Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Six Cores from AMD: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and Phenom II X6 1055T CPU Review

Started by: carigis | Date 04/26/10 09:40:54 PM
Comments: 33 | Last Comment:  12/18/15 11:25:54 PM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


Typical AMD, inferior performance with above average power consumption.
0 0 [Posted by: Aristide1  | Date: 04/27/10 10:23:24 AM]

Re Aristide ,hey man are u blind 6 AMD core suck less power than Intel 4 core ,less than CoreI7 920 ,930 ,gulftown etc.and of course less temperature than Intel,Congrat AMD this is enough.

0 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 04/27/10 02:15:40 PM]
- collapse thread

The 980 does 50% work than a 920 for about the same watts. AMD can't even come close. They were over a year late with 45nm tech. All they got going for them is low startup costs.

They are no hardcore folders out there that use AMD processors. I have 2 AMD processors just to support my GPUs and that's it. It's simply not worth the money to fold with AMD CPUs.
0 0 [Posted by: Aristide1  | Date: 04/28/10 09:27:20 PM]

the 1055T eats more power than intel's 750 and 860, which are its rivals, price-wise and performance-wise

xbitlabs: did you even try to overclock the 1055T? you end up kind of recommending it for overclockers based on your results with a different processor which is not multiplier-locked...
0 0 [Posted by: NormanBates  | Date: 04/28/10 01:12:08 AM]
- collapse thread

I will try to get some serial 1055T processors for separate review.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 04/28/10 08:26:28 AM]
Watt for watt you get less with AMD.

End of story.
0 0 [Posted by: Aristide1  | Date: 04/28/10 09:22:30 PM]

Why no Core 2 Quad or other older gen processors for comparison?
0 0 [Posted by: JonMCC33  | Date: 04/28/10 04:51:34 AM]

I have an atlhon II X4 620 and I'm so happy... I play well... Actually I don't need Six cores... congratulations to Xbits for review, It's a pity that there is a few programs that will use the full potential of this processor.
0 0 [Posted by: samueldiogo  | Date: 04/28/10 06:58:27 AM]

Terrible review. At least try to bench applications which use 6 fucking cores instead of that shitty sysmark "intelmark".
0 0 [Posted by: jimbo75  | Date: 04/28/10 07:58:01 AM]
- collapse thread

You could read more than only fifth page of our review I have used a lot of apps, read full review before posting silly comments, please.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 04/28/10 08:24:13 AM]

Tahnk you for the review, but I have to mention that I can sense a negative sentiment towards AMD, in almost all xbitlabs cpu reviews. I can never see the "thumbs up" signal. Who could expect AMD to produce a 6 core processor working at 3.2 GHz and consuming the same power as the 4 core 3.4 GHz. Phenom II X4 with existing 45nm manufacture process? This is a cpu you can drop in your existing mobo with a BIOS update and don't worry for an upgrade for at least two years (most probably 4 core cpus will be entry level). 4 GHz OC is no problem with a decent air cooler. All those benchmarks do not mean a lot, when you can find specific benchmarks favoring a specific cpu. I can turn the table upside down, if I want to. Who cares if a game runs at 88 fps or 96 fps when both are more than playable? At the end, especially X6 1055T is an amazing value at 199$. Hey Intel charges this or even more for only 2 cores!
0 0 [Posted by: zagortenay  | Date: 04/28/10 09:10:46 AM]

I read it all you can believe that. Your overclocking part was particularly awful, and I quote.

Strange as it might seem, but a quad-core CPU on Intel Nehalem microarchitecture with Hyper-Threading technology overclocked to 4.0 GHz almost always outperforms six-core CPU from AMD. At the same time I can’t say that Thuban’s frequency potential is higher that of Core i7 CPUs on Lynnfield and Bloomfield cores. Therefore, there is only one possible conclusion here: microarchitecture of contemporary Intel processors makes them faster than AMD processors working at the same clock frequency. And even a 1.5 times increase in the number of computational cores can’t make up for that. That is why we again arrive to the same conclusion that AMD’s only weapon in the battle for consumers is their pricing policy.

You have decided that AMD's 6 cores are worse than intels 4 cores based on useless synthetics like 3dmark vantage? Or worse, games which use two cores? That doesn't add up does it?

Back to review school for you - start by reading the other reviews on the internet to see where you went wrong.
0 0 [Posted by: jimbo75  | Date: 04/28/10 09:16:28 AM]

No one say that u must buy 1090 T ,u have choice 6 core for 300 $ or Intel 6 core for 1000 $.1090 T .True Intel is 20 % better in perfomance ,but u must pay x3 price for that.At least Intel 6 core is more power hungry than AMD 1090 T.
0 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 04/28/10 04:14:04 PM]
- collapse thread

I think the point it that you can pay 300 bucks for an Intel quad core CPU and still get better performance. But there are other reviews and other workloads available on the net, it really boils down to what you will be using.... for games, lighter threaded workloads the Intel quads are probably better overall.
0 0 [Posted by: jumpingjack  | Date: 04/28/10 08:29:36 PM]
I think the point is this xbit review is pure trash, and if you think you can get a faster intel quad at $300 you are totally wrong.

The rewiew sites owe it to us and AMD to review the chip fairly, not benchmark it with a bunch of poorly threaded games and synthetics then declare "Intel quads are faster clock for clock".

Of course the intel quads are going to be faster clock if clock if you benchmark next to nothing that uses the AMD chips full 6 cores.
0 0 [Posted by: jimbo75  | Date: 04/29/10 03:05:51 AM]
page 8 of the review compares the intel quad cores to the 6 core amd in applications that scale VERY well on many cores. and the AMD still loses.
0 0 [Posted by: taltamir  | Date: 05/01/10 02:39:26 AM]

I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in regards to his review.

You guys make one of the best reviews in regards to many things; PSUs, Power Consumption, Motherboards, Coolers and of course LCDs, best in the business. On the CPU testing front you should improve your methodology, as your usage scenario hardly suits the way your readers use their CPUs (and maybe you too for that matter).

I'll illustrate with an example what I mean: say at 100$ mark we compare a C2D e7500 and an Athlon II 630; your testing results will say in a nutshell: Athlon II is for highly multithreaded apps, while the e7500 offers higher speed for not so multicore optimized apps. You compare the CPUs per app, but we don't use our CPUs like that any more. Should you address this aspect? I think so.

There is one usage scenario that isn't covered: users that use many apps - and with multi core CPUs knocking on our doors this usage scenario is increasingly more important. Add a second monitor, and in parallel to Crysis you can browse heavy-flash web page(s), while downloading stuff and keeping track of your friends thru facebook and twitter apps. With the antivirus security set on "high" would you venture to say Crysis will run better on the dual core with fast cores or the quad with more albeit slower cores? Most users "feel" their quad is faster than their former dual core, even in older games, although reviews say otherwise. There must be a way one can quantify this "feeling", this added snappiness, and you are the ones for this job in my opinion.

To finish my post I'll place a link of Anandtech's server benchmark - in house build to assess virtualisation performance in "few but heavy" virtual machines installed. They used a database as departure point for bench, you may as well make a pool and gather data on who uses what simultaneously, make a batch and then make a score starting from the per app data gathered: FPS, seconds to completion of AV/encoder, etc. Using SSDs and a home-based web/dlding server should make scores repeatable.
0 0 [Posted by: dragosmp  | Date: 04/29/10 01:53:08 AM]

People for this money you cant found better CPU ,test depend on memory,slow hard disk ,MB etc ,but if u look other review on many other site ,you see that 1090T is very good in prof. application like Adobe Premiere ,Maxon ,h264 encoding...similar like CoreI7975 (cost 999 $) .I dont know what mean game test on 800x600 resolution ,no one play on that resolution.In game if u have more than 60 FPS that is perfect for gaming more depend of what GPU u use.
0 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 04/29/10 02:27:53 AM]

"However, Phenom II X6 1055T may become a pretty attractive solution for overclocking. This CPU competes against Core i7-750 that doesn’t support Hyper-Threading. And if the junior six-core AMD processor can overclock to 4.0 GHz, then it may end up being faster than its overclocked competitor."

You mean Core i5 750. There is no such thing as Core i7 750. Also you make assumptions that just because i5 750 doesn't have hyperthreading that it'll be far worse than i7 930 which is about matching AMD's X6 or doing better. Maybe you should have tested it first. Also let's not forget that if you disable HT, you should be able to overclock even higher, negating any such possible reduction in speed.

Also lol at the other comments. x264 is a highly thread optimized benchmark. That's what you should be looking at, not the useless synthetic benchmarks or the games that use 1-2 cores.
0 0 [Posted by: MingoDynasty  | Date: 04/29/10 06:25:54 AM]
- collapse thread

passmark test ,1090 T 7049 points,where is CoreI5 750? I see CoreI7860 5535 points I cant find CoreI5 750 ! LOL
0 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 04/29/10 02:07:06 PM]

I'll agree with Dragosmp. Throw in some multi-tasking tests to see if those quads can still hold their own...

Also, there is an image on page 2 that shows 2 72-bit DDR2 memory channels coming from the IMC. I think that this is an Istanbul Opteron slide that uses ECC RAM. Not that big-a-deal but I thought it was out of place.
0 0 [Posted by: cheeseman  | Date: 04/29/10 12:51:29 PM]

Dont forget guys - the same author wrote this masterpiece 6 months ago.

Seems the author had already decided back then that Thuban wasn't going to beat the Nehalems.

Needless to say, this is *incredibly* poor form xbitlabs. Get another - preferably unbiased - reviewer and review this chip properly because this one is a farce.
0 0 [Posted by: jennyh  | Date: 04/30/10 05:25:08 AM]

Intel crushes AMD on overall clock for clock performance and power efficiency and overclock better. AMD's X6 is a power hog and only excels in high threaded applications.
0 0 [Posted by: knowom  | Date: 04/30/10 05:47:57 PM]

unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.

i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man.

Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious......
Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic.

Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)

AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMD
But im for cheap as well but the main issue, along w "future proofing"
Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.
the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....


yes they do look promising i agree. but they are still playing catch up ........ i wonder what type of tech we would be playing with IF we had other "original" companies to level the playing field and force each other to keep coming up with newer better things at a faster pace. Mobile and Desktop wise.

Sure keeping same mobo, psu, and everything else system wise for some random amount of yrs to save money sounds awesome....... nah it doesnt rly........ things could be so much diff right now for us if we werent with this mindset the markets have created. Slowing technology down, and hindering our technological evolution as we advance, by using this "budget" scheme of things. So none of this really matters..... Be stuck doing same thing for yrs on end because the companies only care about "budget", not advancing. NVM that subject lol

AMD needs to be "original" again, since theres only 2 "major" cpu manufacturers, so that we can advance into newer better things. The more as tech advances, the more we do, but only allowed as far as the market greed will let you. (like Intel always being $500 and up for "good" So dont take my posting wrong. LOL
I hope I got that out there right. lol
0 0 [Posted by: djdarko321  | Date: 05/12/10 11:50:25 PM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment