Legit Reviews

Legit Reviews recently looked at the top AMD QuadFX platform running FX-74 processors and was left wondering what a pair of FX-70 processors could do for less money. We got in the 'budget' QuadFX processors and did what any end user would do once they got them - overclock them to the max. We turned these 2.6GHz processors into 3.1GHz beasts, but was it enough for them to catch up to the Intel QX6700?



Article Title: AMD QuadFX FX-70 Platform Performance & Overclocking
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/445/1/

Nice to see another honest review on the QuadFX's...

Looks like AMD needs to scrap the 4x4 and concentrate on getting a native quad-core to market! If someone wants a server for a desktop, they can already do that. IMHO.

digg link

http://digg.com/hardware/AMD_QuadFX_FX_ ... erclocking

eh... that review took forever to write... Not much to say to be honest... It runs and works pretty good... The motherboard is less buggy than the 680i SLI, but the performance isn't there.

The 3DMark06 CPU score of ~4000 is impressive, but I just got back from seeing Intel's V8 test system scoring ~6100 points...

Hopefully AMD will do something quick because going INTEL on my new build will be the last thing i ever do!!!!!!!!!

I really don't understand the alligences some people hold to companies, I buy what gives me the best bang for my buck, irregardless

Agreed, I'm typically all about bang for buc. I do have my favorite companies that I tend to look at first, but if someone has something better for cheaper then it's a no-brainer.

Sometimes it just sucks to be the "little guy." AMD just doesn't have the number of people and man-hours to dedicate to R&D that Intel does, and they suffer for it. Hopefully their 65nm processes will catch them up a little bit, and although Intel has already booted 45nm, I think Q3 and Q4 will be interesting to see what happens.

I think AMD just got complacent and dropped the ball on the whole operation, same thing happened to Motorola when cell phones went digital, they were sticking in analog thinking that digital would never happen, took them 5 or so years to recover.
Makes you wonder if AMD had the same idea on dual core, because they didn’t just miss the boat … they missed the ocean ….. Now I have to buy my first Intel Processor since I started building about 10 years ago.

dicecca112 wrote:I really don't understand the alligences some people hold to companies, I buy what gives me the best bang for my buck, irregardless

My thinking exactly! I've got an AMD 3500+ right now, because it was the best bang for the buck. If I had the extra cash I'd buy a Core 2 Duo and go that route. Although I would not snub my nose at an AMD X2 proc.

Nice article Apop! Appreciate the info.

dicecca112 wrote:I really don't understand the alligences some people hold to companies, I buy what gives me the best bang for my buck, irregardless

Maybe this is meant for some serverwork? Gamers won't like this, it doesn't bring much more horsepower to the zone, so AMD definitely targets an other market then we think

By the way, the implementation of 4x4 is a good one. On the same speeds as before AMD can top the performance of an C2D Q6700 in most cases. Now they have to speed up that 65nm-proces.

Yeah, 4x4 is not really worth it right now... I'm holding for the CGPU from the AMD / ATI merger... Can't wait to have a single chip do it all once again.

Vincent