Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:35 PM
Also, the FX-74 processor comes with 2 processors, on that list you'd be buying 4 separate CPU dies.
Also, where are you putting this list together? The prices seem high with newegg as a comparison.
Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 06:37 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:37 PM
and at newegg you get 1 fx-74 for about $300 (dual core)
Edited by fortune82, 07 October 2007 - 06:39 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:41 PM
Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:49 PM
Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:53 PM
Secondly, I find it odd that AMD is selling these alone, considering they will not work alone, guess it's a marketing gimic to make the product initially look cheaper then what it actually is......
Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 06:54 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:55 PM
i mean that there was some lapse in drivers or something that lowered AMD's score. the true scores had AMD and intel neck and neck, and AMD actually took a few (i'll look for those results, btw)
heres one saying they're neck and neck
Edited by fortune82, 07 October 2007 - 07:01 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:08 PM
There have since been more reviews posted on the internet putting Intel ahead of AMD in the majority of the applications and pretty well all games.
The main thing I have against Quad FX is that there is a much larger power draw, the motherboard are very expensive and there is much more heat output limiting overclocking. Only way you could overclock these and limit the heat barrier would be to cool these things on either a look with two rads or two separate loops. Air simply wouldn't get rid of heat quick enough, infact I think it would be a tight fit for two CPNS 9700, not to mention one would blow hot air into the other fan, unless you wanted the heat blowing onto your graphics cards.
The gaps aren't HUGE between the two competitors, but there is still a noticeable gap between the two, what I'm basically getting at, if you can achieve the same thing on a single die (e.g. 4 cores on one chips instead of 2), there is no real draw to the double socket format. However, if 4 cores wasn't possible one die then yes it would be an attractive deal for high end performance. In AMD's current state they cannot pull what Intel did, the reasons are simple:
There have a more complex microarchitecture, with the intergraded memory controller, but this forces them to stick onto a higher manufacturing fab as it's becomes more difficult to strink something that contains more on the chip.
Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 07:10 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:10 PM
1) think forward to this winter, 8 cores from AMD (2 quad cores)
2) nice article on intel's qx6800 being oc'ed to over 5.2GhZ
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:13 PM
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:15 PM
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:23 PM
I personally won't be buying into the dual socket mobo myself any time soon. It's to far ahead of its time to be usefully used.
Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 07:23 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:26 PM
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:32 PM
MOTOROLA For The Win!!!!!!!! <<<Serious Face!!!
Oh and by the way. . . . U OWE ME ALL OF UR MONEY!!!!!!!!!
Edited by Tim'A, 07 October 2007 - 07:33 PM.
Posted 07 October 2007 - 07:35 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users