Coolaler - First Benchmarks
Hardware Zone - Mini Review
Ben Hardwidge - 6.3GHz on LN2
Bit-Tech - 4GHz on Air
Guru3D - Pricing
PCOnline.com.cn - early benches
ocworkbench - unlocking 960T x4 to x6
TechPowerUp - ASUS Turbo Modes
Printable View
Good very good list....
Can I have it within a week? Pretty please?
Singapore already selling 1055TQuote:
Originally Posted by vitchilo
already on sale in indonesia at $210 for 1055T
That's great news. Should hit the $199 expected retail price here in the States.Quote:
Originally Posted by nyeah
Yean Singapore and Indonesia... how much would it cost for shipping to send it to northern america? 100$ shipping?
If I can have it for free shipping or 10$ shipping I'm gonna order it right now...
finaly some reviews. :)
*starts reading*
awh damn only synthetics right now. :(
Hope that more pop up soon.
damn!!! 960T may late release !!!!
A few things stand out : Turbo works great even though Winblows OS tosses the threads around;Turbo is still there even if you manually OC the 1055T via HTT(look in AMD section for TriCore 4.2Ghz/6C 3.5Ghz test results on air);OCing via HTT on 1055T is quite easy with solid air cooling,4+Ghz can be achieved with lower vcore than on Deneb C3;x264 2nd pass rocks on Thuban :)
edit: Thanks to user Cezar who posted in AMD section ,we now have a report from OCworkbench that Zosma is unlockable to X6 :D.
http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/amd-p...-phenom-ii-x6/
most of the time people in South East Asia buying from USA/UK or EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by vitchilo
I don't think you could find online store that ships to USA
the bare chip itself is SGD $308(~USD $220)
check this mini review out:
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh....php?t=2731901
Thanks :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
The power fig's looks very interesting :yepp:
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...ower_thumb.jpg
Waiting for a 1090T to pop up :D ... Overall i am a bit surprised as to how it was defeated by the i7 920 in some tests. I know if HT is off the 1055T would win but still.
Oh and before people start pointing out the game results let me remind you all that x4 965 is 3.4Ghz and the 1055T is 3.3Ghz when turbo kicks in. So the difference in games maybe due to the 100mhz difference or maybe because turbo did not kick in at all and that means all cores are at 2.8Ghz.
no hotlinking.. :p:
And yes power figures look nice, wonder how much more the 1090 needs, shouldn't be that much more.
it is kinda scary that your limited to either 3x3.3ghz or 4x2.8ghz, so if the games are quad optimized, you will have a 2.8ghz quad, which will not be very fun compared to what you can get for much cheaper. but on the upside, if you plan to OC, these will do the same or better than the old C3s, so theres no worries in that regard. and chances are that quad optimized games probably run great anyway, lol. and its all about future proofing, which 6 cores will do quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
i just cant wait to hear the flaming how the 1090T is gonna be worse than the PII 965 in some situations.
Exactly and with unlocked multi it would need less watts to OC also. I just dont know what to do upgrading to 1090T will cost more than i want and i will have to save again for Bulldozer or Sandy Bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
This is why i was thinking of getting a 1035T and OC the chepo on my old AM2+ mobo till BD and SB come to market.
Games which are quad optimized will use only 4 cores out of the 6 but chances are that the very less games that are specially optimized for quads only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
1090T is slower than 965 in all cores stand "3.2Ghz vs 3.4Ghz" quad optimized app's would win with 965 instead of 1090T.
From what we have seen in the AMD section turbo is very flexible with manual overclocking and i for one would not mind a 4Ghz cpu that can do 4.5ghz on turbo "That is exactly what the result is in AMD section"
i think we agreed on everything, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Why aren't these Phenom III?
That's reserved for Bulldozer. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by initialised
If Bulldozer lives up to AMD's promise, the name Phenom will take a sweet revenge on Intel's Core. (Sandy Bridge's going to be another Core.) Isn't it nice? :p:
Never fear, just get an Asus board.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
http://www.donanimhaber.com/Ozel_hab...andi-19432.htm
Bulldozer cant be Phenom, its bullsh*t. Phenoms are K10 (K10.5) architecture, but Bulldozer architecture isnt nothing simillary. Its total new architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
It's funny how ASUS' marketing department is competeing with AMD's own Tirbo CORE tech,they even made those pretty slides :). I must admit they did a good job though,those Unlocker capable boards are going to be some 5-8% faster than any other board,even with Thubans :) (Phenoms II will def. be faster in it).Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I am just wondering if this would work on top of AMD Turbo. I mean 500mhz max is what AMD Turbo offers us and its the same for ASUS Turbo :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
The 200mhz+ on all core is really nice tough i do not like it i feels it cheating. If your cpu does not do run at the stock speed when loaded in any situation is just not fair.
It's just a trademark, really. Athlon and Athlon II are different architectures, too, the same as Intel Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III and Pentium 4, aren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
that is a very interesting features, glad you brought it up. i wonder what it will do since the cpu does the load detecting, how will the motherboard handle windows scheduler? or is their software going to manage that part? and will this work with CnQ which will be really important, otherwise u might as well OC it yourself to ~4ghz and walk awayQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I was thinking the same thing.... the MB makers are really twisting AMD stuff around and piggy backing their marketing on AMD products. I would not be too happy if I were AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You can bet they are not happy with this practice... But any Deneb/Thuban sold is money in their pocket,if Asus can help the sales by using this kind of "guerrilla" marketing techniques with their boards then it's not so bad I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Just got kinnda confirmation via PM, he says Asus Turbo kills the AMD Turbo and does not work upon it that means that in only one case you should use this tech with a hex core that is for all core boost "+200Mhz"
But for Quad BE's this is great if you own a quad BE get one of these :D better performance in games,etc with lower power draw....
the fact that ASUS can do it, makes me wonder if ANY ati 7xx or 8xx mobo can if AOD was updated to do it. would be an incredible way to see free perf on all older cpus
So it's coming out on April 28 in Northern America?
sorry, no help here...Quote:
So it's coming out on April 28 in Northern America?
if only these chips had HTT,Quote:
PCOnline.com.cn
people would literally lick them!
Translated: http://translate.google.co.in/transl...en-US:official
Original: http://namegt.tistory.com/442
from namegt's post in AMD section
EDIT: Power consumption is more like i7 920/930 than i5 750.
Why does AMD have to incorporate tech. intel uses in their chips and why do you think it would work well enough on 10h uarchitecture? With 6 physical cores,AMD does not need SMT in their chips since in true MT workloads these cores will perform great(you can expect great speedup with apps that support 4+ threads).Quote:
Originally Posted by onex
People will literally lick these chips anyway,with the great stock clocks and power bands,native HW based Turbo ability,backwards compatibility,awesome OCing abilities,low temps,no coldbugs for xtreme OCing,great starting pricing from AMD etc. All the reasons for great success(yes :p:)
Sure hope there's something wrong with that test, x6 looks quite weak :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Where does the 1055 look weak?Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
It beats Core i5 in every multi threaded benchmark. As if someone would care for single threaded Super PI on a six core... :shakes:
Compared to i7-960, not compared to i5.
Where did you see it compared to i7-960,in what application? How much does 960 cost?It's not even remotely in the 1055's league,starting from default specs and price.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
What is better in terms of platform power efficiency and performance, 1055T+8-series chipset or i7 860+P55?
First of start comparing equipment in the same price segments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
1055T will be much cheaper then 860 and since Intel is about to kill their sockets (again) I would only consider AM3.
Again how about you look at the price first?Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Though should you have to much cash to burn you can always send it my way... :cool:
In every single Everest CPU bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Who cares - i7-920 is in x6 price range and a quad core 960 is ridicolously faster than hex core PhII?Quote:
How much does 960 cost? It's not even remotely in the 1055's league,starting from default specs and price.
This is not a CPU targetted at a "watch your pocket" audience, they don't need that much. Frankly, I am hoping the diff. between 1055T and i7-920 is solely in synthetics as I am considering getting 1055T.
If you run everest 24/7 than i7 is the way to go :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
found last resort? hahaha...Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Sorry to point it to you, but there is Thuban 1055T in comparison not 1090T.
It is 2.8 GHz, while 960 is 3.2. Compare 960 to 1090T - both are 3.2 GHz. Actually you can find results somewhere here. If I remember correctly for cinebech 11.5 even hiperthreading would not help i7. Say, here
I don't need a last resort - I want the 1055T to be faster than i7-960, because than it's comparable to 980X - and in that case it's a good bargain vs. a hex core Xeon.
But if it's like the tests show, I'm better off with a hexacore Xeon.
The 960 is so far ahread of 1055T, that 920 is more than comparable to 1055T (at least if this test is right - again, hope there's something wrong there).Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
http://cfile2.uf.tistory.com/origina...4BC3BA919DE7A6Quote:
Actually you can find results somewhere here. If I remember correctly for cinebech 11.5 even hiperthreading would not help i7.
You seem to forget easily ;)
1055T is the slowest of the bunch - slower than quad core i7 @2.8.
what are you talking about?....
You tried to compare 960 to 1055. you got answer that your comparison was wrong. You'd have to compare 960 to thuban 1090T
though 1090T still better.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=217
Again,who cares if 960 is a Quad Core when its cores support SMT (and in reality the individual Bloomfield's SMT cores are 48% larger in die area than Deneb/Thuban's!). Thuban is a good match for Bloomfield.Intel invested in SMT while AMD went the easier route and added more cores. Where intel excels is cache density ,this is the area AMD must work on in the future( intel's sram cell is much smaller than AMD's).
I am telling you all this since you are somehow considering a Bloomfield a "regular" Quad Core,forgetting the SMT. Nothing is free in this world...
In the end,one will look at the total cost,so you should compare 920 i7 Vs the 1055T.In many cases Thuban will fare great in this comparison.
edit : here is the C11.5 comparison of Thuban and i7 at 4.2Ghz,Thuban wins by a decent margin
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=217
http://hostimage.co.uk/08-Apr-10_0F69-4BBDB0E5.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/mrjohnson2/vv.jpg
Well, 1055T costs the same as i5 750.And has cheaper/longer lived platform.So this comparison isnt exactly good either.Quote:
In the end,one will look at the total cost,so you should compare 920 i7 Vs the 1055T.In many cases Thuban will fare great in this comparison.
i7 920 costs 279$ and in reality its a discontinued product, the i7 930 costs $294 on newegg now.So it looks like 1090T should be compared to 930(maybe even i7 860 taking into consideration platform cost differencies). and 1055T to i5 750.
And theres 1035T which from the looks of it will compete with i5 650.
Any word on 960T pricing yet ?
Yeah RaV[666] you are totally correct,I forgot about the 920 being discontinued. 960T should cost the same as 955BE ,give or take some.
You forget and mistake too easily..
That's an OVERCLOCKED x6 @4.2. Doesn't count.
@informal - when all 1055T are OCed to 4.2GHz let's talk about it. For now, keep it to 2.8GHz scores and compare to i7-920/930.
And explain how a 920/930 quad core @ 4.2 can perform as well as a hex core @4.2GHz without the hex being called weak.
I am not comparing 960 to 1055T directly, but extrapolating how 920 compares to 1055T based on that. And I see 920 wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
you don't need to extrapolate. Use direct results. They are more correct. :)
There are many XS members who just got or having their hexacore on the way home...
We will get torrent of results and comparisons these days. Just relax ;)
why does a 4.2ghz 1055T not count? the only issues weve seen in the AMD section is on motherboards having a tough time turning turbo off, but those chips still reached 4.3+ghz on the turbod cores
Both are overclocked to 4.2Ghz.I already explained to you that Bloomfield is no regular Quad Core,it's 8 thread SMT design with ginormous cores! Thuban's cores are minuscule mice that achieve on average 22% less perf. while being 48% smaller(and that's Deneb Vs Bloomfiled,not Thuban Vs Bloomfield!).Thuban is not weak at all. It's strong in MT workloads thanks to 6 physical cores and strong in poor threaded workloads thanks to Turbo.Just compare it to regular quad cores without SMT(or even Dunnington!) and it will crush them silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
So youre xtrapolating 920 performance to 960 (overclocking) and at the same time tell us to throw away overclocked 1055T result ?Quote:
I am not comparing 960 to 1055T directly, but extrapolating how 920 compares to 1055T based on that. And I see 920 wins.
And the fact that 920 is discontinued,and the fact that even not taking this into account 920 costs more like a 1090T ?
Well newsflash, nehalem is more potent than phenom architecture :P we all know this, but everything boils down to pricing/platform cost and longevity.
And as informal said, Every core in nehalem is much bigger than phenoms, so amd puts more cores, intel is using HT (which costs die space too)
and AMD smaller but real cores.
Again, each processor core in nehalem is bigger and more potent, so core per core amd cores are weaker.But amd puts more of them, and thats whole cpuQuote:
And explain how a 920/930 quad core @ 4.2 can perform as well as a hex core @4.2GHz without the hex being called weak.
So when you compare cpu to cpu, they are being pretty much equal.If 1090T would lose to i7 920 than you could say that 1090T is weaker opponent :)
What's even funnier ,not counting the disparity in L3 cache amounts (and size differences) in Thuban and Bloomfield ,you get this for logic die space used : 4x 24.5mm2=98mm2 for Bloomfield and 6x15.3mm2=91.8mm2 for Thuban. I made a mistake,Thuban/Deneb's cores are not 16.3mm2,they are even smaller :p:,15.3mm2(chip-architect.com). Thuban actually still has less total dedicated die space for cores when compared to Bloomfield..
I've just posted quick benchmarks of the 1055T in the AMD section.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=331
Sry but who gives a crap about the size of the logic part of a cpu... everyone who buys cpus, be it private consumer or big omes only care about performance/prize/power consumption and choose accordingly.
Plus its no secret, that increase in performance comes with increase in transistor count, which results in increased die size... diminishing return 101...
The X6 is quite tempteting... its very easy to build a basic(cruncher) X6 setup for less the 450€.
But there are still so few benchmarks... embargo drooooopp nowwwww!!111
These are amazing CPUs for their performance/price ratio in multithreaded apps. Would make some very good crunching processors. Intel will still be king in single threaded apps, though. Although the gap is a lot closer with that awesome turbo function. Seems to be far superior to Intel's version after reading this thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=249606
you seem very AMD protective :),Quote:
Why does AMD have to incorporate tech. intel uses in their chips and why do you think it would work well enough on 10h uarchitecture? With 6 physical cores,AMD does not need SMT in their chips since in true MT workloads these cores will perform great(you can expect great speedup with apps that support 4+ threads).
People will literally lick these chips anyway,with the great stock clocks and power bands,native HW based Turbo ability,backwards compatibility,awesome OCing abilities,low temps,no coldbugs for xtreme OCing,great starting pricing from AMD etc. All the reasons for great success(yes )
that is allright,
didn't mean anything against the company,
was just looking from a DC (distributed computing) pov where HTT do count..
the cinebench 11.5 results are very impressive compared to the I7 960, and that is not even the 1090T.
of course it is a 4.2 OC'ed CPU, yet AMD has shown amazing results on they're MC chips vs the becky's and 6/12 HTT 3.33 X5680 xeons, which is (was) and still is, an amazing come back from that company.
HTT cannot really be compared to native cores, and if these CB results are trust-able, then these chips are the-thing-to-buy for any normal, non-HTT multi-core demanding task.
we'll have to see how well it perform on the DC field, yet it looks very promising.
by the way,
AMD is planning on going HTT (with it's own naming at least) at 2012 (and 64 thread platforms :) YAY).
That's what I'm thinking as well. Intel has worked on new microarchitectures that increase per-core performance but also increasing core size, while AMD doesn't do that as often and therefore can increase cores at a faster rate as well as have more cores for a certain TDP and price.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Interestingly, in 2003, the K8 core was significantly larger (~45%) than the Banias core (both at 130 nm), but since then, AMD has made one microarchitecture revision that increases core size (K10), while Intel has made two (Core, Nehalem). Now the K10 core is slightly smaller than a Westmere core, and next year the 32 nm K10 will be about half the size of a Sandy Bridge core.
I got my X6 1090T BE for $175 US, Intel will have a hard time beating that for value xD
edit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=22
I don't care one bit about die size, SMT capability, popcorn on the rocks etc. and as Hornet mentioned neither does anyone else who is not thinking with his fanboy outfit - even though 960 is larger (as you say, I didn't even check that..) it still uses similar power that a weaker 1055T does.
At this point I am hoping 1055T would be between 960 (quad) and 980 (hex cores), not below 960 in everything.
What I see, from albeit limited and mostly useless benchmarks, is this:
Cine R11.5
- Phenom 1055T @2.8GHz scores 4.96
- i7-860 @2.8GHz scores 5.06
Everest CPU benches
Not even worth mentioning, i7-960 puts the 1055T in such a dust, I'm still thinking something was wrong with those tests.
Seriously, if <i7-920/930 performance is what 1055T gives, it's too little.
Why don't you just buy an i7 and be done with it? If cinebench and everest is what you need to judge a perf. level of a CPU then look no further ,i7 is your pick. If on the other hand you have some real applications you are using that support/benefit from more cores,you may request a test from a user with Thuban and i7.
The early reviwe and several user review already show, that X6 is in the same ballpark as a simillar clocked i7 (8xx,9xx) in real apps that are heavly multithreaded like encoding (TMGPEnc, x264).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This is also reflected in the price, the X6 T1055 is placed between the i750 (which is no match for the T1055) and i860 which he basically ties with. Amd has nothing to give away for free, if the T1055 would outperform the i860 AMD would at least charge the same for the T1055.
But for 40€ less the X6 T1055 is the winner against the i860. I wonder if intel will introduce a new i8xx SKU to counter the T1055.
Why on earth would a $200 (US) CPU be between a 960 and a 980X? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
and why on earth are you whinging about the 1055T, when it's the 2nd lowest binned X6 in the entire range. The 1090T is the top binned model, and is priced, and should perform somewhere in the range of the 860/930 all things considered ( slightly faster MT, slightly slower Single threaded) but given MT is becoming the more important factor, be happy it's priced so "low"
[edit] . good question Hornet.. I feel the 1055T is in a bit of an odd spot between the 750 and 860. I think we're forgetting the 1075 model though
I want it to be so I wouldn't have to buy 980X (or a Xeon hexcore) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
BTW, for the 10th time probably... between a 920/930 and 980X!
I guess it has to be super cheap/cost like 100$,supported on lowest end/cheapest boards,perform nearly the same as 1K$ Gulftown/top bin QC i7 and on top of that you get a Radeon 5xxx card of your choice,of course free of charge :p: . I bet ,even then,some would argue that it's not good enough...
edit: I've just seen the results in AMD section where a 4.3Ghz Thuban is 18% slower in x264 benchmark(2nd pass) compared to 4.3Ghz Gulftown.... And that is a 1055T OCed,a 200$ worth chip performing 18% slower than a 1600$ OCed X5680...
You know that you are positioning an 200$ chip between 570$ and 999$ ones ?Are you sane ?Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD View Post
Why on earth would a $200 (US) CPU be between a 960 and a 980X?
I want it to be so I wouldn't have to buy 980X (or a Xeon hexcore).
Even 300$ 1090T is MUCH MUCH cheaper.Thats just silly.
And no, no x6 PHII is going to compete with 980X.But you re paying A LOT LOT less.
Unfortunately, it is also at the same performance as 4.2GHz i7-920. That makes it weak.
Thanks for helping me prove the point ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Actually its faster per clock than i7,since the result in the table for QC i7 is at 4.33Ghz ;). You do need better reading glasses though :)
So it beats the QC i7 in perf. and perf./$ and lags behind the Gulftown by 18% in pure perf. but wins by a ginormous margin in perf./$. (we are talking about a projected price of 200 bucks for 1055T,BUT we have one user who bought his 1090T for 176$ already!)
Yeah, but i havn't seen any benches form the 1075 till now, but i guess with 3ghz stock clocks it will be faster in most scenarios then the i860 or the 920.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
And whats all that bs that the X6 should compared with the Hexas from intel.
@informal if you haven't noticed your exact link points out, that a 920 or in any case also a i860 has approx (+/- 1-1,5%) the same score as a X6 at the same clock.
So it doesn't really beat QC i7 in performance but is on par with it (as I already mentioned). AMD is not that stupid to sell there stuff under value.
What is interestening is, that i have checked some prices on the i7 920 and the X6 T1055 and they sell practically for the same price ~200€. I guess there will be some price drops for the T1055 so it will get cheaper then 920 and when the T1075 comes i guess it will settle right above the 920, price wise and also performance wise.
It is clear in the data that within a few percent they are on par, probably going back and forth, but per clock also needs to add per core. From a purely technical perspective the results say two things in my opinion. First, it really speaks volumes about the lead Intel has on the instruction efficiency at the core level, it takes 6 AMD cores to come up to 4 Intel cores. Second, it shows how well AMD has been able to come up to get a competitive part on the market over the past year and half or so (they have been executing much better).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In the long run, the idea of core, clock, turbo, or hyper-threading will blur and people will do what they should be doing all along -- focus on the actual output of the product.
This is probably the 4th or 5th time I have said this, but the 1090T looks to be the next Q6600 or i920 for the enthusiast. It will be a rock'n CPU.
Jack
Nevermind......Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I was on the fence between Thuban and Core i7 for a dedicated media encoding machine, but went with the latter. Picked up an i7 at the Microcenter a couple of weeks ago. Why? Because it is a mature, cheap, and stable platform even at relatively higher overclocks; (no I didn't pay $1600 for the processor, I paid $180 for it), and overclocked to a stable 4.2GHZ, I am right up there with any 6-core thuban, and I'm 24/7 stable.
Why didn't I go Thuban?
1. Even though some of the overclocks of Thuban seem impressive, I wanted a relatively easy and proven overclock of 4.2GHZ (with HT), 24/7. I was yet to see a stressed Thuban at 4.2GHZ. Anything below that was just out of the question, considering I'll have to pay more for a 1055T in my case.
2. It seems there are issues with the Thuban and turbo, some mobos just can't shut it down. What this means is that some can't clock much above 4GHZ because once Turbo kicks in, CRASH! Plus, I have already expressed my suspicion of TURBO CORE as rushed, and badly done. So some of these problems only confirm my suspicion. There's also the issue of the low multi of the 1055T and how much the HTT bus can be pushed to achieve that 4.2GHZ overclock I'm so anal about.
3. It'll be nice to stake some claim to the hexacore mania (damn you Intel!) but we all know Intel's hexacore offerings are priced through the roof. But what's the point, if 4 cores can actually do the work of 6 in MT and are really faster in everything else? I think that's the point that pushed me over the fence onto Intel's side. AMD needs six cores to compete with Intel's 4 (HT just means those four cores are capable of working even harder) in everyday scenarios, on top of that AMD chips have an overall lower overclock ceiling in non ln2 cooling scenarios, in other words 24/7 overclock scenarios, consume more power for same work done (something that TURBO CORE doesn't help because AMD has no power-gating), and x58 boards are just better built with better VRMs and whatnot (placebo effect?) and can actually support 4.5GHZ 24/7 overclocks. My $189 GA-EX58-UD3R Rev. 1.6 is a solid board literally and visually and is well supported by Gigabyte. So for performance/price you can do the math. In my particular experience, even though Thuban looks like a bargain, the i7 920 + Gigabyte combination is actually unbeatable, especially considering that there's headroom in the chip above 4.2GHZ.
Please don't flame me. I'm only speaking from my own experience and observations and reasons why I chose the i7 over Thuban. It's not to say that Thuban is necessarily a bad thing, I just think focusing on MT benchmarks is not painting the entire picture, and actually makes the Thuban look the one-dimensional chip it is because that is the only environment it can compete well. This is based on real-world data, as even with turbo implementaion, it seems Thuban only shines in specific rendering benchmarks and not in gaming for example, even against deneb where one would think the advantage of turbo should give it an edge.
Edit: Too late! \/
^ I've seen your pre-edit post. Trollandary!
And it's obvious that you didn't consider Thuban when you confronted JF-AMD directly like an Intel shareholder, now you're throwing some reasonable but obviously contrived justification.
informal, $ me :D
waff out wowd
@ohnoes the cpu for 180$ was good, but the motherboard is a good 50-100$ higher than what you needed to spend on the AMD platform for the same overclock. and depending on which chip u have, your gonna be getting 3 sticks of ram instead of 2, sure its the same price per GB, but will that extra 50$ make any difference? so as a total platform cost, its easily 100$ more for the intel system, (or 25% of the total cost, 400 vs 500$), so i would hope you can get 25% more perf out of it. (or if you look at the complete cost of the PC, PSU, case, HDD, etc, then it might only be 10% more expensive)
I'm running in dual-channel mode; I have 2x 2GB G.Skill ECOs on there and still getting about equal bandwidth, plus using less voltage (1.35v for 1600MHZ 7-8-7-24) with a lot less vtt too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Actually, no, cause you don't need to use 3 sticks and if you look at compareable boards, they are in the same price range (890FX) the 890GX boards are often a bit cheaper ~50€, but also often offer less then most x58 boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
There will be some feature rich 890GX based boards on the market too. Maybe they won't match what x58 offers,but price will be considerably lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
@ohnoes
tl;dr ,pure waste of bandwidth.
he didnt say he needed features of the board, just the OC, and a sub 100$ board from AMD can OC more than well enough to reach 4.2ghz if the cpu is good for it. if he needed Intels better SB raid controller, then its a different storyQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Hi guys, any idea about UK pricing and availability? I can't see any info at all :(
Also am I correct in thinking these chips being AM3 - are backwards compatible with AM2+ motherboards?
If so, do you think running DDR2 RAM will bottleneck these chips much? I'm planning on getting a 1055T to replace my 550BE but can't afford a new motherboard + DDR3 RAM.
Don't forget:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Intel CPU uses 4 extra virtual cores to be on par. If hiperthreading would be off, it would be pretty much behind X6.
yes anarki, it should drop into most am2+ mobo's, just check the mobo maker website. most of them have lists of what boards will support x6. cant help you with the bottleneck question
SEA, i just see it as it takes intel 8 threads to equal 6 from amd ;)
yes.
My point is that this is not a case: "it takes 6 AMD cores to come up to 4 Intel cores"
Yes, even the cheapest AM2+ board can take thuban. It's £23Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarki
Source - asrock websie, the n86-s is listed.
http://www.asrock.com/news/events/2010SixCore/index.asp
Who gives a f***? It's the same as saying "it's not fair for Bruce Lee to use kung fu to fight OJ Simpson because OJ doesn't know kung fu" - it's a fight, not a black/white cake.
Stop with the pointless arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
But it is, unless you want to say, i5 and i7 are octa cores? It is 4 cores capable of executing 8 threads due to SMT. It is a design feature. It's like saying it takes a fast car 4 tyres to keep up with a Hayabusa on two tyres. If you give a hayabusa 4 tires, chances are, it's going to be slower than on two tyres, same thing as executing 8 - threads on 6 cores. What matters is designing a core capable of executing two threads, and that is only feasible with a very powerful and efficient core - what JJ is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
Hey you guys. Especially onoes.
Here is proof you're right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8wD8fTBS8E
TrueCrypt performance on Thuban is stellar. Head over here to see how it fares against same clocked i7 (decently faster is an understatement).
Hahaha you right. X6 uses 2 extra cores and no matter that somebody with 4 cores does not know kung fu :DQuote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Actually dude, sorry to point this for you, but it was not an argument... just correction of other XS member.
Also it is clear, that no need for arguments anymore - just look at results and calm down ;)
I meant the pricing of the new chips :) I wish they were £23!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
Glad to hear I can use my existing motherboard and enjoy 6 core goodness :smoke:
I got the 55T for £189 but prices have spiked to £220Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarki
They should level about £200 for the next while. No official price known to me, but zosma looks to be a killer price for x6
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I don't understand your objections. The point Is, that it is as relevant to say that it takes intel 8 threads to outperform AMD' 6 threads, as it is to say it takes AMD 6 cores to outperform intels 4.
Its also relevant to say that it costs intel 30% more logic to achieve the extra performance necessary to outperform AMD's chips on a per core basis. :)
I'm surprised you even said outperform, even though that is not always the case. The thing is there is a lot of generalization going on with regard to efficient thread # execution. A normal system at any given time is executing 10s, if not 100s of threads. If you want to talk about load, that is another story. All Intel has done with HT is designed a process that allows a core to execute 2 threads when the situation calls for it - it is simply ipc headroom that would otherwise go to waste due mostly to inefficient code - taking advantage of that just that. That is why HT is bad in efficiently coded apps. HT is therefore good for a world of badly coded apps. A core is a core, what can I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
I don't understand where all the hater-ade is coming from, if you don't like it, don't get it, read about something else. Wasn't this supposed to be info about the new chips? I'm excited about them, glad that i can drop a new 1090T into my motherboard. I will be really itching to get one if it can get past 4ghz on water easily with out turbo.. Curious though how the overclocking works with Turbo, i have not used any chips with this type of feature before. I assume that you must find the max stable clock with turbo engaged? Is it hard to do this with each core since it only can do 3 at a time? I cant imagine you just find the max stable standard clock and then for some reason its ok with adding 500mhz on top of that with out failing. Thats a big jump.
I'll give you that price wise this CPU is positioned quite well (for the customers, not AMD though :P).
Taking only Nehalem and PhII CPUs into account:
PhII x6 is top of the line essentially for AMD. 920 is middle of the line for Intel. From an objective viewpoint, I would presume this segment is very little, due to people either not needing that much or needing much more. I would expect PhIIx6 to be between i7-920 (or 930 who cares already....) and a E5620 Xeon.
From a subjective point of view, I wanted to get PhIIx6 and not Neha hexcore to save money. But if PhIIx6 has similar performance to a quad core i7, I'll go for Xeon. So I am angry because my wallet will hurt :D
You can disable Turbo, if your bios allows it. I don't know if it can be done by software; otherwise, yes, you'll have to factor in turbo when overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by MBomberZ1
check out the AMD section, a few members have been playing with them and OCing them with and without the turbo. lots of great info there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MBomberZ1
Your sig tells me you have the dough ;).Quote:
So I am angry because my wallet will hurt
Anyhow, yes PH X6 is targeted at quad core nehalems.Gulftown is in league of its own.
However look at it in this way, you could build 2-3 hex AMD systems for a price of one intel ;-).This should be a hit with the crunchers.
Get 1035T, some midrange mobo with built in grafx,two cheap 1gb stix of ram.OC it to 4ghz.Cheap and powerful (for the price).
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This is on my regular everyday system, just to make a point. Who needs a $1600 cpu when my 930 @ $200 can do this? If you're nice, I'll post my receipt too. :rolleyes:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2j3pijc.jpg
Exactly my point.. 920 (or 930 for those who say 920 is EOL) whips PhIIx6.
@Rav, I have not upgraded anything but hard drives->SAS->SSD in more than 2 years. Literraly.