[XS]Just got Phenom II x6 1055T (Retail)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonhunter

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=236011&page=6

AMD 1055T 4.2Ghz Cinebench R11.5 hit 7.38 :clap:

---

I misread that and what i saw was 1055T hits 7.38Ghz :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Cinebench is gonna be fun on the Thuban! Already looking real good for just 3.5GHz and a 32bit OS, 7 points should be easy. :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonhunter

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=236011&page=6

AMD 1055T 4.2Ghz Cinebench R11.5 hit 7.38 :clap:

---

Ermm.... :D :up: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

i just think 1.5v is perfectly save for air cooling w/ good airflow, even up to 1.55 w/ push pull

air - s1283 w/ ultrakaze 57c max on cores
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...minprimeC3.jpg

water - loop in sig 47c max on cores
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i8...imeC3water.jpg

---

those are quads. and safe vs recommended is different, as temps go up, stability goes down, and most 24/7 people i think run 1.4 or 1.45v, because that last bit gained by 1.5+ is usually small and comes with alot of heat dump. i remember people who pushed 1.7v for a quick run without killing the chips. and my point still was right, 1.53v for 3.6ghz is not whats needed i hope.

Manicdan: watch for AMD documents...really, 1.55 with good temps is safe. We talking about 45nm AMD SOI, not about Intels high-k. Its so diferent...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

Manicdan: watch for AMD documents...really, 1.55 with good temps is safe. We talking about 45nm AMD SOI, not about Intels high-k. Its so diferent...

---

lol again, im not saying its not safe, im sayin its not needed for 3.6ghz, thats it, i just said people have pushed 1.7v without extreme cooling. do that in intel and kaboom

Manicdan is correct that 1.53v for 3.6ghz is not needed or required. These chips can do 4+ Ghz with 1.5+v

they are quads but 1.5v will be same wattage/heat output regardless of # of cores, right? im not sure but thats how i have understood it

edit: correct in saying 1.5+ is overkill for 3.6ghz but he needed same voltages for 3.9ghz. 1.5+ was not the minimum needed for 3.6ghz he could probably do that w/ ~1.47v w/ some tuning i think

we all have to remember that its the same 45nm node that x4 uses.Its 50% more cores! So i would not expect HIGHER than C3 overclockability (and not every c3 chip does 4gz stable)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV[666]

we all have to remember that its the same 45nm node that x4 uses.Its 50% more cores! So i would not expect HIGHER than C3 overclockability (and not every c3 chip does 4gz stable)

---

low-k dielectric

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18731

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonhunter

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=236011&page=6

AMD 1055T 4.2Ghz Cinebench R11.5 hit 7.38 :clap:

---

What makes me smile is that it's done in 64bit mode :D

I truly can't wait to get one for myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

low-k dielectric

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18731

---

I see, thats good to know.However its still 45nm.Getting SAME overclockability and 50% more cores is mindblowing already ;-).If it will overclock even higher ,that would be da bomb.It would mean that with turboing 3 cores could go past 4ghz pretty easily.

Just a reference:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/r..._Benchmark.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

they are quads but 1.5v will be same wattage/heat output regardless of # of cores, right? im not sure but thats how i have understood it

edit: correct in saying 1.5+ is overkill for 3.6ghz but he needed same voltages for 3.9ghz. 1.5+ was not the minimum needed for 3.6ghz he could probably do that w/ ~1.47v w/ some tuning i think

---

he also said it was reading voltages wrong. so its very possible his bios isnt perfect and he tried it with 1.4x and it comes out 1.5x. i know my bios hates amd overdrive voltage tweeking, so i only do that in the bios

this is getting better and better...........My wish for 4.2ghz looks like it may come true and then some......this cpu looks like a hit for the price!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

this is getting better and better...........My wish for 4.2ghz looks like it may come true and then some......this cpu looks like a hit for the price!

---

I also wish your wish comes true :D

It looks great because in performance it seems to perform almost same as bloomfield's c2c and when you add in that 1090T is suppose to be $300 its pure pure win because i7 950 is 3Ghz and i7 930 is 2.8Ghz.

That only leaves i7 980x on top and from my est. AMD will need really fast chips to reach that. So Thuban ~ Bloomfield and Gulftown for the rich and famous :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

I also wish your wish comes true :D

It looks great because in performance it seems to perform almost same as bloomfield's c2c and when you add in that 1090T is suppose to be $300 its pure pure win because i7 950 is 3Ghz and i7 930 is 2.8Ghz.

That only leaves i7 980x on top and from my est. AMD will need really fast chips to reach that. So Thuban ~ Bloomfield and Gulftown for the rich and famous :yepp:

---

:D

I can see AMD taking the $200-300 segment with Thuban soon. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

I also wish your wish comes true :D

It looks great because in performance it seems to perform almost same as bloomfield's c2c and when you add in that 1090T is suppose to be $300 its pure pure win because i7 950 is 3Ghz and i7 930 is 2.8Ghz.

That only leaves i7 980x on top and from my est. AMD will need really fast chips to reach that. So Thuban ~ Bloomfield and Gulftown for the rich and famous :yepp:

---

I wanted Thuban to equal deneb in clockability and it looks like its happening......this is a good time for AMD:)

What i find is very interesting is the fact that Bloomfield actually needs HT to keep up with Thuban so this is a very positive sign indeed.
What this means is that in real world tests Thuban may actually do quite good, bench's are more dependent on HT than real world tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

What i find is very interesting is the fact that Bloomfield actually needs HT to keep up with Thuban so this is a very positive sign indeed.
What this means is that in real world tests Thuban may actually do quite good, bench's are more dependent on HT than real world tests.

---

True to that. Just the fact that Thuban can smash i7 930/860 in Cinebench and 3DMark06 CPU, these were indeed a very good signs of what will happen in real-world scenarios. :)

Manicdan: yes, right, my example lower:
profile 1: 1.35V (undrevolted) 3718Mhz/2620Mhz
profile2: 1.375V (undervolted) 3825Mhz/2550 MHz
profile3: 1.44V 3950MHz 28xx NB
profile4: 1.5V 4010MHz 28xxNB
max stability 1.536V 4032MHz

As i see, efectivity going up profile 3, others MHz are not good for increase voltage (for 60 MHz i need +0.16V)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imamage

Here is some basic

Cinebench R11.5 (32bit)

Cinebench R11.5 @ 3.5GHz


wPrime 1.55 32M @ 3.5GHz

---

Congrats dude from Argentina!!

I can´t wait to get one! Finally I will be able to render faster!

Thx!

Man these are some good initial results. 7.38 Cinebench score?? Wow, lovin it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV[666]

I see, thats good to know.However its still 45nm.Getting SAME overclockability and 50% more cores is mindblowing already ;-).If it will overclock even higher ,that would be da bomb.It would mean that with turboing 3 cores could go past 4ghz pretty easily.

---

Yes its 45nm, but as stated above with ultra low k. Think about 45nm v2.0 ;-)
Less power is leaked, thus less heat is produced, thus people could use higher vcore, because the heat/power limit is not reached as early as with the old 45nm process.

Very good indeed ... I wonder how the 1090Ts will perform. 4.5 GHz ? :up:

Is it possible to do a x264 bench test?

I´m wondering if the 785 mobos from the actual generation will support all the features of this CPU, like the "Turbo" mode..

Thx!