AMD Athlon Quad FX Platform Review
Perfect for those with money to burn and a small nuclear generator looking for a use.

All I can say is if this isn't crazy enough, next year you will be able to buy Octo (8) core systems. When does this insanity stop? I have recently pointed out that dual core systems for the general public is more than enough. More importantly, there is still not full programming support of dual core systems, let alone quad core systems. We won't even broach Octo Core systems. The other problem is power consumption. That "beefy" 850 watt supply you just bought will just get you by with these systems. Consider this under load these consume over 500 watts of power. Remember that is just the cosumption of the 4 cpu's, nothing else. Bottom line, your wasting your money purchasing these systems.

f you take a look back at the microprocessor industry, and more specifically the battles between Intel and AMD over the last few years, you see that a see-saw pattern of enthusiast market dominance tends to emerge. We see either Intel or AMD on top for a while, then due to an ambitious product launch or manufacturing delay, the reigning king is usually dethroned and the cycle starts over. The enthusiast segment is the cream of the crop for both companies, and although there isn’t a lot of volume in $999 processors, bragging rights that your’s are the fastest in the world provides marketing leverage that cannot be purchased. AMD was the first to reach 1GHz (And [H] was the first to destroy one!) while Intel dominated the Athlon XP with the Pentium 4, but then the Athlon 64 emerged and single-handedly whipped Intel for three years running. Fast forward to present day and Intel’s Conroe chip remains dominant on the desktop front, with the company’s Kentsfield quad-core chip the dominant performance leader at the ultra high end.

Get the Lead Out AMD

So what’s been taking so long for AMD to get their quad-core CPU out on the market? It really boils down to manufacturing ability, which points out one of the most, if not the most, significant advantages Intel has over AMD. The fact of the matter is that Intel has many more fabrication facilities that feature more advanced manufacturing processes than AMD, allowing the company to make more next-generation processors at a cheaper cost while bringing the technology to market more quickly. Intel has been producing 65nm wafers in volume for months and is slated to start producing 45nm wafers in the second half of 2007 while AMD is barely producing 65nm wafers and 45nm product is off somewhere into 2008.

This in essence is why AMD isn’t launching a native quad-core CPU to go head-to-head against Intel’s Kentsfield based Core 2 QX6700. AMD needs a smaller package to bridle all the quad-core performance and keep it inside a manageable power envelope. Instead, the company is using what it has readily available and launching its Quad FX platform today (affectionately known as the “4X4”) with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 and accompanying NVIDIA nForce 680a chipset and ASUS motherboard.

Read all about it here courtesy of hardocp.com.

-Eric