Thursday, November 30th 2006

Quadfather compared to Kentsfield

Nov 30th, 2006 01:21 Discuss (42 Comments)

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

Add your own comment

42 Comments on Quadfather compared to Kentsfield

#26

jocksteeluk

Torywww.amd.justgotowned.com

i am a tweener (on the fence) but that is funny!!!

#27

i_am_mustang_man

not too good for amd, but intel is really bringing some solid prouducts to market, and that is great!

like was said above, maybe amd can't take high end market, maybe they can take the low end though, and that is where most of the money is anyways. so if they get more money, they will have more funds for research, so maybe they will be able to retake the high end.

then again, if intel drops a 250~$quadcore, amd might be in serious trouble for a few years

#28

jocksteeluk

since Amd seems to have abbandoned energy efficientcy with this product what will the new angle the use now be? industrial room heaters for winter and cold climates?

oh well atleast we all know where the EX-Intel Pentium 4 staff went.

Thank goodness for AMD because if it wasnt for them we would all still be thinking the P4 was the dogs bollocks still.

#29

Deleted member 3

i_am_mustang_manthen again, if intel drops a 250~$quadcore, amd might be in serious trouble for a few years

Try $450 quad core already available.

#30

Judas

When the 65nm cores come out Amd will catch up some ..when s AM3 coming ?

#31

largon

^
Rev.G (65nm) K8 should be out next week.
AM3 will be out ~1½ years from this date.

#32

wtf8269

Considering the AMD was 90nm, I'm fairly impressed with the results. Once AMD comes out with 65nm I'm sure it should be a good competitor. Maybe not be better, but damned close.

#33

EastCoasthandle

Wait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...

#34

overcast

EastCoasthandleWait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...

:twitch: That was sarcasm I hope....

#35

AsphyxiA

at least AMD got something right. The Xbit labs post claims that the processors feature a cache that is shared between the cores. nothing huge but a lot better than having 1 mb of cache for each core.

#36

not a suicide-bomber

EastCoasthandleWait, I though die shrinks only helped reduced the cost of manufacturing!! That it had nothing to do with increasing speed or reducing temps...

it helps reduce power comsuption a lot, meaning that it will heat less, and suck less power ;)

#37

lemonadesoda

ptit helps reduce power comsuption a lot, meaning that it will heat less, and suck less power ;)

ONLY if there is a voltage drop. Die shrink without voltage drop increases current leakage decreases efficiency and increases heat. For an example of this effect, see Pentium Prescott

#38

Unregistered

the cache on my 6300 is shared between both cores.it is 1x 2mb.

#39

EastCoasthandle

lemonadesodaONLY if there is a voltage drop. Die shrink without voltage drop increases current leakage decreases efficiency and increases heat. For an example of this effect, see Pentium Prescott

My thoughts as well. In other words, just because it's a die shrink doesn't necessarily mean less heat or less voltage. It all depends on the arch that you are shrinking.

#40

not a suicide-bomber

EastCoasthandleMy thoughts as well. In other words, just because it's a die shrink doesn't necessarily mean less heat or less voltage. It all depends on the arch that you are shrinking.

there will be, they are trying to reach 1.3v :)

#41

randomperson21

this is $600. in comparison to the qx6700 from intel ($1500 on newegg last time i checked) the 4x4 platform is actually a good platform for someone wanting to get started in quad core.
but i think i'm going to wait a bit for it, until mobo prices drop and they get the new iteration of the htt bus out the door.

#42

largon

randomperson21this is $600. in comparison to the qx6700 from intel ($1500 on newegg last time i checked) (...)

QX6700 for $1100.

QuadFX boards are $300-400 and also require 4 dimms (+200$) to run DC. Thus overall costs equal a QX6700.

Add your own comment

Quadfather compared to Kentsfield

42 Comments on Quadfather compared to Kentsfield

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts