Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Thuban ??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 5:45:16 PM

I was about to get myself a core i5 750... Then i saw that amd were releasing this phenom x6 1055t processor... I have decided to wait see the benchmarks before i make a move...

Now according to different sources there will be two versions of x6 1055... one with a maximum of 125W TDP and the other with 95... surprising both are listed at the same price... will the 95 W one succeed the other after a few months ?? Or will it have some limitations ??

Can anyone shed some light...

More about : thuban

a c 83 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 5:49:11 PM

It could end up like the Phenom 9750, a 125W version was sold retail, while the 95W version was only OEM and primarily could only be found in prebuilts. Or it could be like the Phenom II 945, 125W at first, and later be reintroduced at 95W.

What do you intend to do with your computer? Even the 3.2Ghz Thuban will struggle to beat the I5 in most tasks that use a max of 4 cores, just like the Phenom II 965 currently struggles to beat it. I5 would be a better buy for gamers.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 6:09:18 PM

I5 750 will still smack around a Phenom x6 in Gaming. I dont see this Phenom II x6 being all that great it will only be better in programs that can take advantage of 6 cores.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 6:10:47 PM

this rig will be used in a htpc.. i do game a lot too.. so i guess this would be a gaming htpc.. and other regular tasks too.. surfing, occasional video conversions, burning, etc etc..
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 6:53:36 PM

abhishekk89 said:
this rig will be used in a htpc.. i do game a lot too.. so i guess this would be a gaming htpc.. and other regular tasks too.. surfing, occasional video conversions, burning, etc etc..

I mean you can wait for the benchmarks but the I5 750 will game better i can pretty much guarantee that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 6:54:54 PM

saaiello said:
I5 750 will still smack around a Phenom x6 in Gaming. I dont see this Phenom II x6 being all that great it will only be better in programs that can take advantage of 6 cores.


I highly doubt that, the 1090T with Turbo enabled will trounce an i5 750 in everything including gaming.

The 1090T is going to be compared to the i7 920/930, just FYI.

To the OP, six core CPU's are not meant for HTCP's.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:01:15 PM

OvrClkr said:
I highly doubt that, the 1090T with Turbo enabled will trounce an i5 750 in everything including gaming.

The x6's are going to be compared to the i7 920/930, just FYI.

To the OP, six core CPU's are not meant for HTCP's.

Well nobody will know till it is released but i seriously doubt it will beat an I5 750 in gaming. If a Phenom II x4 cant beat an I5 750 at a much higher base clock speed how do you see this x6 which is basically an x4 with 2 more cores. I just dont see it doing that well. But who can tell till its released and we see some actual numbers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:02:36 PM

Hey.. I'm still 19.. need to get the cash from dad.. so i'm getting this on pretext of a htpc...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:08:37 PM

saaiello said:
Well nobody will know till it is released but i seriously doubt it will beat an I5 750 in gaming. If a Phenom II x4 cant beat an I5 750 at a much higher base clock speed how do you see this x6 which is basically an x4 with 2 more cores. I just dont see it doing that well. But who can tell till its released and we see some actual numbers.


Use common sense, based on the specs of the x6 (1055T) which is clocked at 2.8Ghz and 3.3Ghz with Turbo should game just as good (if not better) than the i5 750. Since its an x6 it will also best the 750 at heavy threaded apps. The i5 750 compares to the x4 955/965 when it comes to gaming.

Thuban is not just an x4 with 2 more cores, its much more than that ;) 

Here are the specs of the 1055T :

Phenom X6 1055T = $199

- AM2+ or AM3
- 6 core
- 6 threads
- 2.8GHz
- 3.3Ghz "tubo boost"
- 6 x 512kb L2 Cache
- 6MB L3 Cache
- DDR2 and DDR3 support
- 45nm SOI
- 125W TDP
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:25:52 PM

OvrClkr said:
Use common sense, based on the specs of the x6 (1055T) which is clocked at 2.8Ghz and 3.3Ghz with Turbo should game just as good (if not better) as the i5 750. Since its an x6 it will also best the 750 at heavy threaded apps. The i5 750 compares to the x4 955/965 when it comes to gaming.

Thuban is not just an x4 with 2 more cores, its much more than that ;) 

Here are the specs of the 1055T :

Phenom X6 1055T = $199

- AM2+ or AM3
- 6 core
- 6 threads
- 2.8GHz
- 3.3Ghz "tubo boost"
- 6 x 512kb L2 Cache
- 6MB L3 Cache
- DDR2 and DDR3 support
- 45nm SOI
- 125W TDP


Well common sense hmm yes i can see it being better in heavily threaded apps i didnt say it wouldnt be but for gaming I dont see it being better. Also you are contradicting yourself you said it would be compared to a I7 and now you are saying it should do just as good as an I5 so which is it. And the specs besides the turbo boost dont look any different then an x4.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:41:10 PM

saaiello said:
Well common sense hmm yes i can see it being better in heavily threaded apps i didnt say it wouldnt be but for gaming I dont see it being better. Also you are contradicting yourself you said it would be compared to a I7 and now you are saying it should do just as good as an I5 so which is it. And the specs besides the turbo boost dont look any different then an x4.


Maybe i missinterpreted, there are about 5 different x6's. My point is that the 1055T should be on par with the i5 750 (if not faster) @ 199.99$. The 1090T should be on par with the 920/930 @ 295.00$ ;) 

Here is the roadmap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_AMD_Phenom_...
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:56:28 PM

2083710,11,446940 said:
Maybe i missinterpreted, there are about 5 different x6's. My point is that the 1055T should be on par with the i5 750 (if not faster) @ 199.99$. The 1090T should be on par with the 920/930 @ 295.00$ ;) 

Here is the roadmap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_AMD_Phenom_...[/quotems

Ok I can agree with that I dont think it will beat an I7 920 but the 1090T should be able to run with it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 7:59:43 PM

We should have some benchmarks soon, im just questioning the price right now. 199.99$ for 6 cores sounds to good to be true.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 8:05:43 PM

OvrClkr said:
We should have some benchmarks soon, im just questioning the price right now. 199.99$ for 6 cores sounds to good to be true.

Sounds way too good thats why I doubt it so much.
m
0
l
March 26, 2010 8:07:39 PM

saaiello said:
If a Phenom II x4 cant beat an I5 750 at a much higher base clock speed how do you see this x6 which is basically an x4 with 2 more cores. I just dont see it doing that well. But who can tell till its released and we see some actual numbers.



Currently in a majority of gaming benchmarking there is not really a large difference between the clockspeeds that the chips actually run at. People like to play dumb and pretend the i5-750 is always running at 2.66Ghz.

With this new chip AMD is adding a benchmarketing gimmick similar to Intel's gimmick. Intel users will lose the benefit of being able to pretend that "base clockspeed" means the same thing as "static clockspeed". Although I expect AMD to allow people to easily determine what dynamically overclocked frequency is being used, so we'll still have some people attempt to claim base clock frequency against a higher dynamic overclock frequency.

For desktop machines the true purpose for dynamic overclocking is to appear to perform better on benchmarks. That is why Intel did not implement an easy method to determine true frequency while dynamically overclocked. (Did you truly think that the Intel engineers were stupid enough to forget something that important?)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2010 9:36:55 PM

dont get a hexacore for a htpc, especially if its a small form factor case, the x3 4xx series will do well in an htpc, ifyou plan to use this htpc to rip dvds etc x4 620/630/635 will do well, my x4 620 never went 11* over ambient temperature with the stock cooler, hexacore for htpc really makes no sense
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 26, 2010 10:13:27 PM

keithlm said:
Currently in a majority of gaming benchmarking there is not really a large difference between the clockspeeds that the chips actually run at. People like to play dumb and pretend the i5-750 is always running at 2.66Ghz.

With this new chip AMD is adding a benchmarketing gimmick similar to Intel's gimmick. Intel users will lose the benefit of being able to pretend that "base clockspeed" means the same thing as "static clockspeed". Although I expect AMD to allow people to easily determine what dynamically overclocked frequency is being used, so we'll still have some people attempt to claim base clock frequency against a higher dynamic overclock frequency.

For desktop machines the true purpose for dynamic overclocking is to appear to perform better on benchmarks. That is why Intel did not implement an easy method to determine true frequency while dynamically overclocked. (Did you truly think that the Intel engineers were stupid enough to forget something that important?)



Ok I like your logic but it don't work consider this a Phenom II x4 965 runs at 3.4ghz all the time the I5 750 2.66ghz with a max turbo speed of 3.2 ghz Which I believe works for 2 cores. So as we know The I5 750 beats the x4 965 which is still 200 mhz faster then the I5 when turbo is active I don't see how this is cheating when for the most part this is well known technology. I like how you are trying to make it sound like Intel is doing something wrong either way you look at it Intel's chips are 10 to 20% faster then AMD at the same clock and in some cases even faster.

m
0
l
March 26, 2010 11:03:48 PM

saaiello said:
Ok I like your logic but it don't work consider this a Phenom II x4 965 runs at 3.4ghz all the time the I5 750 2.66ghz with a max turbo speed of 3.2 ghz Which I believe works for 2 cores. So as we know The I5 750 beats the x4 965 which is still 200 mhz faster then the I5 when turbo is active I don't see how this is cheating when for the most part this is well known technology. I like how you are trying to make it sound like Intel is doing something wrong either way you look at it Intel's chips are 10 to 20% faster then AMD at the same clock and in some cases even faster.


When you do clock to clock comparisons without having turbo enabled then the 10%-20% you keep claiming disappears. But at least you realize you were attempting to obscure reality with your "2.66Ghz" claim.

The i5-750 is going to have its butt handed to it.

EDIT: The real question will be how the Thuban compares to the i7-930 and i7-950.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 27, 2010 1:06:30 AM

keithlm said:
When you do clock to clock comparisons without having turbo enabled then the 10%-20% you keep claiming disappears. But at least you realize you were attempting to obscure reality with your "2.66Ghz" claim.

The i5-750 is going to have its butt handed to it.

EDIT: The real question will be how the Thuban compares to the i7-930 and i7-950.


I love you AMD fanboys you have to make up stuff just to make AMD sound like its better then Intel or that Intel is doing something to cheat you really make no sense in what you are saying. I stated that yes I5 750 has a clock speed of 2.66ghz and when turbo mode is active it can see up to 3.2 ghz so like I said before even if turbo mode is running at full speed during those benchmarks its still faster clock for clock no matter how you look at it. Since games only use 2 to 4 threads your Thuban will do no better then any of the Phenom IIs that are already out.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 27, 2010 1:14:58 AM

Instead of you folks arguing about who is faster, why dont we wait till the CPU is released and bench both chips WITHOUT "TURBO" this way we can forget about the whole cheating issue, sounds good?
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 27, 2010 1:17:17 AM

Sounds good to me I just can't believe he said intel is cheating.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 27, 2010 1:29:58 AM

I see it this way, if you want a legit bench then we test both CPU's at lets say 3.4Ghz "no turbo" and see who prevails.

Then you test again at 4Ghz just to see if there are any differences.

We find out who won.

The end...
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 1:37:19 AM

saaiello said:
I love you AMD fanboys you have to make up stuff just to make AMD sound like its better then Intel or that Intel is doing something to cheat you really make no sense in what you are saying. I stated that yes I5 750 has a clock speed of 2.66ghz and when turbo mode is active it can see up to 3.2 ghz so like I said before even if turbo mode is running at full speed during those benchmarks its still faster clock for clock no matter how you look at it. Since games only use 2 to 4 threads your Thuban will do no better then any of the Phenom IIs that are already out.



Thuban is not related to any Phenoms currently active, it is related to Istanbul- that is where your shortsightedness begins.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 27, 2010 2:06:28 AM

ash9 said:
Thuban is not related to any Phenoms currently active, it is related to Istanbul- that is where your shortsightedness begins.

:non: 

Istanbul's as we all know can not hold up against Intel's I7 xeons. Also they have been tested with gaming and have scaled horribly. I will not expect anything worth getting excited for until bulldozer on its 32nm with new instructions is released.
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 2:46:05 AM

saaiello said:
Sounds good to me I just can't believe he said intel is cheating.


If you do a search in this thread there is only one person that has used the word "cheating" up until my use of it just now in this sentence.

It seems somebody is making things up in an attempt to justify their viewpoint. (BTW: You failed.)
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 3:07:15 AM

2083863,25,494095 said:
:non: Istanbul's as we all know can not hold up against Intel's I7 xeons. Also they have been tested with gaming and have scaled horribly. I will not expect anything worth getting excited for until bulldozer on its 32nm with new instructions is released.
]



There you go again- The Opteron Istanbul was an upgrade chip that was compatible with loyal socket F customers, no cost involved except for the chip, while reducing power = savings. When you scaled that against Intel’s offering per watt, well no need to go further- that’s how datacenters looked at it....well yeah a funny car is faster than a formula one, on a quarter mile track, daaaah

http://techreport.com/articles.x/17005/12

The Opteron 2435 manages to deliver this higher performance not just within the same power envelopes, but quite empirically with almost the exact same measured power consumption as the Opteron 2389.

This combination yields a nice increase in power efficiency, which was enough to put our Istanbul-based test system in the same territory as our Xeon X5550 system. The competition between the two was remarkably close in SPECpower_ssj, and the Istanbul system required notably less energy to render the Cinema 4D sample scene in Cinebench. So despite that fact that Intel leads in outright performance, the Opteron 2435 is entirely competitive on the power-efficiency front, with lower peak power draw, to boot. Those who evaluate systems strictly on this basis would do well to keep Opterons in the mix.

And if you have existing, compatible Socket F servers, the Istanbul Opterons should be an excellent drop-in upgrade. They're a no-brainer, really, when one considers energy costs and per-socket/per-server software licensing fees.
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 10:00:29 AM

saaiello said:
:non: 

Istanbul's as we all know can not hold up against Intel's I7 xeons. Also they have been tested with gaming and have scaled horribly. I will not expect anything worth getting excited for until bulldozer on its 32nm with new instructions is released.


Redux
So using the same race car analogy, when xbit benchmarked the Istanbul vs the desktop cpu’s, Gavirichenkov knew it wasn’t an apples to apples comparison – how could it be the Istanbul is a low wattage cpu, tuned for servers not the desktop – it was a formula one vs funny cars – but the comparisons were eye opening for some...but not for you

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-istanb...
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 10:05:45 AM

bottom line is you are using wrong data to conclude your opinions about Thuban.
thanks
asH
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 11:50:07 AM

come to think of it Thurban just has to put on enough of a performance so that a dual socket mobo will run with the best X i7's , at 1/2 the cost..just a thought
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 27, 2010 7:18:34 PM

xaira said:
dont get a hexacore for a htpc, especially if its a small form factor case, the x3 4xx series will do well in an htpc, ifyou plan to use this htpc to rip dvds etc x4 620/630/635 will do well, my x4 620 never went 11* over ambient temperature with the stock cooler, hexacore for htpc really makes no sense



as i already stated... i'm getting a gaming rig on pretext of a htpc.. so obviously i'm getting a bigger case... with a after market cooler...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 27, 2010 7:26:13 PM

and guys... i love both intel and amd... we know that core i5 750 did beat the crap outta phenom 965... but we can't conclude the same with thuban... so why not all of us wait till the benchmarks are out ?? maybe then we can comment..
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 11:22:57 PM

abhishekk89 said:
we know that core i5 750 did beat the crap outta phenom 965...


That is a common misconception often posted on various forums by the less knowledgeable or biased posters. In reality the reviews on a majority of review sites do not support that opinion.

But sadly since that opinion is repeatedly posted, some people have forgotten what the benchmark reviews actually showed.
m
0
l
March 29, 2010 1:07:14 AM

Ancient_1 said:
Here is a comparison at Anands



Yes... that EXACTLY illustrates the situation: even a site that is known to favor Intel shows that the use of the description "beat the crap outta" is major fail that could only be used by somebody attempting to spread misinformation.

Anand: a site that left Cool n Quiet enabled while overclocking and then couldn't figure out why they couldn't get a clock as high as most people were getting. DUH... Even an overclocking noob knows you need to disable C'n'Q when overclocking.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2010 2:30:41 AM

hehe, also Anand a site that put the 480 right with the 5830..



IMO Anand's credibility is at the bottom, rock bottom ATM..
m
0
l
!