Source click here (chinese).

Remember! FX 74 x2!!! ($999 x2)

Test system.









The last test is power consumption... AMD is "done" this time...

Thanks for posting up..
Two CPU + 4 DIMM vs Single CPU + 2DIMM..
Price wise, the AMD setup could easily cost twice as much as the Intel setup.
Performance wise, Intel is still leading the game... even with a single CPU!
AMD must go back to the drawing board and the nF680a SLI mobo isn't really what desktop users want. Its more like a server board to me.

I think the original article is by Hothardware: http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.asp...cleid=911&cid=1

Mine is original from Japan.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1129/tawada92.htm

hi there, nice and cool article the truth is finally out ... a bit disappointing though however i agree with the conclusion of the article to await for AMD's true native Quad Core which would have 8 cores at the users disposal, and at the same time those quad cores should be manufactured on 65nm. That should give intel a good battle as AMD's quad core doesnt rely on FSB to communicate between its 4 cores, hope that should give AMD a slight edge over intel

Did u all heard abt Sun T1 proc?? core name Niagara??

i think SUN Microsystem is leading the game not Intel..

wanna know y..ask google..

Dude... I was referring between Intel and AMD.
Besides, Sun T1 or whatever has nothing to do with desktop computing.

yup i know it is nothing do with desktop computing but many ppl out ther oways say core.core..core..more core..and sum claim that intel got most more core in one die in the market..

Well apparently, those ppl are not here... LOL

very good item but quite expensive.. i think in next year the processor can growth up for their technology.. n want the more power...

Actually is quite cheap... Now for only $899 have pair of FX74, but not the electric bill, sure expensive!

well C2D QX6700 is just a repacking of 2 C2D E6700 in a singe wafer..
imagine that 1 E6700 cna oledi perform so dem hot.. wut if 2*E6700 is use in a system.. the down-side is that.. it generates more heat does it ??
wut i think AMD shud do is juz re-design the whole board to fit 4 proc all-in-one.. rather than using glue-technology like intel does.. AMD shud cum-out with a proc that natively has 4 core itself on the wafel..

Mmmm... 2x QX6700...

i think its $999 for both fx 74..meaning u get 2 fx 74s for $999

not bad...for amd...they are getting close using quad fx....

Not bad the price for two CPUs. But considering that the mobo costs over $400 and 4x1GB RAM, Quad FX is not worth the money for the performance. Better stick with E6600... who needs QX6700 anyways?

How about the cheaper one of Q6600?

definitely i would not prefer a Core 2 Quad core until 45nm is out in market. The Quad monster consumes as much power as a Pentium D.
Besides, u need a Blackford chipset to enable 2x C2Q if wanna o/c, because theoretically the FSB has reached its limit beyond 333MHz when more than 1 proc is connected to it. HTT is still a MUCH better solution even Intel has a so called dual independent FSB.