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

[wuttz]

If its locked then 890FX have to be able to go >400+ bus speed

Black Editions are unlocked.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/s...2&postcount=23

[wuttz]

please, dont be ridiculous
an i5 750 @ 2.66ghz beats PII 965 @ 3.4GHZ in pretty much all scenarios.

yes, just clarifying things...
every architecture has its strenghs and weaknesses, you can always handpick tests where PII has the edge.. but overall, it's fair to say i7 beats the competition with much lower clocks

why do people like you have to come into AMD threads at all, and start blabbering about core i7 ftw pwn spits on phenom2?

it hast even launched yet and wt-f you fanboys piss all over already.

you dont even make sense.

seriously, get over your insecurity.

[Oliverda]

And that would be the case only when heavily(more than 4 cores) multithreaded software comes in to play. For the rest of the apps, which are not optimized to utilize more than 4 cores, and such are most of the apps available today, the extra 50% cores will be useless, while the higher IPC of Nehalem will yield higher performance.

Looks like that you forgot about the higher clocks.

I agree, most of the apps you mentioned can take advantage of the 50% extra cores, but that won't yield 50% better performance. Most of these apps will yield no more than 15~20% better performance.

15-20%?!

Exactly. And in such scenario, Nehalem dominates over same clocked Phenom II.

Luckily you will get +400-500MHz core speed with AMD for the same money.

please, dont be ridiculous
an i5 750 @ 2.66ghz beats PII 965 @ 3.4GHZ in pretty much all scenarios..

do I really need to post benchmarks of bloomfield @ 3ghz against deneb @3.5-3.7ghz?

[jcmarfilph]

please, dont be ridiculous
an i5 750 @ 2.66ghz beats PII 965 @ 3.4GHZ in pretty much all scenarios..

do I really need to post benchmarks of bloomfield @ 3ghz against deneb @3.5-3.7ghz?

In your dreams fanboy

@Oliverda:

Way to go.

[Hornet331]

So you have just shown us that a 750 is on most of the time faster/on par with a 540mhz faster clocked 955 and sometimes can even match the 740mhz faster 965?
That would mean the 750 has a 20-28% IPC advantage, even when Turbo is on all the time on the 750 it still would be a 14-21% advantage.

Anyway I don't see how this is relevant for this thread, to go for another "my cpu has more ipc then yours, and the other guys says, but my cpu can clock higher" insulting game.

I want hard numbers and im sure we will see them soon. Also theres much more then just the raw performance of a cpu that comes into play when someone is looking for a new cpu.
I am excited about the new hexacores, both from intel and amd.

[dartaz]

i5 750 doesn't beat Phenom II X4 965 in all cases, but 750 beats it in majority of cases

Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
(note: in some tests lower score means better, so read each one carefully)

i5 750 is the clear winner overall

[FlanK3r]

i5 750 doesn't beat Phenom II X4 965 in all cases, but 750 beats it in majority of cases

Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=88
(note: in some tests lower score means better, so read each one carefully)

i5 750 is the clear winner overall

hm, maybe here, but dont fogot, i5 750 is in normal mode 4x2.8GHz (turbo is on) and for single/dual aplication are cores diferent clocking. U must more and more to read. I read all reviews this CPUs and know, x4 955 is simillary with performace with i5 750. "Experience/fazit" is not from one or two reviews. Minimal is think 10-15 reviews for comparing.

[EnJoY]

Guys, let's cut the Intel vs AMD debates please.

Intel is substantially faster than AMD clock for clock, this isn't news.

Why is this chip interesting? Because it potentially offers an inexpensive true 6 core solution, that will hopefully overclock similarly to current quad core offerings from AMD. This represents a good bang for buck in multi-threaded apps.

Everyone should be able to appreciate that, no matter what camp your in. People who game with Intel rigs, this new hexacore could make a great crunching/workstation for you, as less cost than your i7 920 ran you brand new.

[FatAlbert]

Black Editions are unlocked.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/s...2&postcount=23

good news

[wuttz]

Intel is substantially slower than AMD clock for clock in integer, this isn't news.

fixed!

[-Sweeper_]

i5 750 doesn't beat Phenom II X4 965 in all cases, but 750 beats it in majority of cases

Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=88
(note: in some tests lower score means better, so read each one carefully)

i5 750 is the clear winner overall

so obvious, and some fanboys are still arguing...
and thats with 23-28% lower clocks compared to amd offering

now dont tell me thuban will beat i5/i7 with a small clock bump when some cores are idle

[RaV[666]]

thats so obvious, and some fanboys are still arguing...
and thats with 28% lower clocks compared to amd ofeering

Thing is all this turbo features make such claims not true, depending on the load/temperature difference in these tests is 18-5% ,and not 28%.In properly cooled enviroment this cpu never works at 2.66ghz.2.8Ghz four cores or 3.2ghz for 2-1core load.
These kind of tests make comparisons weird.

Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=88

BTW. link you provided goes to a i5 750 vs 955 bench.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
Heres less dramatic link to a 965 comparison ;-)

[Sancho Panzer]

The cpu looks very interesting. I also foresee epic flame wars in the not too distant future....

[dartaz]

BTW. link you provided goes to a i5 750 vs 955 bench.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
Heres less dramatic link to a 965 comparison ;-)

I edited my post and changed it to i5 750 vs 965 bench. But i5 750 is still better overall.

[OhNoes!]

Thing is all this turbo features make such claims not true, depending on the load/temperature difference in these tests is 18-5% ,and not 28%.In properly cooled enviroment this cpu never works at 2.66ghz.2.8Ghz four cores or 3.2ghz for 2-1core load.
These kind of tests make comparisons weird.


BTW. link you provided goes to a i5 750 vs 955 bench.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
Heres less dramatic link to a 965 comparison ;-)

Rav[666], i5 750 won 33 out of 43, 965 BE won 9, 1 tie. So it looks like you just shot yourself in the foot.

I like the prices of these AMD chips a lot. They will compete very well in multi-threaded environments. I also like the fact that these can run on older hardware with a bios update. I wonder if that'll impact overclockability.

If these would do 4GHZ on decent air-cooling in 28c ambients, then kudos to the Green Team. I know I'll definitely be picking one of these up for a dedicated encoding rig, if they prove to be good overclockers (4GHZ on decent air).

[RaV[666]]

Rav[666], i5 750 won 33 out of 43, 965 BE won 9, 1 tie. So it looks like you just shot yourself in the foot.

How ? I never claimed that i965 was faster in these benchmarks.
It aint.Nehalem architecture is very potent.I was just saying that the difference isnt THAT pronounced as previous poster claimed .
i5 750 however is gonna be put against a 1055T, and from where i stand, for people like me who multitask heavy ,the 1055T will be a better pick.Putting aside the fact that i wont have to change mb, ram.Price of these new six cores are just THAT good.We will see if intel responds to that.Would be nice.
And all the logic draws me to a conclusion that they should be doing 4ghz on high end AIR.So single core performance is gonna be DECENT, and multicore is gonna be on par with 4 cored nehalems.I never claimed that phenoms are overally faster.Theyre smaller and weaker.Its that there are more of them

[Oliverda]

Guys, let's cut the Intel vs AMD debates please.

Intel is substantially faster than AMD clock for clock, this isn't news.

Why is this chip interesting? Because it potentially offers an inexpensive true 6 core solution, that will hopefully overclock similarly to current quad core offerings from AMD. This represents a good bang for buck in multi-threaded apps.

Everyone should be able to appreciate that, no matter what camp your in. People who game with Intel rigs, this new hexacore could make a great crunching/workstation for you, as less cost than your i7 920 ran you brand new.

You have nicely summed up the essence.


(Btw it's very funny when the fanboys talk about fanboyism.)

[Hornet331]

In properly cooled enviroment this cpu never works at 2.66ghz.2.8Ghz four cores or 3.2ghz for 2-1core load.

One or two core only loads never happen in the windows environemt, so basically any higher multi then +x1 will not apply under normal stock conditions.

I forsee the same limitation for amds trubo implementation as long as the windows task scheduler doesn't gets smarter.

[-Sweeper_]

How ? I never claimed that i965 was faster in these benchmarks.
It aint.Nehalem architecture is very potent.I was just saying that the difference isnt THAT pronounced as previous poster claimed .
i5 750 however is gonna be put against a 1055T, and from where i stand, for people like me who multitask heavy ,the 1055T will be a better pick.Putting aside the fact that i wont have to change mb, ram.Price of these new six cores are just THAT good.We will see if intel responds to that.Would be nice.
And all the logic draws me to a conclusion that they should be doing 4ghz on high end AIR.So single core performance is gonna be DECENT, and multicore is gonna be on par with 4 cored nehalems.I never claimed that phenoms are overally faster.Theyre smaller and weaker.Its that there are more of them

thats for sure, they will be very competitive in MT.
the thing is, i5/i7 might still have the edge in less threaded apps, of course turbo will make the gap smaller...

[-Sweeper_]

dream on

3Ghz Bloomfield should be around 3.3-3.4 Ghz Deneb only

In your dreams fanboy

yeah

[PaganII]

It is sooo funny watching people argue over product they don't even own ha ha.

[FlanK3r]

sweeper:
here is for u a bit reviews for basic comparsion (believe me, 1-2 review one product is not objective for conclucsion)
extrahardware forum

[STaRGaZeR]

snip

Your post is again full of I don't notice, I don't think, I can't see, I call BS... that's fine, nobody here is saying you must see those things. You can have your opinion, we all have one. But the facts are facts, and in some of your opinions you're going against facts. Benchmarks of real world scenarios prove that you don't need to run low settings to have higher fps on Intel CPUs in real games. I'm telling you I don't need to read any review to notice the same thing. You choose for whatever reason not to believe any of this. That's an opinion against a fact. If you want to go against facts go ahead, but I'll stop now because I don't like doing that.
60fps enough for the eyes? Oh noes, not the 60Hz stuff again. Yes, movies are shot at 24fps, that's why they stutter like if there were no tomorrow.

100% of consumers need the competition AMD brings, maybe that statement isn't so absurd?

Of course, but he wasn't talking about that. He said people need AMD cheap processors as if people need low end CPUs. While that's true, people don't need X or Y brand, they "need" what the stupid guy at the shop tells them is the fastest option for the money they want to spend.

Didn't you hear about the investigations against Intel for the illegal tricks to prevent AMD gaining marketshare?
And so those people usually get Intel from many vendors, for some reason...

Of course I heard about them, but no court is going to make AMD gain 60% market share, they're currently at 80%-20%. That's work for the marketing department, something AMD lacks in since forever. Everybody knows about Intel, Pentium, etc. You ask them about AMD, and usually the answer is: what's AMD? A new Chinese car maker?

[OhNoes!]

thats for sure, they will be very competitive in MT.
the thing is, i5/i7 might still have the edge in less threaded apps, of course turbo will make the gap smaller...

Pardon my ignorance, but how aggressive is the purported turbo mode for these chips? Would it exceed 3.4GHZ, and across how many cores? Taking a cue from the benchmarks posted above, anything around 3.4GHZ is not going to beat the i5 750. It'll take slightly more to be on par, and significantly higher to actually beat it convincingly.

I feel unless your life depends on heavy multitasking, or you work with a heavily multithreaded application that is actually capable of utilizing all cores @ 100%, this processor is not for you.

This processor would be suitable for WCG, F@H, x264 Encoding, etc. And that's for those already on the AMD platform. People on Intel platform already have this performance with the i5, i7 quads. It'll be interesting to see how much PPDs this chip can achieve vs. the 8 threads of Nehalem in WCG.

[chew*]

Out of curiosity why how did a News section Launch date reveal of 6 core AMD chips become a discussion about 1156?



My 2c..... gulftown had its launch.......let thuban have its now.......