ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Quad Shootout: AMD Quad FX Vs. Intel QX6700

Updated on March 20, 2011

Who Wins The Battle Of The Quads?

The high-end CPU wars have been really heating up lately, with the introduction of dual- and now even quad-core CPUs which bring previously unimaginable computing power to the desktop.

We're all familiar with a CPU, it is the computing center of our PC, where all of the instructions are processed so that our computers can do what they do. Naturally, faster is better. Faster CPUs allow our software instructions to be more quickly executed which means less time twiddling your thumbs and more time working... or playing.

Up until last year, the only type of processor that was available for general home and office PCs had a single CPU brain, or core. The faster that brain was able to process, then the faster the PC worked. CPU speed is measured in GigaHertz (GHz) and single-core development seemed to stall at around 3.5 to 3.8 GHz. The technology simply is not available to make a single-core run much faster than these speeds. So the researchers at Intel and AMD, the two leading CPU manufacturers, decided that the best way to keep increasing speeds was to increase the number of cores. That lead to the AMD Athlon 64 X2s Intel Pentium D and later Core 2 Duos. 

The Pentium D is best forgotten as it had a vast number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that it uses up so much energy and heats up so much that it can be used as a space heater in the winter. However, the Athlon 64 X2s and the Core 2 Duos are the cream of the dual-core crop right now.

Intel dropped a huge bomb a few months ago with the introduction of the Core 2 Quadro, a QX6700 CPU with two dual-cores on one single CPU. AMD found itself behind the 8-ball with the introduction of its own quad-core (codenamed K10 or Barcelona/Agena) still many months away. So it jerry-rigged a quick and dirty quad-core solution of its own. It introduced a motherboard with two sockets, put a dual-core FX CPU in each socket and called it QuadFX. Presto! Instant quad-core.

Certainly a double dual-core solution is not as efficient and elegant as a single quad-core, but AMD argued that Intel's QX6700 is basically the same thing. The innards of the QX6700 are two dual-core CPUs side by side! Regardless, the fact remains that AMD's solution is two separate pieces of hardware, each residing in its own socket, and Intel has just one. The significance of this fact will soon become obvious.

AMD offers three dual-dual processors for its QuadFX, FX-70, FX-72 and FX-74. Recently, conducted a thorough performance comparison between AMD's FX-74 QuadFX and Intel's QX6700 to see who's really king of the world. Keep in mind that the vast majority of software applications available right now are not multi-threaded, thus cannot take advantage of more than one core, let alone two or four. However, if you run something like Adobe Photoshop CS3 on a quad-core, it will blow you off your chair!

The test systems were similarly configured with Windows XP Pro Build 2600 SP2, 2GB RAM and powerful GeForce 8800 GTX SLI video cards. They were run through a barrage of tests to see how they would perform head-to-head. As you can see by the charts, the differences were palpable. In a total of 12 out of 16 tests, the Intel QX6700 trounced the AMD QuadFX-74, in one case outscoring it 288,541 to 122,437. The only test that the QuadFX held its own were in the two ScienceMark tests, one Cinebench and there was one tie.

To add insult to injury, Intel has just introduced a QX6800 which runs at a speed a bit over 10% faster than the QX6700!

Power consumption is a big factor these days. More electrical load adds to the light bill but also generates more heat and requires more complex and costlier cooling solutions to keep the CPU at operating temperatures and away from meltdown. The Intel system used 387W at idle and 573W at high load, while the AMD used 511W at idle and 713W at load. The AMD uses almost as much electricity doing nothing than the Intel does at load. The extra heat generated must certainly be taken into consideration. Furthermore, keep this in mind for your next LAN party: Two AMD QuadFXs on one 15 Amp circuit will likely trip the breaker! Furthermore, very pricy 750W or even 1000W power supplies are required to run the QuadFX.

Whether or not Intel will be able to keep this performance lead all depends on what happens in the rest of this calendar year. Intel has a new quad CPU in the wings codenamed Penryn. It is designed to compete against AMD's K10-Barcelona/Agena, however, the latest buzz on the street has Intel introducing Penryn as early as July 2007 while AMD has just been rumoured to put their K10 quads off until January or even Februrary of 2008. In the fast-moving world of high-end CPUs, this delay could be a near-fatal blow to AMD, a company which has already been damaged by questionable products and cutthroat pricecut policies in the last year or so which have seen some Athlon 64 X2s sold at fire-sale prices well below $100.

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a biased and rabid Intel fanboi, allow me to inform you that this story was typed on my personal PC: an AMD Athlon 64 X2!

Which Is The Fastest CPU On Earth?


Check out hundreds of Hal's PC Technology articles in these categories:


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Hal Licino profile image

      Hal Licino 9 years ago from Toronto

      Thanks for the tip, SunSeven. The guy just cut and pasted it and it seems it was just a couple of days ago. What a total moron! The AMD Quad FX isn't even for sale any more! Theft of an article for no reason whatsoever. Isn't stealing great? :(

    • SunSeven profile image

      SunSeven 9 years ago from Singapore / India

      Hal, I enjoyed reading this hub, although I don't really understand the techie terms. I think this hub is stolen already.

      Best Regards

    • Hal Licino profile image

      Hal Licino 9 years ago from Toronto

      Hubpages does not date its articles for specific traffic reasons, and I can't argue with them. FYI, this article was posted on May 18, 2007.

    • profile image

      lwk 9 years ago

      It would be nice if there was a date at the top of the article telling us when this article was written.

    • solarshingles profile image

      solarshingles 9 years ago from london

      I hope that the competition in the field of processors is not going to die, because Intel simply needs to be forced to deliver better and cheaper

    • MarcNorris profile image

      MarcNorris 9 years ago from Canada

      Hopefully in AMD's effort to catch up, they don't go under. It would be sad to only be allowed on choice when it comes to computer processors.

    • profile image

      markion 9 years ago from London

      AMD are strugling with their server processors, but i applaud them for pushing Intel both in lowering prices and producing better processors.

    • Hal Licino profile image

      Hal Licino 10 years ago from Toronto

      You guys understand squat about multicore performance. Any conventional software which is not written specifically for multicores (and that's 99% of the software out there) will have little or no performance advantage on a multicore.

    • profile image

      alex07 10 years ago

      Wang ...ur wrong! Totaly wrong! Serial, you are inteligent but not wang! Quad core = Quad single core = 4x the single core clockspeed!

    • profile image

      serial 10 years ago

      ur wrong wang quad cores is a single cores speed x4


    • Hal Licino profile image

      Hal Licino 10 years ago from Toronto

      You're absolutely correct Wang VS. I went from a top of the line Prescott to an AMD dual core and found that overall performance was way down, as most of the functions I was previously doing at 3.6GHz I was now down to 2.4GHz! Photoshop really loves my new CPU though!

    • profile image

      Wang VS 10 years ago

      Quad cores are NOT the fastest x86 processors. Single-core and dual-core processors have higher GHz rates, and the Intel 3.0 GHz Dual Core with 1333 MHz FSB and 667 MHz memory outperforms the 3.6 GHz single-core Xeon with 800 MHz FSB by 50%.

      This distinction becomes critical if you're running a single-thread app. A single thread can only run as fast as the processor core -- one processor core. You could have 63 other cores on the motherboard but they won't help that one single-thread app run any faster, except to do the legwork of related threads spawned by the single-thread app, such as ones doing various forms of I/O.

      By definition, most forms of emulation, including virtual machines, MUST be single thread because the emulator does not and cannot know anything about the code being run inside the virtual machine. Thus, the emulator cannot parallelize what it is running.

      The aggregate processing power of a single or dual Quad processor may be significant, but it applies only to a multithreaded environment. A conventional server has lots of threads active, and every thread that can find a core to run on will run more or less simultaneously with other threads on other cores. A home or office PC that actually has multiple apps running and trying to do work will benefit similarly, as there are many threads that need cores on which to run.

      I'm involved in a machine virtualization business. The improvement we saw when the servers we use moved up to Intel Dual Core at 3.0 GHz instead of the former single-core 3.6 GHz were due entirely to the larger processor cache, the faster FSB and the faster memory. Unfortunately the Quad Core generation doesn't bring anything new to the table and further drops the GHz clock rates.

      In the same vein, if you're stuffing 5, 10, 20 virtual machines into a VMware system, no doubt you will benefit from the aggregate processing power of Quad Core. But none of your VMs will run any faster than a single core can run. So if you use VMware to run a single virtual machine, you should be more concerned about the processing power of a single core no matter how many cores your system may have. At the moment, Xeon Dual Core at max GHz, cache, FSB and memory speed is where the single-thread performance ceiling is.

    • Hal Licino profile image

      Hal Licino 10 years ago from Toronto

      That is if AMD can actually get Phenom on the street before Penryn eats up all its possible market share. If we are to believe the current "semi-leaked" benchmarks, Phenom is a huge dud, with quadcore max speeds of 2.4GHz. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, so we'll all just have to wait and make the final determination once AMD is able to finish ironing out the entomological warehouse within K10 and we can all get some REAL benchmarks!

    • profile image

      tariq 10 years ago

      Shame on intel .... how its big and how it hurt from AMD

      AMD is better in all conditions coz AMD inspire every one

      Phenom ... gona kick out intel soon Inshallah

    • profile image

      troy 10 years ago

      Great comparison! nicle job!

      greetings from the Philippines.