AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 95W

[poormanq45]

This annoys me. I bought a 1055t the day it came out(thank you tigerdirect rebate!). I am always for lower temperatures. The Thurban already runs very cool, but this thing will be even better!

the beta is working fine in my k9a2 plat, but i havnt tried any OCing yet, im using the stock cooling and dont want to mess with anything yet

I can validate this. I have a 1055t running on mine currently OC'd to 3.6GHz.

[informal]

Head out here for 95W 1055T tests done by PcCI2iminal .
How does it OC one might ask? Well,1.3V AND 4GHz in the same sentence should tell you all you need to know . Like someone else in that thread said,AMD silicon is just like a fine wine

[FlanK3r]

this is crazy, today il try test my 1090t with this voltage...

[wuttz]

AMD silicon is just like a fine whine

w/c begs the obvious Q.
is AMD process really second rate?
or is it just marketing spin.

[Aerwidh]

Head out here for 95W 1055T tests done by PcCI2iminal .
How does it OC one might ask? Well,1.3V AND 4GHz in the same sentence should tell you all you need to know . Like someone else in that thread said,AMD silicon is just like a fine whine

Not bad

[Chumbucket843]

w/c begs the obvious Q.
is AMD process really second rate?
or is it just marketing spin.

yes. IBM and intel are the best when it comes to process. just check out any IEEE symposium and see all of the cutting edge research they do. i am definitely not saying GloFo's fab's are not good but trying to beat intel in the game of process is a bad idea.

[Manicdan]

these 95W chips should put a massive dent in the perf/watt ratio of multithreaded benchmarks. they are actually damn near close to laptop efficiency with highend desktop power, for under 200$?

[pokipoki]

How do I identify the 95W version from the 125W version? Is there a code on the retail box where I can check for reference? I'm used to Intel cpus & always check at processorfinder.intel.com (it's ark.intel.com now)

Would like to know the equivalent site for AMD cpus and the codes for stepping and wattage. Thanks.

[crazydiamond]

looks like:

HDT55TFBGRBOX = 125w


HDT55TWFGRBOX = 95w

[Jaco]

AMD silicon is just like a fine whine

is that spelling mistake intentional ?

[informal]

Nope,just an accident,edited now .And you know that AMD's chips get better and better and better with time .

[Manicdan]

Nope,just an accident,edited now .And you know that AMD's chips get better and better and better with time .

it was a good pun, intel people love the idea that amd stuff gets better the more the fanbois cry

[Sn0wm@n]

yes guys i edited my whine to wine... LOLL i feel dumb now... :|

[wuttz]

yes. IBM and intel are the best when it comes to process. just check out any IEEE symposium and see all of the cutting edge research they do. i am definitely not saying GloFo's fab's are not good but trying to beat intel in the game of process is a bad idea.

oh did i reference/mention intel?
mighty defensive there. obviously, "better" for me has a different meaning than being on the cutting edge, and first everytime.

i wanna see a 980X at 95w..?

[Chumbucket843]

oh did i reference/mention intel?
mighty defensive there. obviously, "better" for me has a different meaning than being on the cutting edge, and first everytime.

you did not mention intel or ibm but they are the only ones ahead of AMD. some people view AMD as an underdog which is stupid. they are only underdogs to intel.

are you implying that intel's fabs are not designed to be cost effective? manufacturing costs are kept secret, there is no sure way to argue that fab costs for amd is lower. judging by gross profit margins intel sells their cpu's at a premium because they can.

i wanna see a 980X at 95w..?

sure you do.

back on topic. most of the efficiency gains are from dropping the clockspeeds down, not black magic like electromigration proof "silicon". process refinements play into things to but only from a yield aspect. performance gains over time from higher binning levels off very quickly(logarithmically).

[wuttz]

most of the efficiency gains are from dropping the clockspeeds down, not black magic like electromigration proof "silicon".

a quick overview of amd 45nm.

started with:
940, quad-core@3.0GHz, 125W.
now... 945, quad-core@3.0GHz, 95w.
[30W delta while maintaining core count + clocks]

then:
920, quad-core@2.8GHz, 125w.
now... 925, quad-core@2.8GHz, 95w.
but add two more cores, same clock speed;
= 1055t, six-cores@2.8GHz, 95w.
[add two more cores, but cut 30W while maintaining clocks]

amd has a different strategy when it comes to process tech.
they dont have to be first to a smaller node. it's not their style.
but they can tweak the helloutof SOI to produce AMAZING products.

for me, what they did w/ 45nm is unparalleled!
even bodes better for them next year.
imagine AMD with 32nm+SOI+LowK+HKMG+Bulldozer.

[crazydiamond]

back on topic. most of the efficiency gains are from dropping the clockspeeds down

first post about intel, then this nonsense about AMD that couldnt be farther from the truth?? typical direction of AMD news threads

[surfinhicdude]

amd has a different strategy when it comes to process tech.
they dont have to be first to a smaller node. it's not their style.
but they can tweak the helloutof SOI to produce AMAZING products.

for me, what they did w/ 45nm is unparalleled!
even bodes better for them next year.
imagine AMD with 32nm+SOI+LowK+HKMG+Bulldozer.

Yea, AMD continuously tweaks nearly everything. I remember reading something from an AMD rep about going from 130nm to 90nm. They had changed the 130nm chips so much since their launch that the power characteristics of a new 90nm and a late batch 130nm were really not much different. The only advantages of a smaller node was more potential for improvement and a smaller die.

[Clairvoyant129]

i wanna see a 980X at 95w..?

I'll rather take that than an AMD CPU that needs six physical cores with higher clock speeds to keep up Intel's four, thanks.

[Manicdan]

I'll rather take that than an AMD CPU that needs six physical cores with higher clock speeds to keep up Intel's four, thanks.

we would all like to thank you for bringing this up, it will be the end of this thread as we know it.

[informal]

Or intel needing 8 threads to compete with AMD's 6 .Glass half empty or half full anyone?

[stangracin3]

Or intel needing 8 threads to compete with AMD's 6 .Glass half empty or half full anyone?

+1

http://www.overclock.net/9247823-post13.html

looks like amd is winning...

[Chumbucket843]

this "it takes intel x to beat amd's y" has got to stop. the multicore war is worse than the megahertz war.

amd has a different strategy when it comes to process tech.
they dont have to be first to a smaller node. it's not their style.
but they can tweak the helloutof SOI to produce AMAZING products.

for me, what they did w/ 45nm is unparalleled!
even bodes better for them next year.
imagine AMD with 32nm+SOI+LowK+HKMG+Bulldozer.

i know they have done very well with their 45nm process. although there is a difference between physical design and process. all GloFo does is provide manufacturing capabilities with some design rules and possibly libraries for clients. AMD got used to 45nm node and then they designed their own faster, maybe smaller transistors and did some custom layout of critical circuits for maximum speed. most of these things are process specific due to how complex design rules have become, so much so that not one person knows all of the rules. fwiw i have scaling numbers from barcelona to llano. it seems that amd has continually gotten better at transitions.

first post about intel, then this nonsense about AMD that couldnt be farther from the truth?? typical direction of AMD news threads

flamebait? maybe you just dont like what i posted idk.

[OhNoes!]

Or intel needing 8 threads to compete with AMD's 6 .Glass half empty or half full anyone?

Intel doesn't create threads, software programs do! What prevents you from running 8 threads on your super efficient thuban? You wanna eat your cake and have it too? "Real cores are better than fake cores," except when it comes to performance tests and then "fake cores" are the real deal again. Simple, i7 quad-cores can render 8 threads, well, because they can.

[informal]

You think it's a fee lunch?Intel designed it that way and it costs die space.We have been over this 100x before. AMD's philosophy is to use more smaller cores while intel's is to use fewer big cores(one Nehalem core is 60% larger than one Shaghai core,is it 60% faster or as reality shows ~25% faster on average?).