Cool Tech Reviews

I’m a long time AMD fan, but they seem to be having difficulties making a case for their new Quad FX CPU platform. George Ou explains in AMD Quad FX slaughtered by a single Intel CPU:

All the reviews are in for AMD’s new “4×4″ Quad FX dual CPU platform and it loses nearly every single real world benchmark to a single Intel CPU while consuming more than twice the electricity.  We basically see two FX-74 3.0 GHz processors getting slaughtered by a single Intel QX6700 2.66 GHz quad core processor!  Ironically, three of the four benchmark sites I link to give such contradictory glowing conclusions for the Quad FX in spite of their own data showing AMD being slaughter that Baghdad Bob would be proud.  Here are the four reviews of which only TomsHardware had a realistic conclusion that matched their actual data.

• FiringSquad
• [H] Enthusiast
• TomsHardware
• Hot Hardware

From highly optimized multi-core applications like 3D rendering and Video encoding to single threaded applications like games the AMD Quad FX either lost by a little or it lost by a lot. 

…

The bottom line is that AMD has delivered a Frankenstein of a solution that guzzles a ton of power while delivering inferior performance.  I just don’t know of any other way to describe the AMD Quad FX platform.  While AMD has superficially (not on a clock-for-clock or overclocking potential basis) closed some of the performance gap, there is just no way for any sensible person other than diehard AMD fans to love the Quad FX.

For a dissenting opinion, refer to Charlie Demerjian’s article at the Inquirer:

AMD Quad FX is finally here, and the easy questions about what it is have been answered. The tricky questions are why you would want one, and what for.

…

If your application plays to the strengths of Intel, well Kentsfield will absolutely clobber AMD. Games and older single threaded apps are good examples of this, and they will be the predominant type of software for much of 2007. If you have things that need heavy memory access, FP laden work is a good example, or your games actually utilize multiple cores effectively, well AMD will trounce Intel. It all boils down to what software do you use and how do you use it?

Most people compare the QFX machines to Kentsfield as simple gaming boxes, and this is wrong. You can do it, and there is nothing technically incorrect, but that is not what AMD has been promising for this machine. People have been assuming since it was first announced that it would be the killer gaming rig, but that is simply not the case.

Having been at the initial coming out party over the summer, AMD was very clear that QFX was about doing more at the same time on a single box, they use the term megatasking. Basically, the AMD architecture is much better suited to doing many different tasks at once. There is no single bottleneck to force all the data through, so one core can utilize many more parts of the system without interfering with the other cores.

The down side to all of this is they lack the peak single threaded horsepower of a Kentsfield core, and will lag on apps that don’t need all that bandwidth. Basically take your pick of what you are going to run, a single game, or a few instances of an MMO, MP3s in the background, and maybe a game server. That more than anything will determine what you should buy.

Fair enough, but that market seems rather esoteric, at least today. I guess the bottom line is that you shouldn’t be buying a Quad FX unless you know exactly why it’s a good choice.

If you feel like you’ve been left behind by the horde of dual-core microprocessors coming out from AMD and Intel, check out Computer Reseller News‘ 10 page Dual-Core CPU Buyer’s Guide for a nice snapshot of current offerings and prices.

And speaking of dual-core, Intel rolled out it’s Merom line of mobile dual-core processors last week, but the word from Taiwan is that notebooks using AMD’s Turion are still significantly cheaper.

A little more than a week ago, I mentioned that Intel was getting ready to slash prices on microprocessors starting this week. Now AMD has fired back with their own price cuts:

Advanced Micro Devices slashed prices on some PC processors by as much as 57 percent in a new listing Monday, firing the latest salvo in a battle with rival Intel Corp.
…
Users can look forward to bargains in the PC space in coming months as the two companies battle it out. AMD dropped the price of its dual-core Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (socket AM2 only) to $301 on Monday, from $696 when it last published a price list in May. It also cut the price of the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (socket AM2 and 939) by 57 percent to $240 from $558.

Although the biggest AMD price reductions were in PC processors, the company also cut prices for laptop processor prices as well.

Prices of its AMD Turion 64 mobile chips fell by as much as 26 percent, with its Model ML-44 down to $263 from $354 in May. Prices for AMD Sempron chips for desktops and laptops also fell.

As George Ou said in a quote from the previous post, no matter what you buy, it will soon be “a lot cheaper or it will be a lot faster.”

Intel is reacting fiercely to AMD’s market share gains last quarter and it’s good news for PC buyers. George Ou at ZDNet - Prices released on Conroe, AMD may need to slash 70% on FX62:

The word is out on Intel Core2 Conroe processors. The price and model numbers have been set on the new Intel processors while the price on older Pentium D processors have been slashed. Even the dual core Pentium D 945 running at 3.4 GHz has been slashed to $163 on July 23rd which is cheaper than the slowest C2D E6300 at 1.86 GHz.

More by following both links but here’s the net:

The new Conroe processors will have a devastating effect on current inventory from AMD or Intel. It’s kind of like a scorched earth tactic where Intel’s own legacy “Netburst” inventory will suffer collateral damage in the war against AMD. Anyone who’s buying computers right now should definitely hold off for 2 more weeks since there will be massive price drops on current AMD and Intel CPUs.
…
The good news is that no matter what you buy 2 weeks from now, it will be a lot cheaper or it will be a lot faster.

It doesn’t hurt that PC sales have been weak in recent months either.

John G. Spooner at PC Magazine:

Intel is quietly offering a handful of low-end Pentium 4 processors to large PC makers.

Normally trumpeted as Intel Corp.’s flagship chip brand, chips such the new Pentium 4 516, which do not appear on the chip maker’s public price list, are actually closer to its Celeron D value brand chips.
…
Chips such as the 516, which have been showing up in some brand-name desktop PCs this fall, appear to be designed to help manufacturers market relatively inexpensive PC models with Pentium 4s inside them.
…
The Pentium 4 516 found in the newly introduced eMachines T5010 runs at 2.93GHz, is 64-bit capable and includes 1MB of cache and a 533MHz bus to shuttle data. The chip lacks hyperthreading along with the 800MHz bus found in chips such as the Pentium 4 520, which are listed on Intel’s public price list.

Gateway, whose eMachines-brand desktop line uses mainly AMD chips, chose the Pentium 4 516 for a specific reason.

“As always, it’s a matter of trading of balancing the best features for the price. We selected this [Pentium 4 516] product because we wanted to give customers a well-rounded Intel P4 configuration for under $500,” a Gateway spokesperson said in an e-mail.

Yeah, but if the “Intel P4 configuration” is really more like a typical Celeron configuration, there are several impolite terms for what they are doing. It’s hard to figure exactly what kind of price break Intel is actually giving the manufacturers, but TigerDirect is selling some of these chips priced individually. The model 506 (like the 516 but 2.66 GHz) is selling for less than some Celeron D models.