Some benchmarks of Thuban X6 1090T

source:http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=235891&page=3

CPU:AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE @ 3.2GHz
MB:MSI 790GX-G65 BIOS:4.0
RAM:A-data DDR3 1333 2GB*2
Winchip DDR3 1333 2GB*2
PSU:acbel 300w

http://imagepot.net/image/127100698091.jpg

CPUZ
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1129267


http://item.slide.com/r/1/189/i/sb56...rxj2G4wxo7uQB/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/164/i/8MFy...lOTzUvb5K22-T/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/33/i/ZJT2I...XabgfULrzVlsQ/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/142/i/yKuQ...k7uUgOkYRdqFk/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/48/i/8Hqtv...Yo1-bKCGWdmID/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/10/i/WQFOi...4h8OQS1wUACGg/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/172/i/akI3...kOkZQVmgPYizt/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/287/i/ze8P...06lgMLnrGZ8Wo/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/216/i/yv70...PY72txUII5SQt/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/141/i/mkzz...xgGtmKVE1_h4G/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/237/i/vGMr...knwu6fLx9AYMD/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/11/i/7mr3u...FmgY49XwAd1nF/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/41/i/OJtxX...1vBDlIO7Zlw4P/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/263/i/MKIv...MpSS9yUKo_w25/

http://item.slide.com/r/1/160/i/Ngyp...Jo5LEUX7almE2/

Interesing...

Istanbul (Rev. HY-D0) CPUID = F-8-0
Lisbon?/Magny-Cours? (Rev. HY-D1) CPUID = F-9-1
Thuban (Rev. ?) CPUID = F-A-0

I should spend a bit more time looking for info on deciphering CPUID related info.

thank you so much superrugal. But is that vcore correct???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zir_blazer

Interesing...

Istanbul (Rev. HY-D0) CPUID = F-8-0
Lisbon?/Magny-Cours? (Rev. HY-D1) CPUID = F-9-1
Thuban (Rev. ?) CPUID = F-A-0

I should spend a bit more time looking for info on deciphering CPUID related info.

---

Thuban is rev. E0

Is that stock voltage or undervolted? If stock, :eek:

I would like to see some new benches , this one is all over the net .

Just (pre)ordered myself a asus maxima IV , some DDR3 and a cpu cooler .
Now if they would only bring out the X6 already !

This one shows 6mbyte L3 cache , not 9mbyte as suggested before ?

It was never going to be 9MB :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrimInalA

I would like to see some new benches , this one is all over the net .

Just (pre)ordered myself a asus maxima IV , some DDR3 and a cpu cooler .
Now if they would only bring out the X6 already !

This one shows 6mbyte L3 cache , not 9mbyte as suggested before ?

---

9MB L3 was never suggested, it was 9MB total cache, not only L3.

Ah 9mbyte total , that clears things up . :up:

Can't wait too see official reviews from hardware sites, already the 1090T looks nice. Hope it performs close to an i7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

Can't wait too see official reviews from hardware sites, already the 1090T looks nice. Hope it performs close to an i7

---

I would say outperform Core i7 (980X excluded).

Also what's up with all these "leaked" benchmarks being done on a 32-bit OS?:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

I would say outperform Core i7 (980X excluded).

Also what's up with all these "leaked" benchmarks being done on a 32-bit OS?:shakes:

---

I would say they will be rather equal and there will be very less difference between them. I do expect i7 860's to do quite a bit of damage in low thread apps because of its huge turbo capability but i7 930 vs 1055T will be epic even tough in price point of view the i7 930 is suppose to go after 1090T.

I am sure that 1090T will out perform i7 930 without much problem :yepp: and since they are at the same price range 1090T is deadly. Intel will have to react and either they will introduce a new model with higher clock or lower prices of i7 950 or i7 870.

This is great indeed i hope 1055T is for $250-$260 :D

yes, i hear default is 1.25V without turbo activ? Its not all Oj101, he overclocked it easily up 4200 MHz

I don't understand what you mean by "It's not all" :confused: What I meant is the voltage showing is incredibly low.

volt wise maybe (Deafault volts) on his Mobo..or CnQ

Nice real nice,, 6cores gonna get real interesting indeed.

CnQ at 3.2GHz? ;)

leave the stock reviews for the reviewers, i wanna see 3.6 ghz 3d '06 :D

All I see at the moment is x6 < i7 950

i am glad 1090T BE is unlock multi

(some news before say 1090T BE is locked multi)

Interesting I get a cpu score of 14,300+ at 4.2-4.3ghz.........hes getting 16,400+ at 3.2ghz.....very nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see at the moment is x6 < i7 950

---

All i see at the moment is x6(price) < i7 950(price)...by a large margin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see at the moment is x6 < i7 950

---

Ammm how if you compare a 1090T 3.2Ghz to a i7 950 3Ghz and you take in to account the score of 1055T

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...55t/cin11b.jpg

It is easy to see that the score is very close to that of i7 860.

Now if we look at this we can see that the 1090T score close to i7 960. The i7 960 is 3.2Ghz, as i see it the 1055T come close to i7 860's performance even tough i7 860 is suppose to be more expensive and the 1090T comes close to i7 960.

http://item.slide.com/r/1/237/i/vGMr...knwu6fLx9AYMD/

I am sure of two things:

1. 1055T will beat/come close to i7 920
2. 1090T will beat/come close to i7 950

Now the really interesting match will be i7 930/860 vs 1055T and i7 960 vs 1090T :yepp: even tough they are at very different price points

Edit : The 11.5 scores for a few cpus


i7 920 4.80 with 4c/8t Win 7 64bit

Good analysis ajaidev.

And the point is ? AMD needs a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage to match the 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 ?
No matter how I try to have a look at it, I can't see any "miracles" or progress from AMD.
Intel's closing in on faster clock-per-clock processors than Gulftown and going to 8 and 10 cores ( 16 & 20 threads ) in Nov/Dec or Jan-March 2011.
AMD's at 12 Cores / 12 threads, but unless their performance clock per clock and on a core to core basis is the same with these, those will barely compete with the 8c/16t Intel CPU.

They need to work harder.

Nice performance and good prices are always nice, but they need to step up the game before they get down below ( performance-wise ).

I'm all in for performance.
Can we have an Opteron 146 and DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR de-javu anytime soon AMD please ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see at the moment is x6 < i7 950

---

All I see is that the i7 950 had a clockspeed of 4ghz
..is that stock?

cos the x6 was, bring the x6 to 4ghz and see some whoopass

Oh, and check the prices big difference for the AMD win. Yes. Win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

And the point is ? AMD needs a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage to match the 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 ?
No matter how I try to have a look at it, I can't see any "miracles" or progress from AMD.
Intel's closing in on faster clock-per-clock processors than Gulftown and going to 8 and 10 cores ( 16 & 20 threads ) in Nov/Dec or Jan-March 2011.
AMD's at 12 Cores / 12 threads, but unless their performance clock per clock and on a core to core basis is the same with these, those will barely compete with the 8c/16t Intel CPU.

They need to work harder.

Nice performance and good prices are always nice, but they need to step up the game before they get down below ( performance-wise ).

I'm all in for performance.
Can we have an Opteron 146 and DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR de-javu anytime soon AMD please ?

---

The point being that AMD has something that can perform on par with Intels best processors and that also with a $250 lower price tag.

i7 950 is around $560 or some thing and i7 960 is around $580, 1090T is suppose to be $300 jeez. For $300 Intel only offers you a i7 930 or a i7 860 this will force them to release a new 3Ghz+ model or lower the prices of i7 950/960

Other than i7 975/980x the 1090T is in a very good position, also the i7 950 was not launched in 2008 it was launched in Q4 2009.

1090T has the unlocked multi such as the i7 965 and has the same speed with a much lower price tag how is that a bad thing and the 8 and 10 cores you mentioned they are not coming out as soon as you think.

You will see dual cores and maybe quads, intel will again do a test phase with dual cores on a new process node.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

And the point is ? AMD needs a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage to match the 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 ?
No matter how I try to have a look at it, I can't see any "miracles" or progress from AMD.
Intel's closing in on faster clock-per-clock processors than Gulftown and going to 8 and 10 cores ( 16 & 20 threads ) in Nov/Dec or Jan-March 2011.
AMD's at 12 Cores / 12 threads, but unless their performance clock per clock and on a core to core basis is the same with these, those will barely compete with the 8c/16t Intel CPU.

They need to work harder.

Nice performance and good prices are always nice, but they need to step up the game before they get down below ( performance-wise ).

I'm all in for performance.
Can we have an Opteron 146 and DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR de-javu anytime soon AMD please ?

---

To argue you switch your comparaison from i7 950 vs PII 1090T to i7 960 vs PII 1090T only to say the later have a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage...I find this funny.

After you speak about 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 but you forget PII is 1 year old tech.

After you argument using core count and thread count at your advantage. I find it a litte hyprocite.

Ultimately to show you don't favour Intel over AMD you say 'I'm all in for performance', a way to say price/performance is irrelevant.

So i think you'd better save words and just post i7 980X.

I think everyone should pay close attention to "Power/Performance" rather than clock frequency & count of cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakray

I think everyone should pay close attention to "Power/Performance" rather than clock frequency & count of cores.

---

Why? 6 cores at 4.2ghz would be a good thing wouldnt it:clap::yepp::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

All I see is that the i7 950 had a clockspeed of 4ghz
..is that stock?

---

All I see is... that you need to clean your glasses or pay a visit to a doctor to have your eyesight checked, the only 4GHz thing in the screenshot is an overclocked i5 750 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

The point being that AMD has something that can perform on par with Intels best processors

---

Well...it's not exactly like that, isn't it ?
It can only battle the Bloomfields which are... well, introduced since late 2008.
Who needs an i7 950 or 960 when most of the 920's can do 4.2GHz 24/7 on air cooling ?
There goes the price tag difference when overclocking isn't "forbidden" or taken out of the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

For $300 Intel only offers you a i7 930

---

Which can match/beat the Phenom II x6 in a lot ( if not most ) cases if you simply overclock it to 4GHz or so.
Unless AMD's x6 can clock 250MHz or so higher, granted that we'd overclock both CPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Other than i7 975/980x the 1090T is in a very good position

---

I'm tired of "if you overlook this or that" when it comes to progress.
I want to see AMD surpassing Intel again, even if it's just 1% faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

also the i7 950 was not launched in 2008 it was launched in Q4 2009.

---

You know what I meant. I meant that it's an i7 920 just with a higher default clock frequency, it's not like it's any faster clock per clock or a crazy overclock untouchable by a 2008 i7 920 C1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

and the 8 and 10 cores you mentioned they are not coming out as soon as you think.

---

I've got 2 birdies saying two different stories, I wouldn't disregard the possibility of getting released earlier ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

So i think you'd better save words and just post i7 980X.

---

All I'm going to post is:

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=3...se&iehack=.jpg

That was the last time AMD was at least desktop-wise in front and VERY fun to overclock and bench with.

Posting a super pi score in the era of multicore processors is like driving your Porsche on the narrow village road going 20Km/h... (I know yup posted it to prove how "fun" that Opty was,yet Super Pi is fail from perf. evaluation POV when you count multicore MPUs).
Also comparing Bloomfield and Istanbul is valid since Bloomfield is still very high end with only 1 Westmere hexa core being faster. Bloomfield design relies massively on added logic(SMT aka Hyperthreading) which adds ~20% on the die size while giving similar perf. increase on average in poorly coded multithread-capable applications .Each core inside Bloomfield is MASSIVELY larger than one in Deneb/Istanbul,thing 15.3mm2 Vs 24.5mm2,that's staggering 60% more added core logic area. Deneb is actually doing great compared how much smaller its cores are.So Istanbul/Thuban with 50% more cores actually levels the field in core logic area investment .The only real downside in AMD's Deneb is quite large sram cell size and this is why Deneb and Bloomfield take up similar die size in total(while very cores in Deneb are,like i previously said 60% smaller and bound to be slower in MT applications).

As for your wet dream of 6-10 cores on desktop let's see how that turns out.I heard not so soon.

@bench, im pretty sure this is the AMD section, and all "intel is better" flame baiting is bannable, so i wouldnt do it if i were you. the title for this thread is benchmarks for PII x6, yet all i see is bickering from the last day. not very enjoyable to read, this isnt the news section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see is... that you need to clean your glasses or pay a visit to a doctor to have your eyesight checked, the only 4GHz thing in the screenshot is an overclocked i5 750 :D



Well...it's not exactly like that, isn't it ?
It can only battle the Bloomfields which are... well, introduced since late 2008.
Who needs an i7 950 or 960 when most of the 920's can do 4.2GHz 24/7 on air cooling ?
There goes the price tag difference when overclocking isn't "forbidden" or taken out of the question.


Which can match/beat the Phenom II x6 in a lot ( if not most ) cases if you simply overclock it to 4GHz or so.
Unless AMD's x6 can clock 250MHz or so higher, granted that we'd overclock both CPUs.



I'm tired of "if you overlook this or that" when it comes to progress.
I want to see AMD surpassing Intel again, even if it's just 1% faster.



You know what I meant. I meant that it's an i7 920 just with a higher default clock frequency, it's not like it's any faster clock per clock or a crazy overclock untouchable by a 2008 i7 920 C1.



I've got 2 birdies saying two different stories, I wouldn't disregard the possibility of getting released earlier ;)



All I'm going to post is:

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=3...se&iehack=.jpg

That was the last time AMD was at least desktop-wise in front and VERY fun to overclock and bench with.

---

Really I dont see what your point is? We know the performance of intels cpu's already. We've all seen the numbers, and guess what? , we are not interested:rolleyes:

This is a new release and here you are filling the thread with useless information no one wants to see or read about. You already stated you feel AMD needs to make more progress......ok, Thats not going to change the fact of what these cpu's can do. And arguing that the performance is not up to your standards compared to Intel In the AMD forums is not going to go down to well here either.

So what are you going to do? try to convince us that we should instead all change our systems over to Intel? I mean I dont understand if we havent already what makes you think we would want to now or even care about the performance Intels cpu give? we trying to see the performance of these cpu's. Now move on if you not interested In AMD's new offering. Dont spam the thread with Intel propaganda:rolleyes:

Doesn't beat my old q6600 @ 3.7ghz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see is... that you need to clean your glasses or pay a visit to a doctor to have your eyesight checked, the only 4GHz thing in the screenshot is an overclocked i5 750 :D

---

Quote:

---

Well...it's not exactly like that, isn't it ?
It can only battle the Bloomfields which are... well, introduced since late 2008.
Who needs an i7 950 or 960 when most of the 920's can do 4.2GHz 24/7 on air cooling ?
There goes the price tag difference when overclocking isn't "forbidden" or taken out of the question.

Which can match/beat the Phenom II x6 in a lot ( if not most ) cases if you simply overclock it to 4GHz or so.
Unless AMD's x6 can clock 250MHz or so higher, granted that we'd overclock both CPUs.

---

Sandy Bridge will come in 2011 and so will bulldozer and llano. I have been told that dual/quad cores will be out of the gate first. As far as i have heard these will be better than nehalem but not by a huge degree, so a quad llano will murder a dual sandy bridge but not a quad sandy bridge.

Phenom II x6 can also overclock look in the other thread the Phenom II x6 already OCed to 3850Mhz :yepp:

Quote:

---

I'm tired of "if you overlook this or that" when it comes to progress.
I want to see AMD surpassing Intel again, even if it's just 1% faster.

---

2011 is the year they may do that with bulldozer, i have been told Intel is in process of tweaking the 6/8 core sandy bridge specially for bulldozer.

This is why 6/8 core sandy bridge will come later than the quad one.

Quote:

---

You know what I meant. I meant that it's an i7 920 just with a higher default clock frequency, it's not like it's any faster clock per clock or a crazy overclock untouchable by a 2008 i7 920 C1.

---

Well the multi is different and as such so is the price. If we use your logic then the cheapest processor with a specific arc is same as the high end one.

Also what is the difference between extrema editions of intel and normal ones?

Quote:

---

I've got 2 birdies saying two different stories, I wouldn't disregard the possibility of getting released earlier ;)

---

There is no way the 6/8 cores sandy bridge will come in Q4 2010 or Q1 2011 :shrug: i have been told that the high end sandy bridge is being tweaked to perform better.

All I'm going to post is:

[*mg]http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=351735&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg[/img]

That was the last time AMD was at least desktop-wise in front and VERY fun to overclock and bench with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

Doesn't beat my old q6600 @ 3.7ghz

---

Core 2 Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz on Win7 64bit does 4.00 in cinebench 11.5 what are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

Doesn't beat my old q6600 @ 3.7ghz

---

Just post the benchies.....we are all going to get Q6600's now thanks for the info:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

we are all going to get Q6600's now thanks for the info:rofl:

---

:ROTF: No I'm just a bit dissapointed in the X6, especially because I hoped it would be something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

:ROTF: No I'm just a bit dissapointed in the X6, especially because I hoped it would be something.

---

What exactly disapoints you? its Phenom 2 technology only with 2 more cores and more cache.......as far as we know unless theres been some changes its a 6 core 965. So I guess only people who have not been following whats going on would have expected some miracle super speed cpu.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

:ROTF: No I'm just a bit dissapointed in the X6, especially because I hoped it would be something.

---

Yeah it is a complete failure, good call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

:ROTF: No I'm just a bit dissapointed in the X6, especially because I hoped it would be something.

---

No son, you're disappointed coz you're stuck with your lame q6600 LOL it's a dead end for you!!! So just cry :p:

ok that's it !!

I preordered 1090T cpu and asus crosshair mobo .
Now can someone make the time go faster ? :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrimInalA

ok that's it !!

I preordered 1090T cpu and asus crosshair mobo .
Now can someone make the time go faster ? :clap:

---

here take these...
dont ask what they are,
dont tell anyone where you got them,
and yes they are worth the price.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/...=cpubenchmarks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ..::G80::..

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/...=cpubenchmarks

---

:clap:

@CrimInalA:Did you pre order a Crosshair IV? Or did you just order a Crosshair III Formula?

How's this on a stock cooler?:

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=3...se&iehack=.jpg

Source: http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...in_17sec_181ms

i wonder how hot it is?

Man his NB is stock though......ok ok looks good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I'm going to post is:

http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=3...se&iehack=.jpg

That was the last time AMD was at least desktop-wise in front and VERY fun to overclock and bench with.

---

That was the last time I stayed up for 16 hours playing with SuperPi :rolleyes: Overclocking has never been as much fun since, but you know I have to remove you now, right? I retired from overclocking for a year due to personal reasons but now I HAVE to have a session tonight :(
:rofl:

Edit: server doubletoast glitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

All I see is... that you need to clean your glasses or pay a visit to a doctor to have your eyesight checked, the only 4GHz thing in the screenshot is an overclocked i5 750 :D

---

All I see is you missing my satire on numberplay
The bench had a 960 in it, not a 950. The only 50 was a 750.

You need you number keys tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

@bench, im pretty sure this is the AMD section, and all "intel is better" flame baiting is bannable, so i wouldnt do it if i were you. the title for this thread is benchmarks for PII x6, yet all i see is bickering from the last day. not very enjoyable to read, this isnt the news section.

---

i really thought it was news section untill u mentioned :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

Doesn't beat my old q6600 @ 3.7ghz

---

Newsflash : Phenom II X4 @3.7Ghz (3.7Ghz pretty much a walk in the park even for 940BE,the oldest one) spanks your old Q6600 across the board .Oh sorry,Super Pi excluded :p:.

lol cant believe people find a reason to hate on thuban already.. again price/performance is gonna be great compared to intel. oh and you can use your old mobo for it, or use your new mobo for more than 2 years :p:

Now you don't need a $250+ mobo to run a great cpu. Except for some people, i7 quads are dead.

omg, nice AMD. Wprime etc....

was digging around looking for some i7 comparisons,, heres cb 11.5 64 bit, with i7 930 & phenom x6 both @ 4.2ghz

http://hostimage.co.uk/08-Apr-10_0F69-4BBDB0E5.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/mrjohnson2/vv.jpg

sweet performance at 4.2ghz.......it beats bloomfield. Cant wait to get one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

And the point is ? AMD needs a 2 cores and 200MHz advantage to match the 1 1/2 year old i7 tech 960 ?
No matter how I try to have a look at it, I can't see any "miracles" or progress from AMD.
Intel's closing in on faster clock-per-clock processors than Gulftown and going to 8 and 10 cores ( 16 & 20 threads ) in Nov/Dec or Jan-March 2011.
AMD's at 12 Cores / 12 threads, but unless their performance clock per clock and on a core to core basis is the same with these, those will barely compete with the 8c/16t Intel CPU.

They need to work harder.

Nice performance and good prices are always nice, but they need to step up the game before they get down below ( performance-wise ).

I'm all in for performance.
Can we have an Opteron 146 and DFI LP nF4 SLI-DR de-javu anytime soon AMD please ?

---

There you have it.

i7 930 @ 4.2ghz = 7.20
X6 1050T @ 4.2ghz = 7.38

6 Physical Phenom 2 cores, are on par or surpass an i7 9** with 4 phsyical / 4 logical cores. (In Cinebench and hopefully other heavily threaded apps/benchmarks)

That's the first time in years, outside of gaming, that AMD has had a chip to match Intel at the same clock speed.

AMD's brute force method of throwing more cores @ i7's hyperthreading seems to have paid off.

That being said, if scaling is linear than a $295 1090T @ 3.2ghz stock should be able to perform within roughly 90-110% of the i7 960 @ 3.2 stock in heavily threaded benchmarks.

As far as gaming goes the Ph2 is pretty much equal and in some cases even faster than the i7. Bloomfield takes the cake in the more CPU aware games like Far Cry 2, or Resident Evil 5 and Thuban's 2 extra cores should help with that. For games that can only utilize 2-3 cores, The 1050/1090T's respective 3.3/3.6ghz Turbo modes should make for an extremely interesting set of numbers.

How is that not a win? What is there not to be impressed with? 2 more cores added to the same process node while maintaining the same thermal envelope as their last flagship quadcore and from what we've seen just as clockable as their quad counterparts.

Seems like a good deal to me. The greatest thing is, anyone with an AM2+ motherboard is going to be able to breathe new life into old machines.

This is just another much needed step in the right direction for AMD. Every single CPU refresh that's been released has brought performance improvements even when based on the same stepping. i.e 955 c2 vs. 965 c2 This started all the way back with 940, X3 720 came out and it was a better piece of silicon, then the 955, then the 965, then C3 and now Thuban.

I run both Intel and AMD and It's not hard to see that this is good for everyone. This should definitely rumble Intel's feathers and if anything it will give those absolutely blinded by blue some nice price drops on CPU's for their respective platforms.

I don't understand why people don't want to see AMD succeed.

all of a sudden people forgot about the 4 logical cores making a total of 8 for Intel vs 6 for AMD.......but noooo........it takes AMD 6 cores to Intels 4 now....hmmm!

Which mobo though?:D...Other than CH4

This Thuban is good, very good but it remains to be seen how it holds up against Intel in more than just one benchmark.

Either way you look at it, it is not blowing Intel away like Intel blew away Athlon 64 with their Conroe back then.

I think we should just stop making those AMD-Intel comparisations and enjoy what we're given. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

This Thuban is good, very good but it remains to be seen how it holds up against Intel in more than just one benchmark.

Either way you look at it, it is not blowing Intel away like Intel blew away Athlon 64 with their Conroe back then.

I think we should just stop making those AMD-Intel comparisations and enjoy what we're given. ;)

---

I agree. I'm awaiting a proper review but these early results look very promising.

Following the trend, the name Bulldozer makes sense?


Too bad the NDA will expire in at least 1 week.

Nice, 4,2G with retail chip?
Good Cinebench performance too

I wonder how stable it is with these clocks

Keep in mind that the AMD K10.5 cores are much smaller as the the
Nehalem cores. Here a compare at 32 nm

http://www.chip-architect.com/news/L...Westmere_s.jpg

So the Nehalem cores are 10%-15% faster in single threaded applications
and another 20%-30% through the use of Hyper Threading. They achieve
that at a cost of being 1.8 times larger.


Regards, Hans

I never realised that the cores were THAT tiny! Miniturisation is incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hans de Vries

Keep in mind that the AMD K10.5 cores are much smaller as the the
Nehalem cores. Here a compare at 32 nm

http://www.chip-architect.com/news/L...Westmere_s.jpg

So the Nehalem cores are 10%-15% faster in single threaded applications
and another 20%-30% through the use of Hyper Threading. They achieve
that at a cost of being 1.8 times larger.


Regards, Hans

---

You have hit it on the head

This is my post where i was saying the same thing...

I do stand by my est. of dual llano < dual sandy bridge < quad llano < quad sandy in performance tough.

Hans thanks for posting that analysis ,I've been saying similar thing for a while now in Deneb Vs Nehalem threads.Now we have your post backed up with nice images you compiled for all of us to see ;),good job :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hans de Vries

Keep in mind that the AMD K10.5 cores are much smaller as the the
Nehalem cores. Here a compare at 32 nm

---

Could you identify if Sandy has 2x256kB L2 instead the prior 2x128kB ? I think it's bigger but I am not sure.

Thanks

Opteron146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hans de Vries

So the Nehalem cores are 10%-15% faster in single threaded applications
and another 20%-30% through the use of Hyper Threading. They achieve
that at a cost of being 1.8 times larger.

---

Thanks for that picture. I published it on my blog with some thoughts added. Besides the likely double pumped FPU there might also be signs of a trace cache (directly below the execution units). Maybe you have an even higher res SB die shot to check this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opteron146

Could you identify if Sandy has 2x256kB L2 instead the prior 2x128kB ? I think it's bigger but I am not sure.

Thanks

Opteron146

---

The two SRAM tiles of the L2 cache are below the "B" of Sandy Bridge.
They are longer but also less wide as in case of Westmere so the area
is about the same in both cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dresdenboy

Thanks for that picture. I published it on my blog with some thoughts added. Besides the likely double pumped FPU there might also be signs of a trace cache (directly below the execution units). Maybe you have an even higher res SB die shot to check this.

---

A good candidate for a Trace cache would be the larger square tile
below the L2 cache and above the location of the L1 instruction cache
in Westmere, which is located at the bottom edge in the middle.


Regards, Hans

A bit larger version:

http://www.chip-architect.com/news/L...s_Westmere.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Posting a super pi score in the era of multicore processors is like driving your Porsche on the narrow village road going 20Km/h... (I know yup posted it to prove how "fun" that Opty was,yet Super Pi is fail from perf. evaluation POV when you count multicore MPUs).

---

:yepp::yepp::yepp:
reminds me of my old post.

Quote:

---

SuperPi is an antiquated benchmark that assesses core performance using an antiquated fpu x87 instruction set. It is a grossly inefficient computer program that uses floating point units to calculate pi and "evaluate" processor cache performance. It's not by any means a "real world" reflection of todays modern cpu's microarch capabilities. It's like running a horse(fpu x87 instructions) down today's paved interstate(the cpu hardware), when all the while a car(newer simd's) are available.

SuperPi fails to take advantage of newer instruction sets, and hence also fails to evaluate modern-day hardware capabilities that newer processors support and are designed with. The FPU X87 instruction set was developed for an external co-processor dedicated to computing mathematical tasks and worked with the 80286/80386 microprocessors. Now if you havent heard of the 286/386, then you know SuperPi is that old.

---

//more at [ OCN ]