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.
Printable View
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.
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 £23
Source - asrock websie, the n86-s is listed.
http://www.asrock.com/news/events/2010SixCore/index.asp
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.
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 :D
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 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?
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
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).
:(
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.