Citation :
Click pics to enlarge
Wie ersichtlich, schlägt der AMD Quad FX 3.0GHz seinen Konkurrenten Intel QX6700 2.66GHz lediglich in einem Benchmark.
Weiter verbraucht der AMD Quad FX 3.0GHz bis zu 80 Prozent mehr Energie gegenüber dem Intel QX6700 2.66GHz... ein sicherlich zentraler Punkt, welcher nicht zu ignorieren ist bei der Wahl einer CPU, je nach Einsatzgebiet.
Source: techPowerUp! - Quadfather compared to Kentsfield
Quadfather compared to Kentsfield
While it has been discussed on the forums a lot already there were no official comparisons between AMDs Quadfather and Intels Kentsfield. So PC watch did exactly that, they compared a 3 GHz Quadfather to a 2.66GHz QX6700. The first major issue found was that the AMD system used up to 80% more energy, not exactly something to ignore. Even though the AMD system didn't score bad, it only won a single benchmark and performed worse or the same at best in every other benchmark.
It seems AMD let their fans down for now. Lets hope they make up to them with their 65nm CPUs. For now, take a look at the results:
Click pics to enlarge
Wie ersichtlich, schlägt der AMD Quad FX 3.0GHz seinen Konkurrenten Intel QX6700 2.66GHz lediglich in einem Benchmark.
Weiter verbraucht der AMD Quad FX 3.0GHz bis zu 80 Prozent mehr Energie gegenüber dem Intel QX6700 2.66GHz... ein sicherlich zentraler Punkt, welcher nicht zu ignorieren ist bei der Wahl einer CPU, je nach Einsatzgebiet.
Source: techPowerUp! - Quadfather compared to Kentsfield
News by Luca Rocchi and Marc Büchel - German Translation by Paul Görnhardt - Italian Translation by Francesco Daghini
Previous article - Next article
comments powered by Disqus
comments powered by Disqus