Leaked Phenom II X6 1090T BE Benchmarks

[TheBlueChanell]

As a long-time AMD builder, I have to question the ultimate value at this point... I just built a new system around an i7-930 and a cheap-ass Hyper 212+ cooler.

The 212+ cost less than $30 and the i7-930 was $199 at Microcenter (the only thing of cultural value in the Twin Cities

This thing OCs to 3.8 GHz in 5 minutes without requiring a boost to any system voltage, and it passed Prime95 and LinX torture tests without incident (4.1 GHz was also stable, but required a voltage bump, which I wanted to avoid because this is a 24/7 production machine).

I'm thinking that AMD needs to drop the price to $169 or $199 to really get traction.

The real torture for all of us is that we NEED AMD to hang in there to keep pressure on Intel, which would gladly sell us $1500-$2500 i7/i9 procs if there were no viable competition...

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a Micro center near them. This is the same situation as their 920 deals. If you have a microcenter near you and can get a i7 930 for $200 than you should spring on it.

 

[LoneWolf]

I think I'd better wait for the [H] reviews before getting too excited.

With all due respect to AMD, I will too.

My Q9450 clocked to QX9770 specs nets somewhere in the 12,000's for 3DMark Vantage CPU score. I'm a little surprised that the X6 is only 4,000some faster, but then again, I don't know what Core i5/i7 scores are either.

 

[LoneWolf]

6 cores probably won;t see any gains in today's games but will future proof you for the next few years.

By which time a chip as good or better will be out for less. Future-proofing only goes so far, and most of us can't lay off the hardware sauce for as long as it takes for that future to come into play --something new and cool comes out and we have to have it.

 

[funkydmunky]

I've known the 1050T was gonna be $200 and the 1090T was gonna be $300 for a long while. Great price points. The results I'm referring to did indeed use a true 6 core / 6 thread X6. It was a 1050T @ 4.2ghz.

There is something goofy going on with these pre-released benchies. Is 4.2GHz the default O/C for these CPU's(supposedly with only four cores from the initial link)? Both sites just happened to O/C to the same exact level. Hmmm.

The site linked at the beginning of this thread, which we have been discussing, has theCinebench11.5 32-bit bench showing the Core i7-960(4 core 8threads) and the 1090T(6 core 6 threads) both @3.2GHz scoring 5.48 for the i7 and 5.29 for the 1090T.

 

[rat]

By which time a chip as good or better will be out for less. Future-proofing only goes so far, and most of us can't lay off the hardware sauce for as long as it takes for that future to come into play --something new and cool comes out and we have to have it.

You know. We went from saying "Dual core is all we'll need" to seeing the benefits of having a quadcore setup even for gaming in less than 2 years.

Multithreadding is picking up traction faster than anything else I've seen in a while... and it works even if you have a 10 year old OS like WinXP.

Games will use the extra cores.

 

[jwalk6]

That isn't 6 core / 6 threads @ 4.2 GHz, it's 4 core / 4 threads that is nearly keeping up with a 4 core / 8 thread Intel processor.

Also for the previous two posters go read the thread and you'll discover that the price is indeed $200 and $300 for the unlocked BE. Sounds like they priced them exactly where your whining wanted it. Maybe we need less whining and more reading.

Nobody's whining. I want to see a top end AMD part that at least MEETS the performance of an Intel top end part. I'm not seeing it here.

STFU

 

[LoneWolf]

You know. We went from saying "Dual core is all we'll need" to seeing the benefits of having a quadcore setup even for gaming in less than 2 years.

Multithreadding is picking up traction faster than anything else I've seen in a while... and it works even if you have a 10 year old OS like WinXP.

Games will use the extra cores.

They will. But by the time you need them, there will be another multi-cored chip that does the job better, at a reasonable cost. Currently, there aren't a lot of games with the capacity to scale beyond four cores.

I think a six-core processor is cool, and for some people (e.g., video encoders, 3D renderers with Maya, etc.) worth purchasing right now. I just looked at the words "future proof" in the statement I responded to and noted that it isn't as future proof as someone might think, and as geeks, many of us feel a regular urge to purchase on a cycle that would get you something newer by the time your "Hey, now I'm future-proof" idea kicks in, something with four "more efficient" (read: more IPC) cores, or six cores that are less power-hungry, or even eight cores.

 

[GreenMonkey]

I moved from an e4500 to a PII X2 and unlocked it, and stuck with an AM2+ DDR2 board. So I got to re-use my 6GB of DDR2 800 that I got cheap, back when RAM was cheap.

Net cost for an HD4670, new AM2+ board, and the X2BE CPU was $202, minus $90 I got on ebay for my old I-965 board and x1950xtx (minus fees), plus I sold my e4500 to my buddy for $50.

So it cost me $40 to upgrade to a PII x4 from a dated e4500 setup. And gigabyte already added x6 support for my board.


x6 chips will be a great budget upgrade for those of us running AM2/AM3 and a good budget upgrade path for folks on older C2D that want to re-use DDR2. Great buy for the budget-minded, AMD has been really good about prolonging the AM3/AM2 sockets.