Retail Phenom II X6 1055T "TurboCore" preview

[saaya]

http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8

no software required, no bios update required... it just adjust the multiplier based on how many cores are loaded... same as intel it seems, cool
i wonder if itll drop out of turbo mode if current draw or temps are too high like intel chips... they didnt test that so far...

[haylui]

expreview
i prefer the non translated version
lolz

[richierich]

Voltage jumps pretty high when in single-core turbo mode.

[duploxxx]

Voltage jumps pretty high when in single-core turbo mode.

or cpu-z doesn't read correct to start with or they modified the bios, no accurate up-to-date bios..... a bit to soon for conclusions i think

[Manicdan]

Core VID is not actual voltage applied, even AMDs own Overdrive likes to show VID instead of actual voltage in many places. HOWEVER odd enough, if you see i think "VCore", then CPUz is reading the right voltage. i cant understand it, but for me, half the time i start up CPUz, it shows one or the other, but its always correct, its just a question of if its reading what we want to see, lol

[ajaidev]

Very nice implementation

Seems it scored close to i7 860 which is very positive news, this will score above i7 920 for sure but with the i7 930 it will be close...
In general Lynnfield does not perform as well as a Bloomfield clock 2 clock, given that $10 separate i7 930 and i7 860 its a easy choice.

I5 750 vs 1035T will be great and epic fight and i dont think that the i5 750 will survive because with no HT it cant really do that good in bench's....!!!

[Oliverda]

[QUOTE=ajaidev;4335978]
Seems it scored close to i7 860 which is very positive news, this will score above i7 920 for sure but with the i7 930 it will be close...
In general Lynnfield does not perform as well as a Bloomfield clock 2 clock,[QUOTE]

[saaya]

Voltage jumps pretty high when in single-core turbo mode.

from 1.4000 to 1.475v is a big jump?

[ajaidev]

1055T on XS

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/....php?p=4335871

[QUOTE=Oliverda;4335996][QUOTE=ajaidev;4335978]
Seems it scored close to i7 860 which is very positive news, this will score above i7 920 for sure but with the i7 930 it will be close...
In general Lynnfield does not perform as well as a Bloomfield clock 2 clock,

Yep seems the i7 920 is out of the picture and since the 1055T is suppose to cost quite a bit less than $300 this is great.

i7 930 is its main enemy but its priced at $290-$300 where the 1090T will be so this is great. I am sure that a 1090T will beat the crap out of i7 930 due to the clock difference and the closed thing to that clock speed is the i7 870 and the i7 950 which are for $550 and $570.

This is gonna be a very interesting/Bloodbath if the rumored prices are true "1090T for $300, etc"

[ajaidev]

Here is 1055T vs 1090T





As i said above i7 870 and the i7 950 which are for $550 and $570.

[informal]

1090T score in C11.5 shows some odd scaling going from 2.8Ghz model,only 6% difference while the clock difference is double of that percentage wise. Could be some bios issue with CnQ

[OhNoes!]

from 1.4000 to 1.475v is a big jump?

It seems everytime I check back, something new pops up about turbo core that makes it seem rushed and poorly implemented. The biggest deal-breaker (IF TRUE; check out "Turbo CORE 101" thread) is that during turbo boost, all the idle cores are still sucking the same juice as active cores! That's dropping the ball right there! That means even in single core turbo situations, 5 idle cores would be sucking as much as 1.5v+ while doing nothing.

IF ALL THESE TURN OUT TO BE TRUE, then, IMHO AMD should not have implemented turbo in the first place. It makes them look more like amateurish copycats who would rush a badly implemented feature to market just to score some few benchmarking points. The x6 line is already a very good bargain (compared to Intel offerings) without the Turbo CORE feature! And why not just call it Turbo Boost? I mean the cores are boosted during this stage and not CORED or anything Regardless of nomenclature, I'm sure Intel still gets to collect their tax. So all in all, very tax-unfriendly, and environmentally unfriendly implementation. But I'd still get it for a dedicated encoding system, unless Intel brings an affordable hexacores to market some time soon.

[informal]

The cannot suck "the same juice as the active cores" since they run at 800Mhz... The power draw of those idle cores with turboed Vcore will be very small. The cores won't do anything,they are called idle for a reason

[ajaidev]

It seems everytime I check back, something new pops up about turbo core that makes it seem rushed and poorly implemented. The biggest deal-breaker (IF TRUE; check out "Turbo CORE 101" thread) is that during turbo boost, all the idle cores are still sucking the same juice as active cores! That's dropping the ball right there! That means even in single core turbo situations, 5 idle cores would be sucking as much as 1.5v+ while doing nothing.

IF ALL THESE TURN OUT TO BE TRUE, then, IMHO AMD should not have implemented turbo in the first place. It makes them look more like amateurish copycats who would rush a badly implemented feature to market just to score some few benchmarking points. The x6 line is already a very good bargain (compared to Intel offerings) without the Turbo CORE feature! And why not just call it Turbo Boost? I mean the cores are boosted during this stage and not CORED or anything Regardless of nomenclature, I'm sure Intel still gets to collect their tax. So all in all, very tax-unfriendly, and environmentally unfriendly implementation. But I'd still get it for a dedicated encoding system, unless Intel brings an affordable hexacores to market some time soon.

They dont really suck the same amount to power. Their speed is lowered a lot and are in idle mode. The 1.475v is for all the core 3 idle and 3 in turbo that does not mean that the idle ones will eat the same amount of juice as the turbo once because there is no way in hell AMD could have fit that situation in the TDP listed....

[OhNoes!]

The cannot suck "the same juice as the active cores" since they run at 800Mhz... The power draw of those idle cores with turboed Vcore will be very small. The cores won't do anything,they are called idle for a reason

You can rolleyes all you want, but I'm bringing up something you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Also, looking at your posting history, I wouldn't take anything you say or believe about hardware seriously. Since you have in the near past gloated openly over Dresdenboy's blogs and 'findings' here is something he posted in the "Turbo CORE 101" thread with regard to Turbo CORE implementation in THUBAN:

I made a calculation to find out, how this might work. See
http://citavia.blog.de/2010/04/12/tu...cking-8353947/

The problem is, that the turbo mode voltage will be applied to all cores if turbo mode is engaged.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=119

What says you to that?

[Gilgamesh]

Here is 1055T vs 1090T

64bit test (1055T on 890GX and supported bios from expreview.com) vs 32bit (1090T on 790gx and unsupported bios from Coolaler's forum)

[ryboto]

You can rolleyes all you want, but I'm bringing up something you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Also, looking at your posting history, I wouldn't take anything you say or believe about hardware seriously. Since you have in the near past gloated openly over Dresdenboy's blogs and 'findings' here is something he posted in the "Turbo CORE 101" thread with regard to Turbo CORE implementation in THUBAN:



http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=119

What says you to that?

Informal isn't ignoring that, he understands it. He's being pretty clear, maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension? The idle cores are IDLE. Test it yourself. Idle your CPU. Then increase the voltage, and let it idle. You wont see much of a jump in power usage. It'll be even less pronounced at lower clockspeeds.

[kl0012]

The cannot suck "the same juice as the active cores" since they run at 800Mhz... The power draw of those idle cores with turboed Vcore will be very small. The cores won't do anything,they are called idle for a reason

It dosn't matter what freq they run at in idle. All the consumption is comming from a leakage. So it depends how well it leakage staedy since the power consumption is proportional to the square of voltage.

[OhNoes!]

Informal isn't ignoring that, he understands it. He's being pretty clear, maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension? The idle cores are IDLE. Test it yourself. Idle your CPU. Then increase the voltage, and let it idle. You wont see much of a jump in power usage. It'll be even less pronounced at lower clockspeeds.

Only it's not really idle, it's still eating power - power is NOT COMPLETELY SWITCHED OFF! Read the quote from Dresdenboy.... he clealy described it as a quote "problem." And what's so elegant about applying voltage across idle and turboed cores?

[ryboto]

Only it's not really idle, it's still eating power - power is NOT COMPLETELY SWITCHED OFF! Read the quote from Dresdenboy.... he clealy described it as a quote "problem."

since when does idle mean switched off?????? It's only a problem in the sense that Intel can power down the cores, and AMD can't at the moment. It's just a competitive problem.

[crazydiamond]

you guys give it up, the king has spoksen. OhNoes! says thuban is , then thuban must be .

[ryboto]

It dosn't matter what freq they run at in idle. All the consumption is comming from a leakage. So it depends how well it leakage staedy since the power consumption is proportional to the square of voltage.

It's proportional at a given frequency. When I undervolt my CPU at 1ghz, I only save 3-4W. When I undervolt at 3.0ghz, I save 10-15W. This isn't as big an issue as you guys want it to be. It doesn't best Intels power saving techniques, but the fact that even with turbo core enabled the CPU can remain under a 125W TDP is still impressive for 45nm.

[OhNoes!]

since when does idle mean switched off?????? It's only a problem in the sense that Intel can power down the cores, and AMD can't at the moment. It's just a competitive problem.

Switched off, powered down, what's the difference? The thing is the cores are not powered down (no power gating) and power could still be dissipated through leakage. Very inefficient and crude implementation at best.

you guys give it up, the king has spoksen. OhNoes! says thuban is , then thuban must be .

I have already said that the x6 line is good, and that they don't need turbo to compete. I guess fanboys like you are just averse to any type or form of criticism from any quarter. If even people like Dresdenboy think it's a problem, then why can't I say AMD could have done better without TC implementation at all, or improved the current implementation?

[informal]

kl0012 is correct that it's the leakage power that may be the problem,but with Thuban there should be some improvements when it comes to 45nm SOI process . What intel can do with Nehalem is power gating at the each core level which is better approach than AMD's (Llano and BD cores will have this next year though)

BTW OhNoes,nobody ever took you seriously ,with the last posts you just cemented that sentiment.

Informal isn't ignoring that, he understands it. He's being pretty clear, maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension? The idle cores are IDLE. Test it yourself. Idle your CPU. Then increase the voltage, and let it idle. You wont see much of a jump in power usage. It'll be even less pronounced at lower clockspeeds.

Well he somehow managed to not understand it... He may as well test it with his current system and see the difference himself.

[kl0012]

It's proportional at a given frequency.

Yep. It proportional to frequency too, but in idle when a core is in idle a frequency is less important since most of transistors dont switch. But the leakage is always proportional to the square of voltage. It just a physics (P = U^2/R).

This isn't as big an issue as you guys want it to be.

I didn't say it bad. I said it depends.