Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: FX-74 4x4 Performance Preview

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Deland,Florida
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default FX-74 4x4 Performance Preview

    Looks to me as if AMD is blowing smoke up the consumers ass
    I'll admit, I'm rather pissed with the performance vs. the C2D
    I guess I'll be going over to the dark side, once again
    Mabey with Vista and more multi-threaded apps and games, we'll see a better outcome

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...x4/default.asp
    MSI P67A-GD65
    i72600K@4.8
    Corsair H70
    4x4Gb GSkill Ripjaws 16Gb 1600
    MSI 670 GTX PE/OC
    2x750Gb Seagate Barracuda's RAID 0
    Zalman ZM-MFC1
    Lite-On Dvd burner
    SB X-FI Xtreme Gamer Fatal1ty Pro
    Silverstone Zeus ST85ZF
    Coolermaster HAF-932
    "Experience is the benchmark of maturity"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    jonnyGURU forums, of course!
    Posts
    16,086
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    275
    Thanked in
    199 Posts

    Default

    Actually, that's correct.

    Simply put, it's difficult to benchmark these CPU's with current benchmarks. You need Vista just to really get the full potential out of them. I think it's rather premature to do such a comparison. Especially since Asus/AMD just came out with a new BIOS this week for the board that addresses SEVERAL known issues.

    But despite the fact that I sound like I'm somehow defending AMD, I'm still not. The 4x4 is a band aid. They're going to have a native quad core next year. This creature is more of a niche product and perhaps a look into the direction AMD is going with their new CPU's (I'm certain this is the socket we're going to see from here on from AMD.)

    Intel even admits that there's going to be some catch up required in Q3 2007 when AMD plans to release it's native quad core. Even considering rushing through their 2007 roadmap.

    If I'm going to be pissed at AMD for anything, it's the changing of the sockets and the inability to move a CPU across from one platform to another. Yeah, changing up sockets is a given, but Intel only did it three times across four years with the Pentium 4. In the same period of time, we've now seen four different sockets from AMD for their Athlon64 product.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Look at the power consumption! That is just ridiculous for a home user system. I think the culprit here is NVidia and their hogger chipsets. Even on the Intel side of things, the 680i is one hot and hungry mutha.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    jonnyGURU forums, of course!
    Posts
    16,086
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    540
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    275
    Thanked in
    199 Posts

    Default

    Right... and here you have TWO.

    The 680a isn't really a chipset. It's two 570a's bridged together. Hot + Hot = HOT!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    This guy says his NVi chipset is hitting a freaking 90+ C! Could be an eVGA only problem.

    http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=485886

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    84
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    The high power consumption is certainly a chipset issue.

    There is no way the CPUs could be stable with those stock coolers in a closed case if they drew 250 watts each. Not to mention even the TDP is only 125 W.

    I think the performance is fine for what it is trying to do and fine-graded multithreaded applications should run nicely.

    However, the chipset seems to be a power-hog and I don't like the board either. And the preview boards didn't overclock the FSB even one MHz according to at least 2 reviews.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    The cost for an overclocker-friendly board would be astronomical, especially if independent OC'ing of two CPU's is supported. Given the distance between the CPU's, I'd imagine two completely seperate Buck-regulator loops would be required.
    Last edited by Super Nade; 12-07-2006 at 04:10 PM. Reason: Misplaced word. supported =! seperated

Similar Threads

  1. [PAY for fix]Bad performance of my rig
    By venhyor in forum General PC Hardware
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-01-2017, 11:24 PM
  2. Preview: Xilence Performance C Series XP400R6 – peak power fraud @HWI
    By Behemot in forum PC Power Supply Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 06:16 AM
  3. HEC-6000R-ATX Performance?
    By Tator Tot in forum PC Power Supply Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-06-2010, 05:12 PM
  4. NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS Performance Preview
    By mp666 in forum GPU Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2007, 03:07 AM
  5. 3D performance with S.T.A.L.K.E.R Pt1.
    By CAD4466HK in forum The Gaming Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2007, 07:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •