Originally posted by nagasama
oh i gotcha trieclipse. i did misunderstand, thought we were comparing qx6700 to one fx-74.
i wonder how the fx-74 fares against the x6800?
that would probably be a more fair comparison. although i believe the x6800 uses the same socket 775 mobo as the other c2d's?
also based on the link tri posted it looks like the intel q6600 uses the same socket 775 mobo as well, ie nothing different than dual core c2d.
and the amd you would have to get their socket f mobo. (which really aren't that expensive, for the single socket board). the 4x4 is outrageuosly expensive.
i also wonder when amds 65 nm architecture comes out if it will be able to keep up with the c2d performance wise?
by the way, can someone explain to me why the c2d's overclock so well (or so high i should say), and i have to work like a slave to get my little 4200 past a 5-600 mhz overclock?
You also cannot use one FX-74 to compare to a X6800. You have
to buy 2 FX-74s or you won't have a system, FX-7* processors cannot be used in any configuration except 4x4. That also means that you will have to buy the $430 motherboard, since one FX-74 and a one-socket Socket F motherboard is useless. Here's cheapening their efforts for ya, 4x4 is a complete sham, an embarrassment to AMD in every way.
Although it should become a lot more worthwhile once AMD rolls out it's single-chip Quad Core CPUs. Intel likely won't have any Octa-Core processors out by that time, so AMD would have the 8-core enthusiast market to itself. I wouldn't expect it to be cheap though.
And its not that hard to compare the processors you mentioned. You only have to take a FX-62 and overclock it to 3Ghz to see what an FX-74 would perform like.
And you can use clockspeeds to compare the processors. The X6800, at 2.93Ghz, is far beyond the reach of a 3Ghz A64 processor. At minimum
, it should take a 3.5Ghz A64 with the current architecture to rival the X6800, and note that this is the most conservative estimate I can come up with, its likely higher. An E6600 (2.4Ghz) is more like a 3Ghz A64.
And I would have to agree with Nitestick that Intel's OC'ing potential comes from their architecture (though I'm not sure that their slightly
longer pipeline is the culprit).