AMD's fancy new Quad FX chips smeared by single Intel CPU

With as much AMD fanfare as there was leading up to this release, you'd think they would've managed to drum up a bit better showing. After running up against a battery of benchmark tests, AMD's Quad FX dual CPU platform has been throughly trounced by Intel's QX6700 2.66GHz processor. While things looks great on paper for AMD, with exciting amounts of bandwidth between the two processors, and dedicated memory for each chip, in practice the Quad FX platform is an utter power hog (double that of the QX6700), and only squeezed by Intel in a handful of tests, while for the most part racking up loss after loss, trailing from 10 to 40 percent behind the Intel's 65nm quad-core chip. Price is also a concern, since even though AMD is pricing the actual chips aggressively, you'll still have to spring around $480 for the only motherboard that can handle 'em, and those 1000W power supplies don't really come cheap. Of course, AMD does have 65nm chips on the way, which should do better against Intel on a clock-to-clock basis, and Windows Vista will include lots of mult-thread enhancements to "even the playing field," but there's still no denying that AMD got spanked in this round, and we don't suppose Intel will just be sitting around while AMD plays catch up.

[Via ZDNet]

Read - FiringSquad
Read - [H] Enthusiast
Read - TomsHardware
Read - Hot Hardware

[Jake @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:29PM]

Christian, are you mentally challenged? You need help.

[Ray @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:59PM]

Um... Wii uses IBM's Broadway CPU. It's funny how of all the sites on the internet, you stumbled onto one that's wrong.

[Picky @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:22AM]

That's because they bought ATi, which made the graphics chip inside of the Wii.

Not the CPU.

They even state that on the second line of their press release:

"The AMD �Hollywood� graphics processor resulted in Nintendo delivering a brand new level of immersive gameplay and interaction for consumers in North America."

Enjoy the stupid fanboy land.

[Tech^Cellfish @ Dec 3rd 2006 7:19AM]

Who's chip is in a game console has nothing to do in these Quad core vs. Quad core tests

[John Doe @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:21PM]

No just retarded.

[Robert @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:11PM]

AMD what were you thinking? you were suposed to beat intel not release something slower, hurry before they bake you up with 45nm!

[Hytech @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:12PM]

Does this actually come as a shock to anybody?

[William @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:32PM]

If not mentally challenged, definitely blinded by love.

[Alcaron @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:37PM]

Hmmm, well, aside from the fact that QuadFX is just a stopgap, uh, what did you expect? It IS still the same core arch. on the CPU.

And realistically, QuadFX isn't meant for desktop users. But for the people it IS aimed at, it's not really as bad off as this article (and the slightly misleading title of the post) would have you believe.

I think by now we all know that the Core 2 Duo's beat AMD's top of the line, no suprise, and we all know that four CPU's on one chip is a better solution than gluing together two dual core chips in a way that was not initially intended.

All QuadFX boils down to is a stop gap and an option for people who want to (or are contractually obligated to) stay in the AMD camp, but also have quadcore.

The NATIVE quad CPU chips should be out next year, earlyish.

And Engadget, seriously, you can't bother to find an Intel roadmap? No speculation is required about what Intel will or will not do in the meantime...we allready know.

This is no different than NVIDIA releasing the GeForce 8800 before ATi gets their R600 out the door. They both have an answer, and they will both release it shortly.

But what would engadget be without sensationalist nonsense?

[nivz @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:38PM]

now now ppl.. don't start fraggin the fan bwoi... he just posted the comment on the wrong article.. (Guns start to turn my way.. ruuuunnnnnn!!!...)

[Alcaron @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:38PM]

Oh and btw, I should point out that I am FAR from shocked that this gem comes from my LEAST favorite engadget "writer".

Plenty of good ones, plenty of bad ones.

[Christian @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:13PM]

Ray @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:59PM

Um... Wii uses IBM's Broadway CPU. It's funny how of all the sites on the internet, you stumbled onto one that's wrong.

R U a Moron or somthing?, AMD is used in Wii you fool, so then AMD is laying about too? because they released the same information in a press release... you sore loser

[spil @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:04PM]

How ironic, the very chip that the AMD Quad FX was trying to out do has out done the AMD chip.

[thunderer @ Dec 4th 2006 9:44PM]

That's not irony, it's competition.
One would expect for companies to try to beat other companies.

[David W. @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:19PM]

Please learn to type correctly.

If you were a fan at all you would know that the Wii uses the IBM Broadway chip. Look it up, I've seen all the info, and it uses IBM. Here I'll even make it easy for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadway_(microprocessor)

[michas_pi @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:29PM]

Yes, the Wii's Broadway CPU is made by IBM but the Hollywood graphics chip is made by AMD/ATI.

[ryan @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:29PM]

The only bit of AMD in the Wii is the ATI GPU, and it's a stretch to say even that since it was developed long before AMD and ATI got together

[John Gegier @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:34PM]

I'd just like to thank Alcaron for giving a useful comment with lots of real unadulterated info, as opposed to the other useless either fan-boy or show-off'y boy comments. Man is the net gettin younger before my eyes or what. I guess that I added a third type, oldass bone heads whinin about the young ones.

Anyway thanks Alcaron.

[Stymie @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:39PM]

Christian is a moron. Can't you even read that the Wii only uses an AMD graphics processor? That is not a CPU you moron. Christian = moron. Just in case anyone missed the point of my comment, I think Christian is a moron. Oh, and he's a flaming fanboi as well.

Anyhow, the Wii is considered old technology as far as processor and GPU. I'm not arguing about gameplay or anything like that, but as far as processing power and graphics power, Wii sucks. And Christian is a moron.

[Martin @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:50PM]

Paul Miller is clearly an uninformed idiot. The dual socket platform can clearly not be compared to a single chip configuration. There are multiple uses for both Quad FX and the Intel Kentsfield quad cores. Quad FX is better for multitasking and Kentsfield is better for single tasking. I mean is this really news? AMD hasn't changed the architecture so why would there be a significant change in performance? This article really sounds like some 5 year kid wrote it who knows nothing about computers but just found out some really cool new thing and wants to show off how smart he is. Find another profession.

[BrandonLehman @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:29PM]

I fail to see any connection between your issues with the AMD versus Intel issue and the quality of the Engadget writer who posted this.

His writing matched the style of Engadget quite well. If you would rather read official whitepapers then you shouldn't be reading this in the first place. We appreciate that you have a firm grasp on cpu architecture and an obviously deep understanding of the minute details of silicon engineering principles. Good for you.

Why would you stoop to something so low as bashing a journalist bringing information to the masses?

[Karl @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:20AM]

I have to agree. It is utterly moronic to complain about the writer. He's simply posting news from other people's benchmarks. Don't shoot the messenger.

As far as your statement goes, it is utter trash. Kentsfield and Clovertown have 4 cores. They are so not aimed at single task processing.

And AMD not changing the architecture means nothing. They came up with a new platform to try beat Intel, and failed. Wrap it up in whatever fanboyish bullshit-flavoured honey you like: AMD's platform is inferior to Intel's at this point in time. The 4x4 platform has been planned for a long time, and includes expensive hardware that fails to outperform it's cheaper alternatives. That is the point of the story, and fully accurate as far as the sources cited are concerned.

[darkphan @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:59PM]

Christian, please review this sentence from the text you pasted:

AMD�s Hollywood Graphics Processor Delivers the Next-Generation Gaming Experience for Innovative New Video Game Console

Notice that it says GRAPHICS PROCESSOR. That is not the same as the CPU.

[Matt Welke @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:26PM]

owned? :P

[amdnotcpu @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:28PM]

Old chap, you're completely wrong on this one. AMD has only provided the graphics chip. Don't let it hurt your ego... continue to post, elsewhere.

[Alcaron @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:12AM]

You know, in the current age of "journalism" saying you managed to insult the title in ANY way shape or form is quite an impressive feat...yet that is exactly what you did when you called the author a "journalist".

See my previous point if you need clarification as to why that is.

But yes, sadly, I agree with you...his post DOES match Engadgets "style" quite nicely...which is a damned shame.

The problem with Engadget is they want to act like journalists when it comes to tossing weight around, but when people call them on their BS they hide behind the "we're just a blog, not journalists".

It's the epitome of wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

Sorry but in this world you either have credibility, and the lovely responsibility and work required to earn and sustain that credibility, or you don't, and you get the pleasure of posting whatever tripe you want with as little effort as you feel like.

You don't get both though.

[Rick @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:29PM]

do ppl still buy AMD chips?! Maybe the quakers who thrive on deprivation. lol.. I should short AMD stock.

[Ethan @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:33PM]

Christian:

This is our world, and always will be.

Now I suggest you leave, AMD fanboy.

[Keaton @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:37PM]

WOW!

Can we possibly stop the bash-fest?

Just an idea...

[Rick @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:40PM]

AMD the main cpu used in Zimbabwe...lol

[rip @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:42PM]

well, now we know why Apple wasn't all that interested in using AMD. Apple did say at the time that having looked at Intel's roadmap, it was an obvious choice to use them. Over both IBM and AMD...

[chase @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:47PM]

AMD has dominated the CPU market in the price-performance ratio for a long time, and to see intel take up the lead for once is not really surprising. However, AMD has a superb development team with some really brilliant minds behind them, so give it a few months, maybe even a year-- they'll be back on top.

[Andrew @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:56PM]

Wow, who pissed on Martin's mobo?
Show some class, you bitter Betsy.

[BrandonLehman @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:59AM]

You sir, are no fun to argue with, what with your thought out comments and level head.

Touch�.

[Alcaron @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:17AM]

Oh and it should also be mentioned somwhere that saying "single CPU" is a load of BS...even if you want to get technical, its still 4 CPU's. Just because it is on one chip doesn't mean anything.

But like I said, adding that "single CPU" makes it sound a LOT more impressive than it actually is...hell, until I read it even I thought it was an actually SINGLE core...I thought "hell, thats odd, the tests have to have been heavily single threaded for that to happen".

[Martin @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:52AM]

"Don't shoot the messenger" That's just it, when the messenger decides to put his two cents in, I get to make comments about his statements as well to him. Now I'm no fanboy. Nor am I by any means trying to say that Intel doesn't have the fastest chips right now. But several sites have shown that the way that Quad FX handles multitasking is better than Kentsfield because of how the Intel chip has to go through the FSB. That's not opinion that's fact. And you Karl are "moronic" to suggest that AMD came up with an entire PLATFORM to beat a chip. So Intel came up with VIIV to beat AMD X2. Yeah, why don't you go play with your play with your PS3 and leave the intelligence to the adults.

[Alcaron @ Dec 3rd 2006 2:35AM]

While I agree with your ultimate point, you probably won't get anywhere bundling it in such a garish package.

The bottom line is that all you need to know about Karl's statement is this:

"And AMD not changing the architecture means nothing. They came up with a new platform to try beat Intel, and failed. Wrap it up in whatever fanboyish bullshit-flavoured honey you like: AMD's platform is inferior to Intel's at this point in time. The 4x4 platform has been planned for a long time, and includes expensive hardware that fails to outperform it's cheaper alternatives. That is the point of the story, and fully accurate as far as the sources cited are concerned."

He doesn't even appear to know that the K8L is in the works. And while the 4x4 platform (so um, btw, if its inferior to Intel's...perhaps you would like to point out where Intel competes with that other 4 in 4x4...if you even know what I am referring to) has been planned for awhile (long time is pushing it), that doesn't mean the first iteration is going to somehow be king of the hill.

But yes, he is right about one point, if you are upgrading right now, and what the highest performance, then yes, Intel is your best bet. But do bear in mind...that only applies if money is no object. There are still pricepoints where AMD wins.

Stick around, in a few months we will REALLY see who wins this "round". When AMD releases the K8L.

[Jimmy @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:17AM]

Yes, Christian is wrong. But is AMD/ATI (the Hollywood chip was created before the merger anyways) the reason the Wii a success? Nope. It's the games and the remote/controller. The graphics on the Wii is downright awful compared to next gen consoles.

[JP @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:43AM]

I like how the same thing keeps getting said over and over and over by different people. I don't know how many times I read something along the lines of "Christian is *insert negative adjective here*...". If one person says something, and you agree, then do you have to post the exact same message?

And I like Engadget's style. Short and sweet. Not always correct, but they do a pretty good job of fixing stories.

But news is never perfect.

Think about it.

[Picky @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:46AM]

It's fair game for the Quad core and QuadFX to be compared, especially because AMD themselves are even naming the chip to compete with it. After all, it's not like AMD is releasing this because they really want to--it's clearly (as stated) a middle-of-the-road fix. No worthwhile server farm is going to be caught dead using this because of the power consumption alone, and the motherboard even slots in the future true AMD offering.

My last 4 computer upgrades have been AMD chips, but I think my next upgrade, which will probably be a notebook, will be an Intel chip as I move away from PC gaming (what all is coming to PC gaming anyway? C&C3, Supreme Commander, Halo 2..., and Crysis? Not worth a couple hundred bucks to me even though they are appealing). Obviously, I do not plan on custom building my notebook/laptop myself, but I do custom build my PCs (not fancy I know), and even if I for some reason upgraded my PC, then I doubt I would be going with this beast because of the power consumption over an Intel Core 2, or the eventual release of the Intel Quadcore whose name escapes me (I know it's something like that).

All-in-all, this is a bad showing by AMD. It was their chance to show up Intel, which recently has been on a roll, and they fell flat.

[Picky @ Dec 3rd 2006 1:59AM]

Just to clear one thing up that I think may be missing from my above post:

I do not want AMD to fail, nor do I want Intel to fail. This is one of the few industries where this kind of innovation really does help the consumer win, and we win big. Faster clocks speeds, more cores per chip, lower power consumption (usually...), and price wars (where the only winner is always the consumer).

As I said in my last post, I had been won over by AMD offering the better product and clearly this post is showing off a failure by AMD compared to Intel's option. Now, with that said, AMD was trying something here that does have some other perks mentioned by a few other savvy posters, plus the ability to go to eight cores (2 quad core chips) next year. Yeah, I think AMD failed pretty bad, but it's probable that they picked up something from this that will help them compete with Intel in the future, and that's what I am looking forward too.

One thing I am a bit shocked about is that this runs really hot according to Tom's Hardware, which sounds odd since I've never dealt with cooling problems with my AMD systems, and just adds to the feeling that this was rushed to compete with Intel's Quad core offering.

My biggest point of this rambling post is that it's a pretty foolish thing for a lot of people to be going on and on about how great AMD is and that most people don't understand the place of hte Quad FX compared to the Intel Quad core, because I don't think the point of the post was to slap AMD, but it was to slap the Quad FX platform.

People that know the nitty gritty about CPUs know where these chips go right and wrong, but to the vaguely computer literate among us, the review above is clearly spot on. The Quad FX falls short for what it meant to do: beat Intel's offering.

[Alcaron @ Dec 3rd 2006 2:20AM]

"The Quad FX falls short for what it meant to do: beat Intel's offering."

Except that is not what it was meant to do.

"because I don't think the point of the post was to slap AMD, but it was to slap the Quad FX platform."

Which is still stupid because the platform itself is fine. Its the current iteration of the CPU's available for it thats not (QuadFX refers almost MORE to the chipset/system than the CPU, yes the system is named 4x4 but if you see how they refer to it QuadFX is tossed around MUCH more). As I believe you yourself mentioned the QuadFX platform will be able to run with 8 cores using AMD's TRUE quad core CPU's next year.

"All-in-all, this is a bad showing by AMD. It was their chance to show up Intel, which recently has been on a roll, and they fell flat."

No, it isn't their chance to show up Intel. Their chance to show up Intel comeas early next year when they release the K8L, the same chip that brings pretty significant architecture changes as well as NATIVE quad core. Their NATIVE quad core chip is their chance to show up Intel. Not the first gen. QFX.

"It's fair game for the Quad core and QuadFX to be compared, especially because AMD themselves are even naming the chip to compete with it."

Two things, first the Intel quad core is called the...hmm, lemme see if I can remember without referring to the article...QX6700?...after scrolling up, yes, thats the name. So QuadFX is named to compete with that...how?

Secondly, any CPU is fair game to compare to any other CPU, thats fine by me, the only thing I took issue with was the sensationalist title and the apparent shock some people seem to have over this.

It has no REAL new architecture, it is a WORSE implementation AS IT STANDS (again, you yourself pointed out the REAL reason they are doing this...when they release the K8L you will be able to have 8 cores per system. And when they match Intel's Octo Core chips you will be able to do 16...thats pretty handy).

Absolutely nothing is surprising or unexpected about this result, nor does this result matter because its not like AMD' isn't releasing a TRUE CPU update in the next few months that IS supposed to compete with Intels latest and greatest.

Again and hopefully for the last time, this is NO different than NVIDIA getting their 8800 series out the door before ATi gets their R600 out the door. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the last card ATi released displayed a failure on ATi's part because their old core but new technical release failed to compete. When the K8L (and respectively, the R600) are released you can THEN compare apples to apples.

Meanwhile the only real issue here is that if your upgrade cycle happens to be due right now...Intel is the speed leader. If your upgrade cycle, like mine, happens to be in a few months...you, like me, may find AMD has a better solution. In the meanwhile QuadFX will cater to the people who either choose to value support for their preferred company (due to maybe the way one conducts business over the other, maybe they own stock, or a host of other reasons), or are otherwise obliged to stay with AMD. And later on the REAL reason for QuadFX will come along in the K8L.

[Alcaron @ Dec 3rd 2006 2:02AM]

I haven't drank enough water today, thats why I'm not drooling and screaming...I'm really just too parched for it you see. :)

[Tom @ Dec 3rd 2006 4:13AM]

"we don't suppose Intel will just be sitting around while AMD plays catch up."

Well it's exactly what they did in the years before the dual core craze.

[Paul @ Dec 3rd 2006 5:42AM]

The AMD �Hollywood� graphics processor
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~114315,00.html
�Having powered the graphics in the Nintendo GameCube, AMD is delighted to strengthen its relationship with Nintendo as it drives the next revolution in video games with the Wii.�

The GPU is AMD/ATI, the CPU is IBM Broadway.
They call it an AMD gpu in this press release because AMD bought ATI.

Check your sources, tool.

[_man1c_ @ Dec 3rd 2006 6:30AM]

this is just another type of way AMD can use the new socket. the real true to form quadcore cpus from what people told me will come soon. maybe you can then add these true to form quadcore cpu in the 4x4 setups and then have 8core setup..

[Alijah Green @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:17AM]

I think this 4x4 was built for vista only listen to this podcast freaturing the guys over at AMD http://media.thechrispirilloshow.com/mp3/cps_20060713_amd.mp3

[Ian @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:17AM]

Clearly AMD are in a catch up and reactive mode to Intel. Certainly for the next 6 months Intel has the lead in terms of performance and power consumption.
Both AMD and Intel have new products for 2007 and the fgame will resume at that time, but for now Intel's in front. Intel also looks well set to lead into the 45 nanometer chipset for AMD needs to be on their top top game.

[Karl Viklund @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:38AM]

I won't by a Intel anyway :)
AMD will come up with some new chips soon.

[El Froggo @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:02PM]

I just can't believe the 1000W power consumption!