AMD new CPU's for Q4: X6 1100T / 1065T - X4 975

In europe the 1090T price come down from 290euro to 245-250euro.

Yay! \o/
Time for new rig? ;)

Wich amd cpu is faster then q9550?
And for how many %

Plz link me to good performance/watt charts

General rule of thumb Phenom II is pretty close to Core 2 CPC, maybe 5-10% faster in some things.

When you have a quad core Phenom II CPU stock at 3.6 Ghz it will pretty much blow a stock Q9550 out of the water...as for the six cores they are up there with Intel Core i7 9x0's most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

General rule of thumb Phenom II is pretty close to Core 2 CPC, maybe 5-10% faster in some things.

When you have a quad core Phenom II CPU stock at 3.6 Ghz it will pretty much blow a stock Q9550 out of the water...as for the six cores they are up there with Intel Core i7 9x0's most of the time.

---

Actually Core 2 (45nm) is generally slightly faster than Phenom II per clock:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=50

Most Q9550s can do 3.8 - 4.0GHz on air, so you need an X6 to really see a noticeable difference, and then only in highly threaded apps. An X4 would be a slight downgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Actually Core 2 (45nm) is generally slightly faster than Phenom II per clock:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=50

Most Q9550s can do 3.8 - 4.0GHz on air, so you need an X6 to really see a noticeable difference, and then only in highly threaded apps. An X4 would be a slight downgrade.

---

As i see it, overall im still fine, i dont need for new cpu.
Yes some one need it, and good chart is way to go :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

They just recently released 970 and now they are going to release a 975?

---

It's great, but the difference is still very small.
The 975 is only 1/35 times faster than the 970, or 2.8 %.

Remember back in the days when the new CPU was 10 % faster, like from 2 to 2.2 GHz?
When A64 got even faster I thought they would start making new models with 300 MHz clock difference, instead they did the opposite and used 100 MHz steps, and obviously it works now, people are amazed.:rofl:

Bumping the clocks 20 % in two years isn't really a record breaker, the 130 nm node went from 2.2 to 2.6 in just 13 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Actually Core 2 (45nm) is generally slightly faster than Phenom II per clock:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=50

Most Q9550s can do 3.8 - 4.0GHz on air, so you need an X6 to really see a noticeable difference, and then only in highly threaded apps. An X4 would be a slight downgrade.

---

You are forgetting the CPU NB. When you oc you raise the CPU NB too wich gives even more performance.
So Q9550 @ 4ghz vs Phenom II X4 @ 4Ghz(probably around 2.8ghz CPU NB), id put my money on the Phenom.
But either is a sidegrade so not worth switching if you have one of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

Bumping the clocks 20 % in two years isn't really a record breaker, the 130 nm node went from 2.2 to 2.6 in just 13 months.

---

perf per watt of a PII 920 vs a 1100T should show much more than 20% and total perf much more than 20% due to how much more speed and cores were packed in. were way beyond the age of just increasing clocks as the measure of improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

perf per watt of a PII 920 vs a 1100T should show much more than 20% and total perf much more than 20% due to how much more speed and cores were packed in. were way beyond the age of just increasing clocks as the measure of improvement.

---

If you had bothered reading my post you'd see that I wasn't talking about 1100T, or any X6. The 20 % comes from the 975, 3 GHz x 120 % = 3.6 GHz.

And making more SKU's with smaller increments doesn't make anything better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

If you had bothered reading my post you'd see that I wasn't talking about 1100T, or any X6. The 20 % comes from the 975, 3 GHz x 120 % = 3.6 GHz.

And making more SKU's with smaller increments doesn't make anything better.

---

i did read you post, and i think your disappointment is because you keeping a very narrow focus to just a single chip and its improvements instead of the whole offerings. yes deneb went from 3ghz at launch to 3.6ghz now, which is not a record breaker compared to the past. but these things may not have been built for 4ghz low power consumption, but rather 3ghz low power consumption. so maybe it makes more sense to add additional cores than to bump speeds. things change, and so our evaluation has to change with it. during the ghz race you only had to worry about clock speeds, then the IPC jump came in and it was just about how fast, but the quality, hence the name 3200+ which didnt run at 3.2ghz, but sure felt like it did.

and whats really wrong with smaller simpler increments? if you have a 300$ budget for mobo and cpu, you can spend 280 or 320, or now you can spend exactly 300 and get what you need. more skus means more options, and thats always good, unless your short on shelf space at the local tech store.

Manicdan: You got me all wrong, I'm not disappointed, I'm just saying that going from 3 to 3.6 GHz isn't that crazy. This doesn't mean that I'm totally unaware of the importance of core count, dunno where you got that from.

Going from 3.5 to 3.6 GHz is a tiny bump, and that the extra half multipler SKU's doesn't make much difference: If AMD would have ditched the 970, would the 975 look less impressive? No.
It was a direct reply to Chrono Detector, and my point was that releasing SKU's by itself isn't difficult or hard to do.
It can be very useful for the consumer (AGAIN, I never said anything else), but it's hardly impressive.

I just compared to the past, which makes AMD's 45 nm node great, but not a record breaker, no matter if you count the cores or not.
AMD's 90 nm got from single core 2.2 GHz to dual core 3 GHz in a time when most people didn't know what a dual core was, now that's even more impressive to me.

BTW that's an awesome case you've got there! :D

^good points

Athlon X2 6400+ 3.2Ghz was also done with 90nm.


1065T 2.9Ghz 95w officially listed:
http://xtreview.com/images/amd%20new%20CPY%2001.gif

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-14...II-X-2b28.html


And you know, X6 1055T 95w is god-like for green OC.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=254765

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epsilon84

actually core 2 (45nm) is generally slightly faster than phenom ii per clock:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/81?vs=50

most q9550s can do 3.8 - 4.0ghz on air, so you need an x6 to really see a noticeable difference, and then only in highly threaded apps. An x4 would be a slight downgrade.

---

cpu_nb ;)