Printable View
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 ;)