Upcoming Intel price cuts, BIG NEWS!!

[NarkotikBuzz]

Great new prices coming for Intel Core 2 Duo, as well as some new models. Read the full story here. http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?...me=0&endtime=0

[Pitch]

Up to 40% off? Wow..

[captinhector]

mmm I might hop onto that bandwagon..... thats cheep for a cpu that oc's well, if they oc well...

[NarkotikBuzz]

I am mostly waiting for the E6420.....the 6400 with 4MB cache.....that is all me, especially for under 200 dollars.

[Samuknow]

That is some amazing pricing. Plus the cache boost on the lower end models. Those could end up being some mean cheap processors...

[cloasters]

Wow, who knows, maybe I'll spring for a Core 2 system. I don't need the power, though. Some folks do. It's dang near "a moment of silence for AMD" now.

[Gizmo]

Nah, I don't think it's that bad. AMD don't have the performance crown any more for systems implementing a single chip with multiple cores, but they still have arguably the most scalable architecture, and reviews I've seen of the QuadFX systems have been generally positive WRT the 'feel' of the system. In addition, the QuadFX kicks butt on memory intensive stuff. Further, when you bring their 'fusion' architecture into play, with one socket for the CPU and the second socket for GPU, physics, whatever, the entire platform looks much better.

That being said, unless the 65 nm AMD parts get a LOT better, my next system will be Conroe based.

[skool h8r]

Can the bandwagon stop and pick me up please? If you've got enough money spare to buy all the other parts for it as well, then it's a great deal. I do still think AMD will gain some market share back next year because at the moment, they really are losing out. Their quadfather's will be out soon, we'll have to see how they do against their intel counterparts i guess. Saying that, i'm probably gonna be buying an opteron in the next few days (or sometime in january. If it's in January, i may go for dual core if i can still get hold of one).

[keithwalton]

Originally Posted by gizmo

In addition, the QuadFX kicks butt on memory intensive stuff.

Thats not what i've read so far! From what i've read the Quad FX's memory performance can be very hit / mis and isnt all that scalable.
Its all to do with how the memory banks work, all chips can use all sticks of ram, however they are paired up with each socket. (So say dimm's 1&2 are with physical cpu 1 (core 1/2) and dimm's 3&4 are with physical cpu 2 (core 3/4))
If core 3 say wanted some information that was stored in dimm 1 it would have to comunicate with cpu1 over the hypertransport link (between cpu's) which will then go get the data and send it back over the HT link.
Not only does this take up clock cycles on cpu 1 it drastically increases the latency which is what the on die memory controller is trying to reduce.

It turns out that it has around a 50/50 chance that when adressing something in memory a cpu will get it from its own memory bank. If you try and run 4 instances of the same program they will not run at the same speed as if there is only one instance. (Somthing the Quad core Intels can nearly achieve)

The Quad FX is up against the Xeon from intel, which quite frankly has a much better platform in my opinion at the moment.
It has dual independant fsb, each socket has its own link to the mch, the mch itself is of a Quad channel FB-Dimm type which not only gives it the ability to handle 32Gigs of ram + it gives it alot of b/w as well (how ever fb-dimms have a serious latency problem themselves).

That and you can get Quad core Xeons on a single chip already so in a twin socket board you can fit 8 Cpu cores, somthing you'll have to wait until Q3/4 '07 to get from amd.

Skool h8r - Quadfather aka Quad FX IS OUT and has been for over a month now, reviews arent great you need your own power station to run the system (not really but 1000w psu is recomended, 700w min) systems are also very rare with only one motherboard design avaliable, chips are also very few and far between.

Amd have also started to ship 65nm parts at long last, just making the end of 06 deadline (not many people have them but they exist) however all reviews i've seen are from dissapointed enthusiasts, they clock no faster, cost the same (most only with 512k cache per core) the only advantage is they consume less power (65w instead of 89w) so they run abit cooler.

An interesting conclusion to one of those reviews

That said, AMD could make one considerable stride toward countering Intel's quad-core chips and salvaging its poorly received Quad FX platform by replacing the Athlon 64 FX-70-series processors—and their scorching 125W TDP ratings—with chips made on this 65nm process. A pair of FX-74 CPUs, each with a 65W TDP, would be the perfect answer to Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and its 130W TDP. Pair 'em up with a decent, affordable motherboard, and Quad FX might start grabbing some attention—for the right reasons. Note to AMD: You need to do this. Stat.

It should be noted that the 65nm chips max stock speed is 2.6GHz, (they've gone faster at 90nm) and overclocked they couldn't reach 3GHz

[cadaveca]

I agree with you keith, however ther eis this niggling issue of stoc kclockspeeds...at which point AMD @ 2.4ghz is very closely matched to a conroe @ 2.4ghz. Conroe has slightly higher IPC, but AMD overcomes that shortcoming with it's low-latency ram.

After all, most buyers aren't overclocking...they are buying the systems and sticking them under a desk.

So, take a 3ghz 4x4 (Quadfather is not the offical name), and match it up against a 2.66ghz Kents, and it's actually pretty close. Sure, you can overclock the Intel part more, but the majority of systems are sold by OEMS that offer no such functionality, and are bought by offices and the such, where OUR concerns don't matter.

AMD mentioned a long time ago that they were going to focus on teh server front, and not the desktop. 4x4 kinda destroys this idea, as it's meant for noone but enthusiasts with lots of dough, but throw it in the server space along with a Kents, and you'll find that in real-world scenarios, the performance race is far closer than you think.


that ther equote of your shares my feelings...4x4 CAN compete...it just needs lower pricing!

[aghastpumpkin]

Two 4x4 FX74 Dual Cores each running at 3.0GhZ are significantly slower than an Intel QX6700 running at 2.66Ghz.
Even a dual core X6800 was faster in all benchmarks except TMPGE DVD Video Encoding.
Not only that, you you need four DIMMS to have dual channel memory for each CPU and each CPU has a TDP of 125W.....which is completely bonkers...

I have little doubt this is not at all the way forward for AMD, let alone their saving grace.

[aghastpumpkin]

Benchmarks Custom PC:

Paint Shop Pro:
1. 1.76
2. 1.82
3. 2.00

TMPGEnv DVD Encoding
1. 2.23
2. 2.72
3. 1.79

Multitasking
1. 1.98
2. 2.06
3. 2.26

1. AMD FX74 3GhZ 4x4
2. 2.66GhZ Core 2 Extreme QX6700
3. 2.93GhZ Core 2 Extreme X6800

Yeah....looks great......lol

[cadaveca]

OK...but benches..well..not real-world server performance. and yes, AMD is a bit slower....and why they need to lower thier price points. You still run into numa-kind-of issues on each conroe's cache in kentsfield too.

Benches do load up a system like it would be loaded running in an office as a server, or a similar set-up. Compare TDP with price/performance, and AMD actually wins out in this space by a slight margin(abt 2%), as most server-use scenarios don't care about top-end performance by itself...they care about maintenece costs, reliability, and power consumption as well. It's this additional factors that bring the race far closer than benchmarks show

[keithwalton]

hmm in aghastpumpkin list of computers comp 1 has a tdp of 250w (they've hit peak power used by a system in excess of 600w)
system 2 has a tdp of 130w and system 3 has a tdp of 75w.

They are trying to shift the Quad Fx's cheaply with two cpu's tending to cost less than 1 cpu of its equivelent speed (two x FX72 2.8GHz is cheaper than a FX 62 also 2.8GHz)