Along the same lines of the Web Findings I posted a couple days ago, I’ve found lots of content that I’d like to talk about today. Except this time, you’ll probably see a decidedly more negative side.
[H]ardOCP Does It Again
Back when Intel launched Core 2 Duo, just about every website hailed the processor as the new CPU king, easily besting the then top dog Athlon X2s/FX. HardOCP for one reason or another decided that focusing on the negligible performance differences in high resolution gaming was the key; clearly bottlenecked by the video card. Of course this was not the case back when Athlon 64 stole the crown. Gaming at low resolution was the key and the Athlon 64 held it. My how the tables turned but HardOCP decided creating a bit of drama on the net was the best way about it.
So it doesn’t surprise me much that they’re at it again. This time, they’re touting the advantages of AMD’s newly launched Quad FX platform. In a nutshell, it’s a dual CPU server platform aimed at the enthusiast market; that means FB-DIMMs and registered memory is no longer required. However compared to Intel’s already launched Kentsfield quad core processor (single socket, dual die), the top end Quad FX platform performs on par or worse, consumes nearly twice as much power, and will cost around the same (depending on what price the motherboard will come in at, but you can be sure it won’t be cheap being a 2 socket board).
Now go ahead and read the HardOCP review. Not only does it seem to choose the benchmarks that AMD doesn’t do terribly at (compared to other reviews) the conclusion is downright mysterious. In even the favorable context of the chosen benchmarks, the Quad FX did not do well versus Intel’s Kentsfield. However, the conclusion states that the results disprove his initial skepticism for the Quad FX. I’d say it proves quite handily those doubts. In addition, there are constant references to AMD’s single socket quad core CPU coming in the second half of next year; references which include the improvements that would bring to the current dual socket platform. While this is true, they manage to forget that Intel will be bringing Yorkfield to the market around that time, an improved version of their quad core processor. Only time will tell who wins that round, but right now, it’s pretty easy to call the winner. It sure isn’t the Quad FX.
On a Related Note
Again, relating to the Quad FX hoopla today, The Inquirer (no, not that Inquirer…) presents the following fact: Intel’s quad core Kentsfield is hella expensive. In fact, a popular US e-tailer is selling them for $1499US and they don’t even have them in stock! Of course, they point out that AMD has announced the highest grade Quad FX at a measly $999US, significantly lower than the current selling price of Kentsfield. What they conveniently left out is the fact that $999US is also the MRSP of the Kentsfield, but what the free market dictates is what you shall pay. With that in mind, Quad FX is not only not available but $999US is the MRSP. What the market prices them at remains to be seen. Tsk tsk tsk, comparing apples and oranges.
I’ll end this on a brighter note; not all of my daily tech reading results in anxiety attacks. Nintendo Wii’s motion sensitive controller have some people over exerting themselves. Instead of playing real sports, that virtual baseball game should just about cover your workout needs. A step closer to virtual reality?
Apparently not. Overclockers.com points out, humorously, the problem with the reality clause of ‘virtual reality’ when used in this context. It may be virtual but hardly real if average Joe Blow can knock out that ‘real’ super heavyweight champ. He also points out that first person shooter gurus probably wouldn’t stand too well against the Special Forces. I resent that statement… My UT2003 skillz are pretty 1337 if you know what I mean. 😉
Okay, who am I kidding.