Thursday, November 30th 2006
Quadfather compared to Kentsfield
While it has been discussed on the forums a lot already there were no official comparisons between AMDs Quadfather and Intels Kentsfield. So PC watch did exactly that, they compared a 3 GHz Quadfather to a 2.66GHz QX6700. The first major issue found was that the AMD system used up to 80% more energy, not exactly something to ignore. Even though the AMD system didn't score bad, it only won a single benchmark and performed worse or the same at best in every other benchmark.
It seems AMD let their fans down for now. Lets hope they make up to them with their 65nm CPUs. For now, take a look at the results:Thanks to Tweakers.net for making nice tables of the results.
Source:
PC watch
It seems AMD let their fans down for now. Lets hope they make up to them with their 65nm CPUs. For now, take a look at the results:Thanks to Tweakers.net for making nice tables of the results.
42 Comments on Quadfather compared to Kentsfield
there's more here. The major issue is that the quad-father cannot be overclocked.
I nvr read the link just peopels posts, busy busy.
Edit: This is a good battle :D, keep bringing out better processors intel amd, I want 52 cores for my nexted upgrade.
There will be tricks to get those CPUs past 250, if not the platform will really die fast. The enthusiast at whom it's aimed won't be interested for long.
:)
* AMD's stuff's great, I use it now (generally I was an INTEL man mostly thru my entire PC experience since 1992 or so) & has held a heck of a lead in many areas over INTEL the past 3 years or so now, iirc...
(So, it makes some sense INTEL'd come "roaring back" THIS round!)
APK
P.S.=> And, the AMD "Quad Father" above really DIDN'T do badly by way of comparison as Dan noted, but INTEL still takes 1st place... Still, it appears that AMD's work is cut out for them to try to take back the title next round! apk
and i think amd is gonna drag ati down with them:mad:
(Purely cyclical, imo & experience @ least!)
* It's only a matter of time before AMD retakes their performance crown, & once they do? Intel will come back w/ a faster unit in retaliation/answer!
APK
P.S.=> I'm NOT really "Brand Loyal" in this area (CPU) or in GPU/vidcards even + have owned INTEL & AMD/ATI & NVIDIA componentry - imo, both rock in any event!
I only buy every 4 years or so (totally new rigs I pop together myself), & whatever's the faster performer @ the time? I go w/ it... in vidcards & CPU's!
Doing it that way? I see HUGE boosts, purchasing once every 4 yrs. on average (w/ MAYBE a vidcard upgrade on them midway @ the 2 yr. mark)... apk
however, AMD dont have as much power and resources, so they better get an ass-kicking product out SOON
:mad:
That's sarcasm, your argument works both ways and is obviously pointless.
But wait, thats 2.66Ghz vs 3.0Mhz. Bump up the intel clocks to 3.0Mhz and that performance gap widens to 35%.
OUCH
source As you can see AMD now has the rights of the Cyrix Media GX Processor. Gee that's where AMD got the idea from :laugh:
maybe 200 bucks per chip. 400 for 2 of them. and if boards get cheaper. cant beat them on the high end beat them on the low end.