AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 95W

[Dainas]

X6-1055T ($200) = i7-930 ($290) > i5-750 ($200)

I can personally tell you thats about it. I love my 930, but my 1055t has proven itself a real gem in the short time I've used it.

1055t + a plethora overclock happy 790fx motherboards available for around $80 or less=enthusiast budget dream.

[MrMojoZ]

If VIA gets as much sympathy as AMD does, they may overtake AMD.

If you are so upset about people liking AMD, maybe you are in the wrong thread? Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?

[OhNoes!]

Mojo strikes again.

[MrMojoZ]

Mojo strikes again.

And you didn't once again jump into an AMD thread to tell everyone how awesome Intel is? You can dump on threads all you want, mods don't care, but but don't be a hypocrite when you get called out on it.

[OhNoes!]

And you didn't once again jump into an AMD thread to tell everyone how awesome Intel is? You can dump on threads all you want, mods don't care, but but don't be a hypocrite when you get called out on it.

Define "dump," hell, quote me.

[MrMojoZ]

If VIA gets as much sympathy as AMD does, they may overtake AMD.

Posting this in a thread that was created to talk about a new AMD chip is an attempt to turn the thread into a fanboy garbage dumping ground. Why not leave this kinda crap at the door? Is that too much to ask?

[OhNoes!]

Posting this in a thread that was created to talk about a new AMD chip is an attempt to turn the thread into a fanboy garbage dumping ground. Why not leave this kinda crap at the door? Is that too much to ask?

It may help to bring your sense of humor with you into a forum. As it stands you seem a little too tight, sensitive, and defensive about "AMD Threads." Relax dude, it's just hardware. I could quote you funnier stuff from 'Intel threads' from pro AMD posters.

[informal]

We even have an i7 930 user(Danias,top of the page) who just loves his 1055T,how's that for a review ?

[OhNoes!]

We even have an i7 930 user(Danias,top of the page) who just loves his 1055T,how's that for a review ?

No, he "loves" his 930. Read it again.

[informal]

No, he "loves" his 930. Read it again.

Well I think that something being a real gem is even better then loving something else?
He even wrote it in such a way(I have this and it's great but i got this other thing and it's awesome)

[Macadamia]

Mojo strikes again.

Aww poor you

[OhNoes!]

Aww poor you

HAHAHA! You made me laugh so hard. You're very funny!

[Sn0wm@n]

Define "dump," hell, quote me.

when you do a number 2 on a thread

[stangracin3]

i could have swore ohnoes was told by movieman or another admin to stay out of amd threads

[pokipoki]

i could have swore ohnoes was told by movieman or another admin to stay out of amd threads

time to get booted!

[Unoid]

HAHAHA! You made me laugh so hard. You're very funny!

This poster seems like a real

[savantu]

The total die size mostly depends on the L3 sram cell size and intel (currently) reigns supreme here. Core logic die area in Nehalem is vastly larger than that one in Shanghai,but still Shanghai does not have 60% less performance than comparable Nehalem chip(the advantage varies and is between 20 to 25% ,on average,depending on the workload selection). Nehalem does have 3ch. IMC which is clearly advantage for server workloads.AMD dealt with this advantage when they transitioned to Opteron 6000 series.

I can find you dozens of industry standard benchmarks where Nehalem has close to 2x if not more the core performance of a Shanghai core. And in the end, that's what really matters. Purchase decisions are based on that, not on games. Good luck with corporate buyers selling them game performance.

how is core size not relevant? the process of the cache is vastly different and very space consuming for AMD. if they used the same method Intel did would you still be able to use "theyre the same size" argument?

All that matters is die size. That translates into $. You save some mm^2 on the core and lose on cache or the other way around, it doesn't matter if the end results are similar and one performs much better than the other.

Please explain what you mean by this, because in the end, it not only takes more space, but is slower.

[Dainas]

Well I think that something being a real gem is even better then loving something else?
He even wrote it in such a way(I have this and it's great but i got this other thing and it's awesome)

Well P55 is simply not an overclockers platform unless you spend soo much on the motherboard you'd be better served with an X58. Also patience for finicky stability is a must as what's linx/prime stable today most likely will not be tomorrow after a cold boot. Being that Intel is shoving even more onto the cpu package with P65 it will be worse if anything.

Because of that added with far better motherboards for the money AMDs effort are the only one to consider at the $200 mark. Better stepping is just icing on the cake. Core i7 1366 is godly, without peer and finally we can buy pride worthy X58's for under $200, but it cost as it should.

Yeah so not really an AMD fan. Back in the k7, k8 and p4 days I really did not have a choice. Intel was a joke trying to hide their true prodigy (p3 architecture) from the masses in favor of the ugly princess netburst. However it was a no brainer to ditch AMD when Core 2 came out and me being a 939 owner, was left needing to start anew anyways. Every build i do for people with 'budget' and gaming is all AMD/ATI though, with the odd G97 thrown in time to time.

[ridney]

All that matters is die size. That translates into $. You save some mm^2 on the core and lose on cache or the other way around, it doesn't matter if the end results are similar and one performs much better than the other.

here's what JF had to say about this matter, he explains it very clear and quite convincingly

Well, if you are going to go down that path, where do you stop? What about profit per wafer? You get significantly more profit out of a MC wafer than you do an atom wafer for instance. Or any of the other intel client wafers. So by that logic, is intel making a mistake by making those parts? Absolutely not.

In the fab business you maximize your revenue based on getting more wafer starts, driving down your cost per wafer and by driving more revenue per wafer.

In reality, the number of server wafers vs. client wafers probably makes this a moot point for both intel and AMD.

Take Intanium for instance. Higher wafer cost (lower yield because that product is behind the process curve), higher development costs because it is a more expensive product to build and support with much lower volumes.

I can guarantee you that if you look at the true (fully burdened) cost of building an Itanium that sells for $1500 and an Opteron that sells for $500, that we are most likely making far more profit on the Opteron. They might make more revenue, but their costs are going to be a lot higher.

Then take the xeon line in general. 3000, 5000, 7000. Three different products to develop. Three sets of R&D. Three dies. Three sets of masks. Thress sets of different testers (one for each socket.) Three pieces of silicon to manage both in process and finished goods.

Then look at Opteron. 4000, 6000. A single die to manage. A single die that I can hold in the manufacturing process until the end to determine which product it goes in. You do realize that from die to finished good is only ~2 weeks. So by utilizing the same die, I can make a lot of final inventory decisions ~2 weeks before the product needs to be in a customers' hands. With 3 different discrete parts, all Xeon choices need to be made ~13 weeks ahead at the start of the process.

One die to develop. One die to manage. One die to process. And only 2 sets of testers. Inventory to minimum, cost to a minimum.

If you look at per die cost, you could argue that intel has an advantage because of the die size.

But if you want to look at fully burdened cost, our costs are a lot lower to get the Opeteron product to the streets than it is for Intel to get the Xeon product to the street. Every time someone argues that intel has "10X the resources of AMD" they are helping make the argument, because resources don't work for free - I know I don't and I am pretty sure everyone reading this wants to be paid for their work (and probably wants to be paid more.) Die cost is only one dimension of the total cost equation and as long as you don't look at the full picture, you will never see the actual impact.

We were able to compress the pricing and remove the 4P tax because of those efficiencies I just talked about. And while a lot of the intel fans seem to think that paying more for a product is a priviledge, when you sit down across from a real live paying customer, they disagree. Believe it or not, they actually appreciate paying less.

[OhNoes!]

i could have swore ohnoes was told by movieman or another admin to stay out of amd threads

Dude, you dreamed it. Nice try though, trying to involve an admin to boot the other guy. Genius plan! I'm sure the admins are watching this thread like hawks.

[flopper]

Well P55 is simply not an overclockers platform unless you spend soo much on the motherboard you'd be better served with an X58. Also patience for finicky stability is a must as what's linx/prime stable today most likely will not be tomorrow after a cold boot. Being that Intel is shoving even more onto the cpu package with P65 it will be worse if anything.

Because of that added with far better motherboards for the money AMDs effort are the only one to consider at the $200 mark. Better stepping is just icing on the cake. Core i7 1366 is godly, without peer and finally we can buy pride worthy X58's for under $200, but it cost as it should.

Yeah so not really an AMD fan. Back in the k7, k8 and p4 days I really did not have a choice. Intel was a joke trying to hide their true prodigy (p3 architecture) from the masses in favor of the ugly princess netburst. However it was a no brainer to ditch AMD when Core 2 came out and me being a 939 owner, was left needing to start anew anyways. Every build i do for people with 'budget' and gaming is all AMD/ATI though, with the odd G97 thrown in time to time.

and when you have enough horsepower, you buy for fun.
I been sitting with same friggin cpu and motherboard for soon 2 years, and there is no upgrades in sight, for any reasonable price.

so I go, maybe a 6 core amd with a smooth cheap overclockable motherboard is the fun again.
black edition, sexy, 6 cores and if I sell my current setup I guess I get money over.

[alpha0ne]

I might buy one of the 95W core 1055T's if I can find one in AU, looks like a likely upgrade path from my Q9550

[Sn0wm@n]

great usage of the quote feature ridney

[savantu]

here's what JF had to say about this matter, he explains it very clear and quite convincingly

Fair enough. Let me try to address some of the point he raised :

Well, if you are going to go down that path, where do you stop? What about profit per wafer? You get significantly more profit out of a MC wafer than you do an atom wafer for instance. Or any of the other intel client wafers. So by that logic, is intel making a mistake by making those parts? Absolutely not.

Intel gets something like 2500 Atom dies per wafer and sells them with $36 on average ( wild guess ); that's $90k revenue and $6k wafer costs.

AMD gets 150 Istanbul dies ( wild guess ) and sells them for $300-400 on average ( if they go into servers, otherwise it's half that ). $60k revenue and $7-8k wafer cost.

Am I missing something here?

In the fab business you maximize your revenue based on getting more wafer starts, driving down your cost per wafer and by driving more revenue per wafer.

In reality, the number of server wafers vs. client wafers probably makes this a moot point for both intel and AMD.

Take Intanium for instance. Higher wafer cost (lower yield because that product is behind the process curve), higher development costs because it is a more expensive product to build and support with much lower volumes.

I can guarantee you that if you look at the true (fully burdened) cost of building an Itanium that sells for $1500 and an Opteron that sells for $500, that we are most likely making far more profit on the Opteron. They might make more revenue, but their costs are going to be a lot higher.

Being behind on the process curve, means it's using a fully amortized FAB, on a fully mature process with maximum yield for its size class. But, the average ASP for Itanium is around $2k, while for Opteron is probably around $300 if not less. ( it was $400 back in 2006 when they were King of the Hill and had parts priced at over $1800 ).
I agree that the developments costs for Itanium are far higher and this will impact the profit ( if they are making any ).

Then take the xeon line in general. 3000, 5000, 7000. Three different products to develop. Three sets of R&D. Three dies. Three sets of masks. Thress sets of different testers (one for each socket.) Three pieces of silicon to manage both in process and finished goods.

3000 and 5000 are identical; so it's only 2 sets for dies.
Yet, the 7000s command a huge premium over the 3/5000. Intel's Xeon MP always had a different die ( more cache, more RAS, scaling add-ons ). If you target the high end, you need to differentiate from the masses.
Who wants to replace their SUN servers with machines that have the RAS level of desktops ( ok, add ECC ) ?

Some will and it will work; but some will get burned like at the London Stock Exchange.

Then look at Opteron. 4000, 6000. A single die to manage. A single die that I can hold in the manufacturing process until the end to determine which product it goes in. You do realize that from die to finished good is only ~2 weeks. So by utilizing the same die, I can make a lot of final inventory decisions ~2 weeks before the product needs to be in a customers' hands. With 3 different discrete parts, all Xeon choices need to be made ~13 weeks ahead at the start of the process.

One die to develop. One die to manage. One die to process. And only 2 sets of testers. Inventory to minimum, cost to a minimum.

If you look at per die cost, you could argue that intel has an advantage because of the die size.

But if you want to look at fully burdened cost, our costs are a lot lower to get the Opeteron product to the streets than it is for Intel to get the Xeon product to the street. Every time someone argues that intel has "10X the resources of AMD" they are helping make the argument, because resources don't work for free - I know I don't and I am pretty sure everyone reading this wants to be paid for their work (and probably wants to be paid more.) Die cost is only one dimension of the total cost equation and as long as you don't look at the full picture, you will never see the actual impact.

All is very true and this is the optimum road for AMD, but...

We were able to compress the pricing and remove the 4P tax because of those efficiencies I just talked about. And while a lot of the intel fans seem to think that paying more for a product is a priviledge, when you sit down across from a real live paying customer, they disagree. Believe it or not, they actually appreciate paying less.

Why isn't this reflected in the margins? One size fits all has limits and this are painfully obvious when we look at the benchmark scores and the product prices. AMD priced them at the level where they are competitive, not because they care so much for customers pockets. unless you've become a non-profit organization and we don't know that. It's nice to talk about value to customer, but product price is just one of the variables in calculating a solution cost.
And the market simply doesn't show any gains for AMD in the server segment. How do you explain that ? When Opteron really kicked ass, the market share exploded. Now, Intel is making inroads with products priced 2-3x higher. Intel isn't Apple, so if people are paying more, it means they calculated they are getting more value ( performance/price).

To sum it up, I agree with JF about the benefits of having a single die across multiple product ranges, but the benefits are in this case out-weight by the inferior performance which they need to compensate by throwing silicon at the problem and lowering prices ( It means I disagree they reduced the 4P tax and prices overall out of generosity for the customer, as he nicely wraps it in PR talk ).

[Manicdan]

All that matters is die size. That translates into $. You save some mm^2 on the core and lose on cache or the other way around, it doesn't matter if the end results are similar and one performs much better than the other.

Please explain what you mean by this, because in the end, it not only takes more space, but is slower.

grats for clearly missing the point, i even explained it to you perfectly but you decided to ignore that part of my post.

you took a discussion going over the extra die space to add the second thread per core by intel, and turned it right back into an argument about comparing companies again.