Why is AMD's Quad is NOT the Logical Choice, and Intel Quad is the ONLY Choice.
This is why AMD's quick fix Quadsucker 2+2 will suck huge watts and be a marginal product. Intel's 65nm Quad Zilla will eat market share leaving AMD's Quadsucker 2+2 the scraps.
CNET editors' review
"If you're wondering what the future of quad-core processing looks like, AMD's 4x4 solution, which pairs two dual-core CPUs, sits on the horizon. We've talked to a number of system vendors, however, who back up our own trepidations about the price-performance and thermal issues of a two-chip solution."
Gabe Newell, Valve
"Pressed to provide a better idea which will be the better performing gaming platform, Valve declined to make any recommendations. Instead, company officials noted that benchmarks results of hardware sites should offer enough detail for enthusiasts to find the best choice. However, Gabe Newell stated that Valve has delayed the purchase of new computers until now - and will replace its development machines with quad-cores (read: not 2P dual-core systems) immediately."
"If you are throwing $4000 or more into a serious gaming computer this Christmas, then Intel's Kentsfield (officially called Core 2 Extreme QX6700) may be your only choice. Valve declined to discuss AMD's 4x4, which - in combination with the firm's confirmation that it will transition its development systems to quad-core - leaves a question mark behind the capability of the platform: It is yet another indication that AMD may need a quad-core processor rather sooner than later."
"There is clearly something amazing about this processor - it easily takes place as my most wanted CPU for 2006. Not only does this machine run cooler than the AMD Athlon FX or Core 2 Duo Extreme, but it seems to run more applications at one time without breaking a sweat.
We all know AMD has some strength with multitasking being that they have an integrated memory controller, but Kentsfield left us wanting more. In fact, I would say based on the performance of the platforms we tested that it shouldn’t really matter about the architectural advantages or disadvantages – the proof is in the benchmarks.
Now imagine the possibilities with an advanced liquid cooling system, some high end memory, a top shelf motherboard, and a bit of overclocking. We were all surprised to see the flexibility of Kentfield – granted these were all engineering samples so the production modules may yield different results – at this point I will base our opinion only on what we have seen in our labs."
don't listen to me, and don't listen to the blatant hype spewing long pumping board Bozos.
Listen to the Facts, from CNET, Gabe Newell, Valve, and VoodooPC President. They know best.
Intel Quad got 4 Editors Choice Awards already with many more to come.
Why is this top 1% of the market so important. AMD can have the other 99%?
You really think that a person who buys a $4,000 gaming machine gives a hoot that it burns 750 watts instead of 650 Watts, or more.
Top end video cards burn 200 watts each or more. They put up to four in one machine, two is very common.
The 4x4 is exclusively for the expensive Athlon x2 FX. Power is of little if any concern for it's market slot.