Affordable Quad Core: AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 vs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700

AMD doesn't have any quad-core CPUs on the market today, but you can get four cores in a single motherboard by going with a Quad FX platform. AMD's attempt at building a enthusiast class dual socket, dual core platform is far from the most elegant solution in the world, but it does provide an interesting upgrade path. The Quad FX platform uses Socket-1207 CPUs and will be able to be upgraded to dual quad-core chips when they are available, giving you eight cores on a desktop motherboard. Intel has a similar offering called V8, but the AMD Quad FX platform uses standard desktop DDR2 memory which makes it infinitely more attractive.

The problem with Quad FX is that the motherboard is expensive, the whole platform consumes a great deal of power, and you can just as easily get a single socket, quad-core solution from Intel for less money. We haven't revisited Quad FX vs. Quad-Core since AMD introduced the platform, and since then there have been some price cuts on both sides of the fence. AMD now sells two Socket-1207 Athlon 64 FX-74 processors (3.0GHz) at $599 for the pair, making it quite cost competitive with Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6700 ($530).

If we forget about the added cost of a Quad FX motherboard for the moment, how do the two similarly priced processors stack up? The chart below shows the performance advantage/disadvantage the Q6700 holds compared to the FX-74:

That's not very pretty for AMD. The Athlon 64 FX-74 ends up being 1.1% faster in Cinebench but on average, the Q6700 is 14.1% faster than the more expensive Quad FX platform. The only benefit you get with Quad FX is the ability to eventually upgrade it to eight cores, but in our opinion for the majority of users the upgrade path is simply not enough to justify the means to get there.

Taking advantage of four cores on the desktop is tough enough today, and if you really need 8 cores today buying a platform that will support it in the future isn't going to help make your applications faster now. The market for Quad FX continues to be limited and our original recommendation from the first Quad FX review stands: you're better off with Intel's quad-core.

Do Four Cores Need a 1333MHz FSB? $180 Battle: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
Comments Locked

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • Darkmatterx76 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Nice article. I would like to point out 1 small inconsistancy. On page 12, 4th graph down you have the order for that particular "Lower is better" reversed compared to the others in the article.

    Also, I do have 1 question. Any idea when Intel will offer non-extreme quad cores at 1333 FSB?
  • zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    I don't get it. Both are listed as 2.33GHz with 1333FSB and both with 4MB. What's the use of having two models?
  • zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Nevermind. I found the answer. The 6540 doesn't have Intel Trust Execution technology.. or so I read elsewhere.
  • jay401 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    So how does the E6850 ($266 3.0GHz 1333fsb) compare to my existing E4400 ($133 running 1333MHz fsb with a 9x multiplier = 3.0GHz)?

    That's the test I'd like to see. Half the price but half the cache: Which is better.
  • bobbyto34 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Your o/c CPU might just be a little hotter :)
    Otherwise, it should have the same performance approximatively (less cache in E4xxx). But other tests showed that the E4300@3Ghz and could approach the performance of the X6800 !
  • lplatypus - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Here's a little error I spotted on page 2, in case you want to fix it: the QX6850 is not 7MHz faster than the QX6800; it is 70Mhz faster.
  • Gary Key - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Fixed.
  • 96redformula - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    I also think the scale would be better from -100 to 100. It makes it easier to distinguish and more visually pleasing.
  • ManuelX - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    I don't post here much but I had to this time. I simply loved the article. The logic behind the comparison was explained nicely, and the comparisons themselves were super easy to grasp. Good stuff.
  • just4U - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    I am going to have to agree here. Nicely laid out article with easy comprehensive graph comparison(s). Well done Guys!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now