Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Dream Machine


  • Please log in to reply

#1
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
title speaks for itself

Posted Image
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Why do you keep posting this build? :)
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.
James

Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 06:37 PM.

  • 0

#3
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
last time it was a budget box

and at newegg you get 1 fx-74 for about $300 (dual core)
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103866

Edited by fortune82, 07 October 2007 - 06:39 PM.

  • 0

#4
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
There are two processors in that box, quad FX chips are incapable of running alone, they must be run together in parallel, meaning you couldn't simply put one of these processors onto a dual socket motherboard (or a AM2/939 socket motherboard).

http://www.geekstogo...up-t160627.html

James
  • 0

#5
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
james, look at the bottom of the product overview

http://www.scan.co.u...roductID=532106
  • 0

#6
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
I stand corrected. This is just my opinion, but those arn't a very good buy when compared to Intel's counter part. Hopefully Phenom will change this.
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......
James

Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 06:54 PM.

  • 0

#7
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
i forgot where i read it, but the tests of intel's quad core vs. AMD's set-up were biased somehow.

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
http://www.neoseeker...ews/story/6327/

Edited by fortune82, 07 October 2007 - 07:01 PM.

  • 0

#8
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Yes, you are correct, there were tests performed by Intel and they were bias, but if I remember correctly this was intels new intergraded GPU's video output quality compared to a ATI x1600. I'm sure Intel also did this with the CPU's, thats marketing for you, I honestly don't think it should be legal to do so, but our court rooms don't know anything when it comes to technology.

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.
http://www.tomshardw...ores/page9.html

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.
James

Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 07:10 PM.

  • 0

#9
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
2 things

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
http://www.madshrimp...amp;articID=555
  • 0

#10
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
I edited my post, but yes, I agree it's a useful technology, but not in it's current state. As long as there is a single die option it's dual socket competitor is inferior, if performance is similar.
James
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
.....which is why this winter AMD will kill intel, because not only will they have the 4 cores on 1 chip, but the 1207FX board will allow for 2 quad core chips. they will have ll the integrated performance, PLUS their nice memory controller, AND 4 more cores than intel
  • 0

#12
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
AMD's processors aren't really worth speculating right now, as they(barcelona) have major issues preventing them from clocking the CPU's very high. It's rumored that they will be clocked much higher around Christmas but till then it's only a rumor. I'm not sure AMD will kill Intel, I'd like it to happen but not sure at this point. To me clock speed efficiency is much more important then cores as software cannot keep up with increasing cores (e.g multithreaded applications/games). So while AMD will have many cores it might not perform better then Intel. Also, Intel has already stated that it is developing a dual socket motherboard meaning that they will also have 8 cores. Though Intel won't have a native quad core CPU till next year. I'm interested in seeing the difference between a native quad and a "fake" quad. Is it as good as what AMD says it is.......we can only wait and see.
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. :)
James

Edited by james_8970, 07 October 2007 - 07:23 PM.

  • 0

#13
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
i wont be buying it swoon either, as i havent had money in months :)
  • 0

#14
Tim'A

Tim'A

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
http://upload.wikime...XC68000.agr.jpg
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.

  • 0

#15
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
tim....not the place to ask for the money i owe you, especially when our google talk window is oopen and minimized right now
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP