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

Quote:

---

In an attempt to boost performance of its six-core and quad-core processors in advance of the Holiday season, AMD intends to release two new six-core processors Phenom II X6 1100T (3.30GHz), which will be the fastest chip the company has to offer and Phenom II X6 1065T (2.90GHz), which will be the highest-performance six-core offering with 95W thermal design power. In addition, the company will itroduce its most powerful quad-core Phenom II X4 975 chip with 3.60GHz clock-speed. The chips are specifically aimed at the higher end of the market and will rise performance bar for AMD central processing units.

The forthcoming introduction of a faster six-core offering in Q4 2010 may indicate that Advanced Micro Devices is now seeing higher yields of six-core Phenom II X6 "Thuban" processors at Globalfoundries using 45nm SOI fabrication process. The further expansion of six-core product family with an expensive and mainstream parts is likely to slightly increase average selling prices and consequently revenues of AMD.

---

Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3Ghz 125w
Phenom II X6 1065T 2.9Ghz 95w (yay, at least other 95w god)
Phenom II X4 975 3.6Ghz 125w


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...t_Quarter.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3Ghz 125w

---

black edition?
what's the turbocore clock?

_________

Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate RUS-ENG x86-x64 -4in1-Activated

phenom II x4 975 .... wich stepping would that be ??? C3 or something new???

1100T 3.3Ghz --> 3.7Ghz Turbo.

They're just C3(X4) and E0(X6). As xbitlabs mention, yields seems to be better. Hopefully, 1065T will arrive in full retail form and not just as a pre-build option for some UK sites (retail only in japan).

1055T 95w review
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=254765

new chips! sweet :up:
can't wait how they perform and OC ability :rolleyes:

They really have to finish supplies befor BD it seems ;)

thanks nintendork

1065T looks tasty till now i cant get retail 1055T's 95W maybe its OEM oh well.

The 1100T model comes dangerously close to 4Ghz in Turbo mode :). Ten more percent and we have a 4Ghz capable 45nm 10h core(on 3 or less cores active) that wasn't initially designed to hit these frequency targets.If they managed to do this with 10h on 45nm,what could possibly Bulldozer reach on 32nm SOI+hk/mg when it's frequency optimized to begin with? :D

I wonder if we will be seeing one more top X6 model before X8 launches.3.4Ghz with 3.8Ghz Turbo on either 125W or 140W is certainly very possible.975BE is also hitting very close to 4Ghz mark,maybe it's Thuban based?Even if it's "just" a C3 Deneb it will be a very speedy quad core.

I would have liked to see CPUNB speeds up, 2400 should have been stock

They just recently released 970 and now they are going to release a 975? 3.6Ghz does sound pretty good.

Would like to see Bulldozer already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

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

---

my exact thoughts.
its nuts how much AMD has come since the PII 940/920 all on the same process

Not that the 940 wasn't a good clocker. They did 3.6GHz pretty reliably.

Next gen cpu may not need high ghz to produce more performance

Gamers will be happy.
Pushing the today fastest CPU's prices down ...
And soon we will have X6 for a price of a mid class Quad. Oh Boy I want to see that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kondik

Gamers will be happy.
Pushing the today fastest CPU's prices down ...
And soon we will have X6 for a price of a mid class Quad. Oh Boy I want to see that

---

its a weird thing to hope for. as x6 prices come down, x4 go down aswell. when the PII 940 came out, it was 270$ (i know cause i paid that instead of waiting 2 weeks for 20% drop, lol). most top x4 chips come out a little under 200$, and the middle ones are 150ish, lowest at ~100$. a 140$ x6 would be right around that, but chances are its a 1035T, which i couldnt find for sale at all. guess yields are toooooo good.

pretty impressive clocks, i believe that they'll do a last push before BD launch sometime next year and try to release a 4ghz stock cpu (just to be the first one to offer a 4ghz consumer cpu) with a small turbo (200mhz) which might be doable if they continue to improve their process at this pace

wow these are great speeds for x4/x6 45nm :) the only problem with this is i SO dont need another cpu but its gonna be freakin hard to resist testing out one of those 1100T's :D

yeah already OEM 3,6-3,7ghz.. pretty quick ramp up from 3ghz :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

The 1100T model comes dangerously close to 4Ghz in Turbo mode :). Ten more percent and we have a 4Ghz capable 45nm 10h core(on 3 or less cores active) that wasn't initially designed to hit these frequency targets.If they managed to do this with 10h on 45nm,what could possibly Bulldozer reach on 32nm SOI+hk/mg when it's frequency optimized to begin with? :D

I wonder if we will be seeing one more top X6 model before X8 launches.3.4Ghz with 3.8Ghz Turbo on either 125W or 140W is certainly very possible.975BE is also hitting very close to 4Ghz mark,maybe it's Thuban based?Even if it's "just" a C3 Deneb it will be a very speedy quad core.

---

i think, we will see in 1Q2011 3.4 GHz Thuban ;)

im a little mad they havnt given us any 140W chips in a while. nothing wrong with releasing something that consumes alot of power, especially if you can get 200-300mhz out of it. i guess they dont want any more chepo motherboards being set on fire.

a 4ghz tri core should be LOL easy, and sell for easily as much as all other new quad phenoms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

i think, we will see in 1Q2011 3.4 GHz Thuban ;)

---

And without any new stepping. Every AMD chip I remember had a stepping update.

"K10" era
Phenom B2 --> B3
Phenom II / Athlon II C2 --> C3
Phenom II Thuban E0 --> ??

:D

The yields are returning good results it seems. Well its only good news for AMD. Clearly Phenom II's have the IPC disadvantage against i7, yet AMD seems to try and make up some ground with sheer clock speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlawleZ

Clearly Phenom II's have the IPC disadvantage against i7, yet AMD seems to try and make up some ground with sheer clock speed.

---

Not just clock speed, they do very good at pricing their cpu's very competitively relative to avg performance of the competition. You may not get the fastest horse on the planet buy you definitely get your moneys worth.

nice 1090t is coming down in price already...

$263 with a 8gig flash drive

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...t=Combo.489021

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 ;)