The Test

CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4MB)
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66GHz/4MBx2)
AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0GHz)
Motherboard: eVGA nForce 680i SLI
ASUS L1N64-SLI WS
Chipset: NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI
NVIDIA nForce 680a SLI
Chipset Drivers: NVIDIA 9.35
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA
Memory: Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2/512MB x 4)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 97.01
Desktop Resolution: 1600 x 1200
OS: Windows XP Professional SP2
The Processors How does a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 Perform?
Comments Locked

88 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    Yay for speech recognition!

    indigenous = enthusiast
    we are see = we are seeing
    Scratch a couple "basically" from the last paragraph.
  • yyrkoon - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    I though Gary was the "one" with the Texas "Twang" ;)
  • laok - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    The current 4x4 does not look to be a mature system to me. Wait until 65nm 4x4 comes out and hopefully a better chipset will be available at that time. 65W x 2 is reasonable, 130W x2 is kinda too much.

    And I also want to know how 4x4 compares to dual dual-core opteron with the same frequence: performance, power consumption etc.

  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    It's the same chip as the Opteron, with the memory controller changed to work with unbuffered memory.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    The first word of his subject is the best advice: WAIT! Even if the future might get better, does anyone want to spend $1000+ on what may or may not turn out to be the better platform? When the new CPUs are available, then we can evaluate and decide. Of course, once AMD launches their quad core processors, I'm almost certain that our advice will be that most people only need a single socket motherboard and CPU anyway -- if that. Many people still get by a single core CPU, and the number of people that actually need more than dual CPUs is very small, at least in the desktop workspace.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    This is the best AMD can do against Kentsfield? They get stomped on in every benchmark, cost more, and draw nearly twice as much power. No one in their right mind would buy this over a Core2Quad. Whomever came up with this product should be fired.

    The last time I laughed this hard at a CPU/platform launch was when Intel rolled out the P4 dual core CPUs, and at least they came out on time in some of the multimedia benchmarks.

    For the record, my current system is running an Opteron 165, so I ain't no Intel fanboy.
  • photoguy99 - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    You're right it's actually embarrasing isn't it?

    If AMD's next-gen architecture improves performance by 30% at same clock, which is huge, they still won't take the lead.

    And it seems Intel is done sitting on their hands, they are working like hell to dominate again by the time K8L ramps up big.

    People hate hearing this but think it's over for AMD.

    And like you, for the record, my current system is an FX-60 so I'm also no Intel fanboy.
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    ...came out on top...
  • photoguy99 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    Seriously, I'd like to know who is selling them...
  • Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    That such a badly engineered product was rushed out to reviewers just to have a paper launch. Did AMD believe that no one would make a big deal about the power draw? Or maybe it expected no one to even look at power draw. I was actually impressed by what AMD had accomplished with 4x4, after all, the 3.0GHz Quad FX parts were close to the QX6700, until I saw the insane power draw. Two loaded FX-62 systems (whole systems, mind you) draw about the same power as 4x4 does IDLE!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now