AMD's Quad FX: Technically Quad Core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 30, 2006 1:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Power Consumption
Power consumption of a Quad FX system is simply unreal for a desktop, as it should be because this is effectively a workstation platform with un-buffered memory. At idle our Quad FX test bed consumed nearly 400W, partially because we couldn't get Cool 'n Quiet running on the system, but also because the CPUs and motherboard simply draw an incredible amount of power. Update: We got Cool 'n Quiet working on the motherboard which reduced idle power significantly, down to within a few watts of the Kentsfield system. Load power was unchanged.
| CPU | Idle Power | Load Power | Performance per Watt (fps/watt) |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0GHz x 4) | 217W | 456W | 17.7 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66GHz x 4) | 213W | 263W | 32.9 |
Looking at power consumption under full load, Cool 'n Quiet would have no chance to even make an impact as all cores are being utilized at full speed. Under load the Quad FX system pulled 456W on average, a full 73% more than our Kentsfield testbed.
If we look at performance per watt, the Quad FX loses big time. We specifically chose to look at our WME encoding test because the performance of the FX-74 and QX6700 is pretty close. What you're looking at here is the best case scenario for the Quad FX's performance per watt; in applications where it's significantly slower than Kentsfield the performance per watt will be even worse.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
Viditor - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
If they can...
The 680a chipset has a direct HT link to each MCP, the 680i obviously can't do that and must bridge through the SPP.
Now if only we could find a review that actually showed that...;)
Seriously, the one major benefit of Quad FX is that it can run 4 GPUs. While I appreciate all of the conjecture and speculation, it isn't really a test of the facts, is it?
defter - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
<quote>Seriously, the one major benefit of Quad FX is that it can run 4 GPUs.</quote>How that's a benefit? You can have 8 GPUs in a same system (AMD or Intel based, it doesn't matter) with a couple of NVIDIA Quadro Plex 1000 Model II's if money isn't an issue:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadroplex_comparison_c...">http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadroplex_comparison_c...
JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Fact: Quad SLI (7950 GX2) works on 590 SLI and 680i.Fact: Quad SLI (8800 GTX) does not exist.
Until the second item changes, we only have the first to go on, which is that current quad SLI works - at least as much as it works anywhere - on both platforms. And the QSLI drivers are still largely broken - you can run benchmarks, but as soon as you start playing lots of games rather than just benching, problems crop up. Neverwinter Nights 2 for example doesn't even run properly with CrossFire or SLI, so let's not even worry about getting QSLI support for now.
JackPack - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
8800 GTX requies two slots, which means it won't fit in the 4x4 motherboard. Quad-SLI performance has already shown to be poor using two 7950 GX2 cards. Finally, how do you bridge four 8800 cards together?Viditor - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Huh?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/08/nvidia...">Single slot 8800 GTX
This is only when using a single MCP, the 680a uses dual MCPs.
The 680i uses one MCP and one SPP.
By having 2 sets of bridges (one bridge per MCP).
JarredWalton - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link
Quad SLI has problems whether or not you have dual MCPs. It's driver and software related - basically the drivers don't do AFR on a lot of titles and so you end up with lower than 7900 GTX SLI performance.As for two slots, they're talking the width of the cards. They only plug into one slot, but they fill the adjacent slot. Quad 8800 GTX would require eight expansion slots right now. Given that Vista 8800 drivers aren't even out yet, I think NVIDIA has other things to do before they worry about moving beyond SLI'ed 8800 cards.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
I suppose you could replace the HSF with something smaller which would fit in a single-slot, which would have to mean water-cooling.Quad-SLI performance (or lack of) is probably a driver-issue.
Don't 8800 cards have two SLI sockets therefore allowing you to chain together as many as you like (in theory)?
casket - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
It appears with win-xp sp2... this quad fx stinks. How about Win 2003 or Vista Ultimate? It might change things drastically.Neosis - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
I don't think the problems in the benchmarks are not an opperating system issue. Two processors having totally four cores are not the same as a processor having the same number of cores. Additional latencies will slow down the performance.Viditor - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link
Actually, they probably are...Windows XP is not NUMA aware, while Vista is.
In this case there is no difference...the Kentsfield has exactly the same latency as a 2 socket dual core because the 2 dual cores on-board don't talk directly with each other.