AMD Phenom X6 1090T Black Edition & 1055T launch on 4/27

Quote:

---

Indeed, you can consider multitasking as a big multithreaded app. However, this processor still lacks per core perfomance like all other PhenomII processors compared to Intel's. You'll still get lower framerates when you game, or slower fps in x264 for the same number of cores, etc. That's why it's "only" good for multithreaded workloads.

---

I dont play games at 800x600 low detail settings ;-), and no i dont own or plan to have crossfired 5970 ;-).So FPS is gonna be pretty much the same across PH2/Core2/i5/i7 or a dual x58 with two westmere 980x on them ;-).
Its been established LONG ago that for good game experience you need enough ram, fast IO subsystem a DECENT cpu and the faster the better GFX.
I dont see myself with a timerclock staring at the screen showing me encoding passes in x264, it rarely matters to me if encode is done 10, or 20, or 30% faster, it matters tho that i can fireup many concurrent workloads and while theyre being done in the background i could do some other stuff smoothly too.
Of course if someone has a render farm, or some tough computational workload with a steady input of data ,it matters A LOT how quickly it can be done, but thats 99% of time server grade stuff.
And comparing it to 980x isnt sensible.Look at the price, 3-4x times less, platform backwards compatibility (again less costs).
We all know and agree that 980x is faster, and i7 4 cores are faster per core.But in the real world 980x can afford select few, i7 4c are great but still costs more and come with a high cost platform.And turbo function is a nice and welcomed upgrade too.
And remember that i will be putting it on a 2 year old mainboard on ddr2, to have that option is just F-ing nice ;-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opteron146

Which OPN was it ?

Black Editions always have a "Z" in the OPN compared to an ordinary one.

You can see that "Z" also in the 1090's OPN:


compared to the 1055's OPN:


@informal:
You are welcome ;-)

cheers

Opteron

---

Hehehe, we're going back a while now, before I had my 6000+ which held the WR for a while. It doesn't matter anymore, I just thought there were a few that were locked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...hd_5970,2.html

---

You need a 4GHz PhenomII to reach a 2,8GHz Core i7 in MW2. 3GHz vs 2,4GHz in Left4Dead and Crysis Warhead. And this is with insane settings, one would think you'll be GPU limited. I don't get your point at all, that article just confirms what I'm saying. Too bad they don't test minFPS, you'd see bigger differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV[666]

I dont play games at 800x600 low detail settings ;-), and no i dont own or plan to have crossfired 5970 ;-).So FPS is gonna be pretty much the same across PH2/Core2/i5/i7 or a dual x58 with two westmere 980x on them ;-).
Its been established LONG ago that for good game experience you need enough ram, fast IO subsystem a DECENT cpu and the faster the better GFX.
I dont see myself with a timerclock staring at the screen showing me encoding passes in x264, it rarely matters to me if encode is done 10, or 20, or 30% faster, it matters tho that i can fireup many concurrent workloads and while theyre being done in the background i could do some other stuff smoothly too.
Of course if someone has a render farm, or some tough computational workload with a steady input of data ,it matters A LOT how quickly it can be done, but thats 99% of time server grade stuff.
And comparing it to 980x isnt sensible.Look at the price, 3-4x times less, platform backwards compatibility (again less costs).
We all know and agree that 980x is faster, and i7 4 cores are faster per core.But in the real world 980x can afford select few, i7 4c are great but still costs more and come with a high cost platform.And turbo function is a nice and welcomed upgrade too.
And remember that i will be putting it on a 2 year old mainboard on ddr2, to have that option is just F-ing nice ;-D

---

As above, minFPS (and avg, but whatever) aren't quite the same here with a single 5850 between 3 and 4 GHz with my Core i5, and I bet they won't be the same in your machine too. I don't play at 800x600 low settings ;). Most games only use 2 or 3 threads, not to mention any "old" game only uses 1. Intel owns here, end of the story, and if you have a 120Hz monitor or you just want high framerates you don't want AMD unless you can't afford a midrange Intel i5/i7.
Who's talking 980X here? That's only for benchers and some crazy chunchers with deep pockets. As long as you use heavy multithreading this processor has 0 rivals at this price range. It's not even funny. Heck, I think with these Thuban CPUs PhenomII X4 has no reason to exist at all. Same or better clocks, more cores, more or less the same price, turbo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Heck, I think with these Thuban CPUs PhenomII X4 has no reason to exist at all. Same or better clocks, more cores, more or less the same price, turbo...

---

I find this an interesting comment. These really do look like great chips for the price (if those quoted here hold true after launch), but after reading this comment I'm not sure which sales of the x6 is going to effect the most, Intel's i5/i7 or AMD own PhenomII x4 chips. As noted, for a very similar price you get more of everything, seems to makes the x2's obsolete and may relegate the x3/x4's to the bargin bin... :shrug:

Or the etailers will just gouge you like mad until they sold off the remaining x4.

Quote:

---

ou need a 4GHz PhenomII to reach a 2,8GHz Core i7 in MW2

---

3ghz,and difference between 3ghz and 4ghz be it i7 or PH2, is ~15FPS with a base FPS of MORE THAN 100FPS ;-).Thats 0 real difference betweeen i7 3ghz or 4ghz and Ph2 and i7.
Yes, THERE IS a difference ,but after you reach certain point (~2.8ghz for i7 and 3.2 for Ph2) difference is neglible.whats 3 or 4 fps at 100fps ?
Maybe it makes you feel warm inside ;-), but most people dont care.I play the game ,not observe fps counter.

And in that legionhardware test they used 5970 and they got hardly any difference above certain threshold.And thats a fast card ;-).

Quote:

---

As above, minFPS (and avg, but whatever) aren't quite the same here with a single 5850 between 3 and 4 GHz with my Core i5, and I bet they won't be the same in your machine too.

---

You say that, but i tested few games with my 4850, and there is hardly any difference above 3.0ghz, single digit percents if any. In my favourite game of recent times, dragon age, i get same fps 2.5ghz or 3.5ghz.yea, i set AAx4 and AFx8 but it hovers at the same 50-80fps, ive alttabbed few times and changed multiplier, no diff :-/.In crysis benchmark i gained like half of fps between 3 and 3.6.

Quote:

---

Most games only use 2 or 3 threads, not to mention any "old" game only uses 1

---

Thats right,thats why i can do many things at once.And game.
Old games, are well, old.They are FAST on that weak single PH2 core, and 100fps and 200fps doesnt make any diff.
A bit newer games that use 2 threads, are fast also, because again, main factor that hampers them is GFX, crysis is a good example.
And pretty much most games nowadays, have small system requierements considering theyre mostly console ports, that get hampered only in insane resolutions with high AA/Aniso settings, but again only thing that will help i gfx performance...

Quote:

---

Intel owns here, end of the story, and if you have a 120Hz monitor or you just want high framerates you don't want AMD unless you can't afford a midrange Intel i5/i7.

---

Well ,no.Intel WINS here, but i think to OWN it would have to have been DRAMATICALLY faster at the settings that people PLAY.

And i dont get 120hz monitor reference at all, it aint possible on AMD or somethin ?You just need a FAST CARD/or lower IQ settings for GFX card to be able to render quickly enough.If anything it would be more sensible to buy faster GFX, with money saved on i7 ;-).
Sorry, i havent seen any high quality real world tests that would indicate any drastic differences in gaming performance between core2quad / Ph2 / i5 /i7 .And no, 120fps vs lets say 140fps doesnt mean squat, and 35 vs 37 neither ;-).
Most dramatic rise in gaming performance in recent years i saw installing system and game on a ssd :P

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...5043/19696.png

Seems like Ph2 is capable of smooth gameplay with L4D ;-), and if they used AA and aniso ,whole lineup would get squashed much closer.

scr*w you AMD, locked multiplier :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo2046

scr*w you AMD, locked multiplier :(

---

Scr*w AMD for unconfirmed rumor?? Wait for the launch and then scr*w them all you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo2046

scr*w you AMD, locked multiplier :(

---

What a great first post "scr*w you AMD"

Unless you are going to run LN2/LHe this means nothing....unless you have problems clocking with the HTT/Bus Speed.

I'm gonna bet its unlocked anyway, AMD would have no reason to release a locked "Black Edition".

EDIT:

And to everyone else, notice how the other CPUs dont say locked or unlocked...it's most likely a typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV[666]

snip

---

You're ignoring that we don't want the same thing. I don't want a processor that allows me to play games "smooth". I want a processor that allows me to play at 120fps constant with all the eye candy turned on. PhenomII is unable to do that at sane frequencies. It's freaking hard for an AMD CPU to do that, specially in "old" games that only use 1 core because of the low perfomance per core. With a 120Hz each single fps until you reach 120 is noticeable, plain and simple. 40 vs 60, 60 vs 80 is a huge difference. If PhenomII is enough for you then good for you and good for AMD, but here it just doesn't cut it. I will give you an example: playing TF2 with C2Q and i5, both at 4GHz. The C2Q is unable to provide constant 120fps, with minFPS in the 80-90's. The i5 is playing at 120fps constant. Big difference in gameplay, in a CPU limited game. There are loads of them out there if you use a fast GPU, and for 1680x1050 with AA the 5850 is a fast GPU. Is TF2 an old game? ;)
Of course you won't notice this with a 60Hz monitor, but I do notice it. I don't buy the the typical "(insert low random number of fps here) is enough for smooth gameplay" BS, sorry.

In your Anand link you can see it clearly: AMD CPUs need a much higher frequency to reach Intel.

@STaRGaZeR


How about you test it personally and report (honestly) your findings here. I suppose you will use high end GFX (5870+). Thanks.

any official announcement from AMD? somehow i doubt referencing other forum being any credible at all ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

@STaRGaZeR


How about you test it personally and report (honestly) your findings here. I suppose you will use high end GFX (5870+). Thanks.

---

Send me all the hardware you want me to test for free and I'll do everything you want ;)

Seriously, I can't believe I have to prove that Intel CPUs are faster in CPU limited scenarios...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

You're ignoring that we don't want the same thing. I don't want a processor that allows me to play games "smooth". I want a processor that allows me to play at 120fps constant with all the eye candy turned on. PhenomII is unable to do that at sane frequencies. It's freaking hard for an AMD CPU to do that, specially in "old" games that only use 1 core because of the low perfomance per core. With a 120Hz each single fps until you reach 120 is noticeable, plain and simple. 40 vs 60, 60 vs 80 is a huge difference. If PhenomII is enough for you then good for you and good for AMD, but here it just doesn't cut it. I will give you an example: playing TF2 with C2Q and i5, both at 4GHz. The C2Q is unable to provide constant 120fps, with minFPS in the 80-90's. The i5 is playing at 120fps constant. Big difference in gameplay, in a CPU limited game. There are loads of them out there if you use a fast GPU, and for 1680x1050 with AA the 5850 is a fast GPU. Is TF2 an old game? ;)
Of course you won't notice this with a 60Hz monitor, but I do notice it. I don't buy the the typical "(insert low random number of fps here) is enough for smooth gameplay" BS, sorry.

In your Anand link you can see it clearly: AMD CPUs need a much higher frequency to reach Intel.

---

NB Frequency NB Frequency NB Frequency Memory Bandwidth Memory Bandwidth Memory Bandwidth

Seriously, go test it yourself. Or did you? You're really unclear. Phenom II's do 4.2-4.3 Ghz just fine on water and I've got mine at 4.1 on air. Core 2 Quad's do 4.2-4.4 Ghz on air/water.

Phenom II = Core 2 Quad in performance and Phenom II > Core 2 Quad when the NB (That is Uncore in untel-i-speak) is jacked up (Which no review shows).

Seriously, go test it. I'd love to see results and if you're right then w00t because the next chance I get I'll be switching to Core i5.

EDIT:

What CPU do you currently have? Nobody's going to send you hardware for free, please don't be a smart***?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Send me all the hardware you want me to test for free and I'll do everything you want ;)

Seriously, I can't believe I have to prove that Intel CPUs are faster in CPU limited scenarios...

---

CPU limited scenarios? You game @ 1024 x 768 wit high end GFX? K,thnx,bye(if I have to use kidos terms :) )

PS I can't and wont send you the hw. I trust my own findings and I tested both! Both behave almost the same with high end GFX(min fps varies by a few % ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

NB Frequency NB Frequency NB Frequency Memory Bandwidth Memory Bandwidth Memory Bandwidth

Seriously, go test it yourself. Or did you? You're really unclear. Phenom II's do 4.2-4.3 Ghz just fine on water and I've got mine at 4.1 on air. Core 2 Quad's do 4.2-4.4 Ghz on air/water.

Phenom II = Core 2 Quad in performance and Phenom II > Core 2 Quad when the NB (That is Uncore in untel-i-speak) is jacked up (Which no review shows).

Seriously, go test it. I'd love to see results and if you're right then w00t because the next chance I get I'll be switching to Core i5.

EDIT:

What CPU do you currently have? Nobody's going to send you hardware for free, please don't be a smart***?

---

Thanks for confirming that PhenomII is slower than i5/i7 at the same clocks. I think I've been perfectly clear: at the same frequency, AMD CPUs are slower per core than Intel's current lineup (i5/i7).

I have not tested a PhenomII, but I have tested C2Q, i5 and i7. Since PhenomII is sometimes faster, sometimes slower than C2Q at the same frequency I have a pretty good start point, and you have just confirmed it. Not to mention that all the reviews out there agree with me. Of course you can always find a corner case, or a situation where a better CPU does nothing because the bottleneck is elsewhere, but I can do that too. Let's be honest here.

I have an i5 750. And I'm not going to spend a single € just because you want me to test something that has already been tested and confirmed hundreds of times by a lot of reviewers and end users. I don't think you have to call me a smartass for that :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

CPU limited scenarios? You game @ 1024 x 768 wit high end GFX? K,thnx,bye(if I have to use kidos terms :) )

PS I can't and wont send you the hw. I trust my own findings and I tested both! Both behave almost the same with high end GFX(min fps varies by a few % ).

---

And now I have to thank you too for confirming that you only want to defend AMD instead of your argument (do you know what are you talking about? I doubt it) without reading my previous posts, where there are examples and perfectly defined cases. That's actually what we were discussing before the AMD drones stepped in. Thanks for ruining another thread.

You have an i7 and you haven't tested an AMD 10h CPU in similar config AND you call other people drones? Riiight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

You have an i7 and you haven't tested an AMD 10h CPU in similar config AND you call other people drones? Riiight.

---

neither you have an i7

A guy who assembles PCs has an i7(s),trust me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

You have an i7 and you haven't tested an AMD 10h CPU in similar config AND you call other people drones? Riiight.

---

I guess all reviews, all the tests, all the user reports, even a hardcore AMD user confirming what I say, everything is meaningless for you. Go troll somewhere else please, we were having a nice conversation before you stepped in.

You were having a nice convo with yourself but I don't care. You are talking from biased perspective,I've at least tested both.

Look this thread is about the 6 core upcomming phenom and not the quad core phenom. SInce intel think end user must pay a grand to have a 6 core cpu. I say amd have done something very good here by bringing to the masses a 6 core cpu. SOmething Intel wont do for maybe a year still. So in anyways you look at it. Amd have the performance/price crown here. Also from what i have learned, biggest thing needed for games in a cpu is high frequency ( which mean also nb frequency and uncore frequency from both side) and a high amount of l3 cache. Frequency problem can be solved with better cooling solution and 4ghz is reachable on both side. Heck, even 4.5ghz can be reachable on both side if you have a good cooling systems. For l3 cache yes intel wins there but they also charge you 600-700$ more for 6 thread, 32nm process and 6mb more l3 cache thats quite alot of money for not so much stuff. For some that 700$ diff is nothing and they will get the i7 980x but not everybody can pay that diff.

Also stargazer go read back 1 or 2 time more beepbeep2 post. You missed quite an important points, none of those review said they jacked up the nb frequency which can help if i read well some stuff in the amd section the gpu performance and also cpu performance as well ( not sure on that). while every i7 or i5 review all have the uncore jacked up by default when overclocking if they use some high frequency memory kit.

And yeah for the moment, i am a core i5 user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

You're ignoring that we don't want the same thing. I don't want a processor that allows me to play games "smooth". I want a processor that allows me to play at 120fps constant with all the eye candy turned on. PhenomII is unable to do that at sane frequencies. It's freaking hard for an AMD CPU to do that, specially in "old" games that only use 1 core because of the low perfomance per core. With a 120Hz each single fps until you reach 120 is noticeable, plain and simple. 40 vs 60, 60 vs 80 is a huge difference. If PhenomII is enough for you then good for you and good for AMD, but here it just doesn't cut it. I will give you an example: playing TF2 with C2Q and i5, both at 4GHz. The C2Q is unable to provide constant 120fps, with minFPS in the 80-90's. The i5 is playing at 120fps constant. Big difference in gameplay, in a CPU limited game. There are loads of them out there if you use a fast GPU, and for 1680x1050 with AA the 5850 is a fast GPU. Is TF2 an old game? ;)
Of course you won't notice this with a 60Hz monitor, but I do notice it. I don't buy the the typical "(insert low random number of fps here) is enough for smooth gameplay" BS, sorry.

In your Anand link you can see it clearly: AMD CPUs need a much higher frequency to reach Intel.

---

Could you please explain to me what a CPU limited game is these days?
You must be an exception to the norm as far as game play goes. If I don't have a FPS counter on the screen, I can't tell the difference between 80 or 100 or 120 FPS.

i am only want 6 core with unlock multi

How do you think 1055T will rank up vs. i7 860 in perf/$ and perf/watt in a highly multi-threaded benchmark like cinebench?

1055T: 6c/6t, 6x512kb L2, 6mb L3, 2.8G, 3.3G turbo, 125W TDP, $216?
i7 860: 4c/8t, 4x256kb L2, 8mb L3, 2.8G, 3.46G turbo, 95W TDP, $200 @ MC

I hope the idle power consumption of 800-series chipset and this are good.