Forum          FAQ


Board index » General Discussions » Hardware/System Reviews

 [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: AMD's Answer to the Intel Core i7 980x...
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:39 pm 
Tech Guru
Tech Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 6:26 pm
Posts: 2667
I dont know if its old news or not, but I just came across this:

AMD Phenom X6 1090T Processor

Here are some reviews about it:

Neoseeker's Review

Anandtech's Review

Bit-tech's Review

At stock clocks, it still seems to fall behind the i7 9x series CPU's from lacking the HT technology, and ahead of the LGA 1156 CPUs. But when overclocked to around 4GHz, it falls right behind the 980x. Also, it has a slightly lower TDP than the X58 CPU's.

GuruHT's Chart Comparisons

It looks like this can be a real good buy for the $$$/Performance. I myself would rather stick to Intel. But for anyone on a budget thats looking to build a cheaper system with a good amount of power, this might be the answer, since the majority of the AMD based motherboards are much cheaper than the X58 boards (for a good board).

Alienware Aurora R4
Intel Core i7 3930K
16GB Dominator Platinum 2133MHz
2GB EVGA GeForce GTX 770 SC
Sound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty
512GB Samsung 840 SSD
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

 Post subject: Re: AMD's Answer to the Intel Core i7 980x...
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:01 pm 
Tech Guru
Tech Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:24 am
Posts: 3179
Location: In the Green Zone
Recapping on the summaries...

bit-tech wrote:
Despite being an astonishing £600 cheaper than the exorbitantly-priced Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition, the X6 1090T BE still isn’t a very good buy. That’s because despite being clocked at a respectable 3.2GHz and having a useful auto-overclocking feature in Turbo Core, it’s based on a comparatively old architecture – K10, which is in reality only a tweaked version of the ancient K8 architecture dating way back to 2003.

As a result, the X6 1090T BE really struggles to keep up with the similarly priced Intel Core i7-930, which has was noticeably faster in six of our eight benchmarks thanks to its far more modern Nehalem architecture. The only exception to this was our Cinebench and WPrime tests, indicating that the X6 1090T BE may be worth considering for a low cost graphics workstation. However, even then, the i7-930 retook pole position when both CPUs were overclocked to their air-cooled maximum frequency.[/qoute]

anandtech wrote:
Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6....You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.

The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.

xbitlabs wrote:
Six-core processors raised the performance bar for Socket AM3 systems so that now they can compete successfully against platforms based on top Core i5 processors with four cores. However, unfortunately, six-core Phenom II X6 CPUs turn out even slower than quad-core Core i7 processors supporting Hyper-Threading technology.

In conclusion I would like to stress that six cores are not always better than four. There is still quite a bit of software out there that is not optimized for multi-core architectures. And it means that there are quite a few tasks that work best on dual- and quad-core CPUs. Among them are contemporary games, of course. Therefore, if you are looking to build a gaming system, Phenom II X6 will be far not the best choice despite all its indisputable advantages.

guru3d wrote:
So what we are trying to say here is that AMD did it right on many levels. Your operating system will simply be blazingly fast, your games will run fast enough and if you are editing and transcoding some video, pack a lot or RAR files and so on...that's where the enormous value of the new X6 processors really kick in hard...

Then you just built a fully functional six-core processor based media crunching monster PC at a great price of under 600 USD. Now make no mistake, AMD is not competing with Intel's six-core solutions at all. They can't as performance wise per core they miss out on performance. But if we leave gaming out of the equation and look at content creation, 3D design, video transcoding etc where applications are heavily threaded then the Phenom II X6 1055T performs roughly at the level of a Core i7 860~870 ( 300~550 USD), and the 1090T closes in on the Core i7 950/965 (580/800 USD).

So this is value at its absolute best. But seriously, it's time for AMD to stop following Intel, and start to lead. AMD's processors need some sort of hyper threading embedded and make a move to larger caches and triple, maybe even quad-channel memory configurations. Value for money wise, you can't beat the processors tested today though and as such they are a pleasure to have inside any modern PC. A processor like this will bring a smile to your face. wrote:
The Good

Fastest desktop processor AMD has ever produced
Brings hexa-core computing to the mainstream
AM3 socket continues to offer an upgrade path
Decent overclocking headroom
Turbo CORE ensures single-thread performance

The Bad

Remains a distant second to Intel in terms of raw performance

Hhhmmmm...let's see. AMD six-core cpu heavily competes with the quad core Lynnfield (i7 860 & higher) and it squeaks behind the quad core Bloomfield (i7 930) and is still literally smoked by Intel's six-core beast.

I love the fact AMD is somewhat taking their own path but at the same time they're still following Intel. AMD reminds me of Nintendo (it does not require that much power for great & balanced performance). AMD is trying to give the best of both worlds regarding to excellent mutli-threading performance and gaming performance (60fps is considered the low end of excellent gaming). Although AMD still lags behind in gaming performance to the Lynnfield, you have to remember 1 thing...Their gaming performance is excellent just slower than Intel. So with that, I have to admit that you basically will have the best in both worlds but only because of the price. AMD is only focusing on giving the consumer what is actually needed for multi-threading programs and games. You really can't beat that with a stick ;) I've been with Intel forever but AMD is starting to get my attention for their achievement in balancing performance along with an incredible price tag :mrgreen:

ASUS ROG Maximus Gene V w/Core i5 2500k
G.Skill Sniper 1866MHz 8Gb | Phanteks TC120X w/Corsair SP120s
ASUS GTX 770 Direct CU II OC 2Gb | Creative Sound Blaster ZX
Samsung 840 250Gb | WD Velociraptor 600Gb | Corsair AX-760
ASUS PA248Q-IPS | Ducky Zero DK2108 w/Zinc + PBT Keycaps
Razer DeathAdder 2k13 | Razer Manticor | Razer Tiamat 2.2
Fractal Design Arc Mini | HP Officejet Pro K8600 | Windows 7

 [ 2 posts ] 

Board index » General Discussions » Hardware/System Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: