolers (like Zalman or similar - these are not available yet).

I think this would make an excellent system for a computer enthusiast in need of a powerful system :)

[cpan]

the update to native QuadCores in Q2 2007 is the greatest part of these "4x4" platforms, it seems those Quads will be about 40% faster clock per clock (and many times faster in multithreaded environment) than current CPUs.

though neither the 'rebranded opterons', the FX 70, 72 and 74 arent doing that bad, especially under Vista.
In Vista Cinebench (and cinebench is one of the few benches that are well multithreaded, like most modern renderers) even the 599$ 2 x FX70 gets very close to the QX6700 while the FX72 and FX74 surpasses it.

http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu/1611/cinebench_vista.png

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=it_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hwupgrade.it%2farticoli%2fcpu%2f1611%2fquad-fx-la-ricetta-amd-per-i-quattro-core_10.html

though the two nvidia chipsets on the board do eat a lot of power, it seems those eat over 100W alone :D
Hopefully till the launch of the platform lower power chipsets appear :)

[Spin99]

QX6700 = 1 processor = 4 cores
4x4 = 2 processors = 2 cores + 2 cores

So no matter what consumption you get out of a dual core AMD,
2 processors should consume double the energy of 1 processor.
Even with Cool'n'Quiet. It's logical, isn't it?

That's why the "megatasking" and "enthusiast" labels.
I think they're for people that do Cg rendering or something? :rolleyes:

[mattmos]

Power consumption is a big problem right now for AMD.
But hey, AMD has just demonstrated their new native quad core server processor, and yes, it's faster than the intel quad Xeon 5355 (Kentsfield@2,66GHz) :)

http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=290990

AMD is back!

But is it faster than the Intel native quad core processor which was demostrated a couple of months ago - Tigerton? That will be the true competition for this chip and should be released around the same time...

AMD has some ground to make up still, and the 4x4 isn't going to do a great job as a stop gap measure, though I'm glad its come in at such a competitive price point...

[DrBalthar]

Well honestly the company which keeps best track on its power consumption will win in the long run. It just is environmental devasting and ethical and morally not sustainable running PC which consume up to 1kW/h or very close to it. Currently Intel seems to have a slight lead on this factor. Now if Nvidia could get hold of itself aswell everything would be fine.

[mlmiller1983]

I'm looking forward to their Quad-Core Opteron processors due out mid 2007.

[VolumeViz]

DrBalthar - The Quad FX platform does not use more than ~500w under heavy load (~260w when idle with power management turned on) which is not bad for a dual socket solution with this kind of computing power (compared to other dual socket AMD and Intel servers). If you read the Quad FX reviews carefully you will see that the rest of the power is consumed by the dual high-end graphics cards the test systems have been equipped with. As a wrote earlier in this thread the Quad FX uses only 40-50 watts more than QX6700 when idle and about 140-200 watts more when under heavy load. Most people will probably go for a single mid or high end graphics card which will reduce the power consumption significantly compared to the test setup.

When it comes to the power consumption debate I tend to disagree with your view. The Intel Core 2 Duo are efficient processors but they only make up a small (but steadily increasing) part of Intel product line. The bear share of intel sales has so far been pentium 4 and pentium D (and similar Xeon processors) which are the most inefficient single-core and dual-core processors available. The AMD Athlon processors were the most efficient processors for years before Intel introduced the C2D processors. Also, AMD has currently the most energy efficient line of desktop processors available known as the Athlon 64 X2 EE and 64 X2 SFF. However I do agree with your view that the CPU and GPU manufacturers should move towards more efficient products as soon as possible.

[mummey]

Link to Ars Technica Review (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061130-8327.html)

[Coliba]

and about 140-200 watts more when under heavy load.

That's not exactly a low number :) Doesn't less power usage also mean lower temperatures? And possibly higher OC potential. The Kentsfield seems very good for overclocking.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.