AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Benched

Hopefully anand will have a review out soon, i need a chart to properly see the comparison.

Currently the 1055t looks after an overclock and a few more volts looks to be somewhere ahead of the intel i7 860, so if the price is right then it's a winner.
 
Hopefully anand will have a review out soon, i need a chart to properly see the comparison.

Currently the 1055t looks after an overclock and a few more volts looks to be somewhere ahead of the intel i7 860, so if the price is right then it's a winner.

I'm not sure how you can call it a win when you have to overclock a 6-core cpu to come out just barely faster than an existing 4-core. Sounds kinda like a massive lose to me.
 
Yeah, I really want to see a legit review so I can pass a proper judgment.
 
I'm not sure how you can call it a win when you have to overclock a 6-core cpu to come out just barely faster than an existing 4-core. Sounds kinda like a massive lose to me.

Massive win, save a ton of money going the amd route and still be up to speed.
 
I'm not sure how you can call it a win when you have to overclock a 6-core cpu to come out just barely faster than an existing 4-core. Sounds kinda like a massive lose to me.

AMD owners for the most part have purchased an AMD because they have no need to spend money for the speed of something like the Gulftown. AMD enthusiasts buy AMD because we want to know that we are getting the best value on the market possible. In a game, it isn't a big issue as most games are heavily GPU limited anyway. Then there are AMD enthusiasts like me who buy AMD simply because we refuse to buy Intel. If AMD went under, Intel could return to the old days where they could charge near monopoly prices once again. Notice that Intel got serious only after getting their asses whupped by AMD for a few years where AMD had the top stuff.
 
The review used onboard graphics, so platform performance is somewhat reduced. Keep that in mind.
 
AMD owners for the most part have purchased an AMD because they have no need to spend money for the speed of something like the Gulftown. AMD enthusiasts buy AMD because we want to know that we are getting the best value on the market possible. In a game, it isn't a big issue as most games are heavily GPU limited anyway. Then there are AMD enthusiasts like me who buy AMD simply because we refuse to buy Intel. If AMD went under, Intel could return to the old days where they could charge near monopoly prices once again. Notice that Intel got serious only after getting their asses whupped by AMD for a few years where AMD had the top stuff.

this
 
the numbers look decent.. but i want to see a real review with shit i can actually read.. not just a bunch of numbers from synthetic benchmarks that tell you nothing in the real world..
 
Yeah, I would personally wait for the official benches to come out, not some crappy looking review that may or may not be legitimate. I can't even read the processor label, what's up with that?
 
come on anand

Am i right in thinking that review sites often have to wait till a certain time before they can put their reviews up? which kinda explains why often many sites all have their reviews up at the same time.
 
come on anand

Am i right in thinking that review sites often have to wait till a certain time before they can put their reviews up? which kinda explains why often many sites all have their reviews up at the same time.

your probably right :p its called an NDA(Non Disclosure Agreement....they throw it up above the day and you get yourself a nice fat lawsuit for breaking the NDA)
 
your probably right :p its called an NDA(Non Disclosure Agreement....they throw it up above the day and you get yourself a nice fat lawsuit for breaking the NDA)

I doubt that these manufacturers like AMD or ATI will file a lawsuit for a reviewer breaking an NDA, but that doesn't mean there arn't other ways to punish the reviewer. For instance they can pull advertising dollars out of that site, or they can punish them by not giving them future stuff to review and so on.
 
I doubt that these manufacturers like AMD or ATI will file a lawsuit for a reviewer breaking an NDA, but that doesn't mean there arn't other ways to punish the reviewer. For instance they can pull advertising dollars out of that site, or they can punish them by not giving them future stuff to review and so on.
aka what happened to Charlie and nvidia. Charlie became pissed about this and is now very vehemently anti nvidia.
 
I doubt that these manufacturers like AMD or ATI will file a lawsuit for a reviewer breaking an NDA, but that doesn't mean there arn't other ways to punish the reviewer. For instance they can pull advertising dollars out of that site, or they can punish them by not giving them future stuff to review and so on.

it twas a joke :p i dont think any company would sue unless actual damages occur(something that probably cant happen other than lost sales if the chip is a downer)
 
AMD owners for the most part have purchased an AMD because they have no need to spend money for the speed of something like the Gulftown. AMD enthusiasts buy AMD because we want to know that we are getting the best value on the market possible. In a game, it isn't a big issue as most games are heavily GPU limited anyway. Then there are AMD enthusiasts like me who buy AMD simply because we refuse to buy Intel. If AMD went under, Intel could return to the old days where they could charge near monopoly prices once again. Notice that Intel got serious only after getting their asses whupped by AMD for a few years where AMD had the top stuff.

I'll have to disagree on the better price for performance bit.

Take, for instance, the Phenom II 965 and 955 and the Intel i7 860 and i5 750.

Lets sort them by price in decreasing order from left to right, then by performance below:

Price:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955

Performance:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955


AMD will have to believe the chart looks a little more like this:

Price:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955

Performance:
i7 860 > Phenom II 965 ≥ i5 750 ≥ Phenom II 955

I'm all for competition, and I agree with that part of your statement that competition drives the prices down. I also fully applaud your admittance of being a fanboi. Most freak out over that term and would take great offense were they to be called by it.

I hate doing less with more. I'd rather do more with less.
 
I'll have to disagree on the better price for performance bit.

Take, for instance, the Phenom II 965 and 955 and the Intel i7 860 and i5 750.

Lets sort them by price in decreasing order from left to right, then by performance below:

Price:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955

Performance:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955


AMD will have to believe the chart looks a little more like this:

Price:
i7 860 > i5 750 > Phenom II 965 > Phenom II 955

Performance:
i7 860 > Phenom II 965 ≥ i5 750 ≥ Phenom II 955

I'm all for competition, and I agree with that part of your statement that competition drives the prices down. I also fully applaud your admittance of being a fanboi. Most freak out over that term and would take great offense were they to be called by it.

I hate doing less with more. I'd rather do more with less.
Now while AMD may not always be the best value for enthusiast systems, you can't argue with the great bargain and performance you get out of the Athlon II line. With an Athlon II (dual,triple or quad) you get performance that will trump Intel's offerings of the same price range. To say that AMD isn't going to give you more performance for your money is virtually false.
 
Plus, usually, the platform (mobo and cpu) will generally cost less with AMD. Now, I'm not foolish enough to know that there aren't some very expensive AMD mobo's but usually the run of the mill AMD based mobo's with decent features will cost less than comparable Intel unit, generally speaking.
 
Now while AMD may not always be the best value for enthusiast systems, you can't argue with the great bargain and performance you get out of the Athlon II line. With an Athlon II (dual,triple or quad) you get performance that will trump Intel's offerings of the same price range. To say that AMD isn't going to give you more performance for your money is virtually false.

While the Athlon II line is decent in it's prices, when you look at the performance/price, I'd be surprised if you'd find more than a $5 difference.
 
While the Athlon II line is decent in it's prices, when you look at the performance/price, I'd be surprised if you'd find more than a $5 difference.
OK, but the fact that you can get a quad core for $99 is still amazing since the Intel Quads that come close in terms of price (Q8300 for $150) can barely match and sometimes get beaten by the Athlon II X4. Besides, you now as well as I that a $70 Intel mobo will not be nearly as good as a $70 AMD one (especially when considering socket-type). Plus, you can't also forget some Athlon II X2s beating more expensive C2Ds in some benchmarks.
 
Freq : 6292.46 MHz (242.02 * 26)

:eek:

WTF sauce....I haven't been keeping up on the AMD CPU world, but this has got to be on Dry Ice, phase change, or something.....

i think the last chip I remember getting a 100% air cooled overclock on was a 1700+ (Mine wasn't stable @ stock speeds after being overclocked for so long, but still ran perfectly stable overclocked....go figure.)
 
valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1132113
That's crazy. I'm guessing that's possible with some serious cooling along with AMD's turbo technology. I wonder what kind of OC we could see with a mainstream air cooler.
 
Freq : 6292.46 MHz (242.02 * 26)

:eek:

WTF sauce....I haven't been keeping up on the AMD CPU world, but this has got to be on Dry Ice, phase change, or something.....

i think the last chip I remember getting a 100% air cooled overclock on was a 1700+ (Mine wasn't stable @ stock speeds after being overclocked for so long, but still ran perfectly stable overclocked....go figure.)


its LN2 that's like 100mhz slower then the record overclock on a phenom II 955 on LN2.. record is like 7ghz or something on liquid helium..
 
OK, but the fact that you can get a quad core for $99 is still amazing since the Intel Quads that come close in terms of price (Q8300 for $150) can barely match and sometimes get beaten by the Athlon II X4. Besides, you now as well as I that a $70 Intel mobo will not be nearly as good as a $70 AMD one (especially when considering socket-type). Plus, you can't also forget some Athlon II X2s beating more expensive C2Ds in some benchmarks.

Nevermind, after some more digging, I found that the quad athlon ii's did beat the low-end C2Q's in price and performance. Good for AMD!
 
Last edited:
people get so hung up on benchmarks. like "omg, the intel is 6 fps better than the amd" but it's $$ more.
 
I will be going from a 6400+ to the 1090T so I should see a Nice jump in performance.
 
I will be going from a 6400+ to the 1090T so I should see a Nice jump in performance.

a HUGE jump.. when i went from my 6400+ to my phenom II x4 940 it was a huge change.. i just recently killed the board in my 940 system and went back to my 6400+ and now im friggin pulling my hair out because this systems so damn slow!


people get so hung up on benchmarks. like "omg, the intel is 6 fps better than the amd" but it's $$ more.


its the never ending war of fanboyism and people that can never be happy with what others can actually afford..
 
lol 3.2GHz dual-core athlon64 to 3.2GHz six-core PhenomII, i'd say so.
 
lol 3.2GHz dual-core athlon64 to 3.2GHz six-core PhenomII, i'd say so.

even just that if you compared a single threaded app between processors the architecture from the phenom II compared to the athlon x2 in its own right is a huge difference in performance.. my 940 even at 3ghz with a single threaded app walked all over my 6400+.. the athlon x2 architecture was a friggin joke..
 
people get so hung up on benchmarks. like "omg, the intel is 6 fps better than the amd" but it's $$ more.

Well in this case, if the pricing in that other thread is right, the AMD chip will cost 10-15% more than an i7, and provide about the same performance.

Add in the differential in cost of mobo, it's basically a wash. But its matching performance that could be had for the same price a while back.

This is all of course assuming the numbers for performance and price are as they've shown up so far.
 
using an AM3 board, performance should go up on these VS Phenom 2 X4 at stock clocks, since it has the new "turbo" feature =P
 
Yes these should perform better than x4 processors at the same clock at single threaded and even highly threaded applications.

John
 
I will be going from a 6400+ to the 1090T so I should see a Nice jump in performance.

I made a similar move from a 6400 to a x3 720.....very nice boost in performance and then the jump from that to a 965 wasnt too bad either.

What you guys think....worth selling off a P2 965 for a 1090T?
 
I made a similar move from a 6400 to a x3 720.....very nice boost in performance and then the jump from that to a 965 wasnt too bad either.

What you guys think....worth selling off a P2 965 for a 1090T?


really depends on what you do.. if you are taking advantage of your 965 and its not enough for what you do then yes upgrading to the 1090T would be a smart choice.. but if all your doing is playing a couple games and browsing the web then no not really..
 
Back
Top