From the article's first paragraph: The results of the rash of QuadFX reviews that just came out are uniformly disappointing; Intel's quad-core offering, the QX6800, outperforms AMD's much hotter, more power-hungry offering in almost every benchmark. Right now, QuadFX is a loser from a performance, power consumption, and bang/buck perspective, and there's pretty much no reason to even consider spending money on this boutique architecture right now. Eek. After getting owned by AMD's socket 939 Intel got their act together and released Core 2 Duo. AMD 4x4 (now called QuadFX) was intended to be a very high end solution that could win back the hearts and minds of the high demand users with a dual processor, workstation style solution. Both Intels quad core processor and AMD's QuadFX would run four cores, but it looks like Intel's architecture wins out this time. While QuadFX is a cool idea, it is hard to justify how AMD when out designing it. The 680a motherboard is simply two NVIDIA 570 chipsets grouped together and the least expensive processor is $599 (you need two of them). Once you have the system set up (a minimum price of about $1500 for the motherboard and two FX-70 processors) be ready to face high power demands and considerable heat production. This would all be OK if the performance justified it, but the QuadFX platform cannot yet outperform Intel's Kentsfield...