Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrading to Thuban?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Assuming price/performance rumors are true, how many will upgrade to Thuban?

Total: 45 votes (3 blank votes)

  • Will upgrade to Thuban plus 800-series chipset.
  • 22 %
  • Will upgrade to Thuban while sticking with my current mobo.
  • 17 %
  • Will wait to see what the next generation has to offer.
  • 17 %
  • Will not upgrade to Thuban for sure.
  • 31 %
  • Unsure.
  • 15 %
April 9, 2010 8:08:39 AM

Just curious to see what people will do. I myself am planning to upgrade my X4 920 and buy a decent 800-series motherboard along with it... then again, maybe this is a bad idea, considering I have to buy DDR3 RAM too... let's not forget that shiny new OCZ Vertex LE 100GB or Intel X-25M 160GB. Damn.

More about : upgrading thuban

April 9, 2010 8:24:05 AM

sseyler said:
Just curious to see what people will do. I myself am planning to upgrade my X4 920 and buy a decent 800-series motherboard along with it... then again, maybe this is a bad idea, considering I have to buy DDR3 RAM too... let's not forget that shiny new OCZ Vertex LE 100GB or Intel X-25M 160GB. Damn.

Unless you are doing a lot of video encoding, considering you already have a 920, that should be good enough for a while and see you through for a year or two or three.

If you are a rusted on AMD fanboy, I would be waiting to see what Bulldozer brings.
April 9, 2010 8:56:38 AM

Chad Boga said:
Unless you are doing a lot of video encoding, considering you already have a 920, that should be good enough for a while and see you through for a year or two or three.

If you are a rusted on AMD fanboy, I would be waiting to see what Bulldozer brings.


Meh, I was considering upgrading to a Core i7 too. I guess I like supporting AMD, but buying any kind of new tech will (briefly) satisfy my craving for new stuff.
Related resources
April 9, 2010 9:00:58 AM

sseyler said:
Meh, I was considering upgrading to a Core i7 too. I guess I like supporting AMD, but buying any kind of new tech will (briefly) satisfy my craving for new stuff.

If you were buying from scratch, then I would have suggested a Core i7(i7-860) over any PhII, but considering you already have a PhII(which in and of itself is still a good processor), then I really think you would be spending in a profligate way to upgrade what you have now, to anything shy of the true next gen from either AMD or Intel.
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2010 9:01:54 AM

Will wait to see what the next generation has to offer.
April 9, 2010 9:31:27 AM

Chad Boga said:
If you were buying from scratch, then I would have suggested a Core i7(i7-860) over any PhII, but considering you already have a PhII(which in and of itself is still a good processor), then I really think you would be spending in a profligate way to upgrade what you have now, to anything shy of the true next gen from either AMD or Intel.


Oh, absolutely. I have terrible cash management skills. The only thing I do well is finding deals on the parts that I buy. For example, I bought my 920 over a year ago for $120 dollars using a coupon code timed during a Newegg sale. Other than that, I just love to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. I don't need a Thuban, but it might help speed up some of the video editing/encoding that I do with Vegas. I would give my 920 to my younger brother, so it wouldn't be a waste.

Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll steal the i7 workstation that I built my father. I built it with the intent of speeding up two-fluid magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) code written in Fortran that he uses for simulations of experiments performed on the COBRA machine the Lab of Plasma Studies at Cornell University. Since my research entails parallelizing the code he wrote (along with his graduate student) so it can be accelerated on a GPU, MAYBE he'll even buy a couple of Fermi cards and let me play around with those too. :bounce:  I guess I can classify all of this stuff as research-related. :D 
April 9, 2010 9:34:44 AM

sseyler said:
Oh, absolutely. I have terrible cash management skills. The only thing I do well is finding deals on the parts that I buy. For example, I bought my 920 over a year ago for $120 dollars using a coupon code timed during a Newegg sale. Other than that, I just love to upgrade for the sake of upgrading. I don't need a Thuban, but it might help speed up some of the video editing/encoding that I do with Vegas. I would give my 920 to my younger brother, so it wouldn't be a waste.

Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll steal the i7 workstation that I built my father. I built it with the intent of speeding up two-fluid magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) code written in Fortran that he uses for simulations of experiments performed on the COBRA machine the Lab of Plasma Studies at Cornell University. Since my research entails parallelizing the code he wrote (along with his graduate student) so it can be accelerated on a GPU, MAYBE he'll even buy a couple of Fermi cards and let me play around with those too. :bounce:  I guess I can classify all of this stuff as research-related. :D 

It sounds like you know what you are doing well enough not to be asking for opinions about it on this board. :D 
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2010 9:36:39 AM

I already got an MSI 790FX-GD70 so I do not see the need to replace it soon. But I only got an X3 720BE with unlocked core so the Thuban is tempting just for the sake of upgrading. The X3 can be moved to my other PC now running on an Athlon X2 5200+ ( whose motherboard does not unlock so its a pity ).
April 9, 2010 11:42:39 AM

Chad Boga said:
It sounds like you know what you are doing well enough not to be asking for opinions about it on this board. :D 


As I said, I was just curious! :hello: 


Perhaps I'm subconsciously looking for others who are making the same choices... otherwise, my conscience can't continue justifying my profligate spending on new tech every few months.
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2010 4:52:04 PM

i'm was planning on getting a i5 750... now that thuban's being released i gues it doesn't hurt to wait and see if anything interesting shows up in my range($200 processor - X6 1055T)... if its better i'll go the thuban way; else end up owning a i5 750...
April 9, 2010 8:36:24 PM

abhishekk89 said:
i'm was planning on getting a i5 750... now that thuban's being released i gues it doesn't hurt to wait and see if anything interesting shows up in my range($200 processor - X6 1055T)... if its better i'll go the thuban way; else end up owning a i5 750...



The more I think about it, the more I think I might take the same route as you...
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2010 12:50:22 PM

sseyler said:
The more I think about it, the more I think I might take the same route as you...


what do you think ?? will the thuban processor - 1055T - dethrone the i5 750 from its price point ?? I'm hoping it will.. Let's see.. When's the official release btw ??
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2010 1:10:56 PM

abhishekk89 said:
what do you think ?? will the thuban processor - 1055T - dethrone the i5 750 from its price point ?? I'm hoping it will.. Let's see.. When's the official release btw ??

I would definitely sell my i5-750 and then grab an AM3 + 1055T if OCed 1055T dethroned the i5-750@4.2GHz in cost-performance, performed on par with i5-750@4.2GHz in most cases and destroyed i5-750@4.2GHz in apps that utilize more than 4 cores. In addition, I would become an AMD fanboy as well. :p 
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2010 1:44:01 PM

check the sig

long live amd fanboiism

i do alot of h264 encoding so i have a reason, but im going to wait a couple of weeks to buy, just incase there are any tlb problems
April 10, 2010 2:51:18 PM

The fact that it will support AM2+ is amazing! Nice job AMD!
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2010 3:04:06 PM

I am waiting for a crippled Thuban ... I want an X5.

Should be cheap !!

Stick that up your i5 ...

April 10, 2010 6:00:37 PM

I am quite sure that I will upgrade within a year from now but I don't feel an urgent need just yet, even with my "lowly" E6600 @ 3GHz.

I'll wait and see what the future brings.
April 10, 2010 8:32:34 PM

Reynod said:
I am waiting for a crippled Thuban ... I want an X5.

Should be cheap !!

Stick that up your i5 ...


It will be a quad core, and possibly unlockable :) 
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 2:08:18 AM

If a quadcore thuban comes available and it comes with high probability to unlock as with the current Deneb's, then I will get that... But only if the price differential is substantial, say 33% less than the X6. Otherwise I go for the true X6.
April 11, 2010 8:58:39 AM

exactly randomkid,as i am planning to buy a pc i am looking forward for a quadcore thuban(i think they call it zasma) as mine is a really old amd platform and if the price does not vary much i would go for 6 core thuban because it has almost same tdp as BE of other x4 cpus.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 1:01:50 PM

zosma
April 11, 2010 1:13:48 PM

Depending on how cheap the new Thubans are, my next set of upgrades will likely include:

AMD Thuban of some sort
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX 600GB
Intel X-25M 160GB or OCZ Vertex 2 100GB
A set of 3 silent case fans - probably Nexus 120s
A second HD 5850 for Crossfire
April 11, 2010 5:37:42 PM

I'm planning on getting a Zosma because I expect the overclocking to be better than current x4's :p 
April 11, 2010 8:56:24 PM

It will deffinately OC better. With Thuban, they are operating 6 cores withing the same TDP limit as the current Phenom IIs.

Then you get the added bonus of Turbo core, so this should be a great chip.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 9:23:25 PM

Im just now upgrading to a quad core. But I am setting myself up to drop a Thuban in in a year or so. Its looking to be a better chip than I thought.

I figured they would be able to do 2.8 and maybe 3.0 Ghz at launch with a 125 to 140 TDP, but 3.0 GHz at 95 watts with a 3.2 at 125 watts and a turbo mode with 400 MHz boost? It explains why they took so long to release them. This isn't just 2 additonal cores slapped on. This is a real improvement.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 9:35:24 PM

2.6GHZ 95WATTS
2.8GHZ 95/125WATTS
3.0GHZ 125WATTS
3.2GHZ UNKNOWN SPECULATED 140WATTS
April 11, 2010 9:55:12 PM

Ok, so they add two cores and take about a 200MHz hit within the same TDP. We'll probably get some better revisions later on that make the clock speeds equivalent, just like it took a while to getthe Phenom II's to 3.4 GHz, and then more its TDP down to 125W from 140W.

We will have Turbo Core boosting the speed when 3 or less cores are active though. So with three cores, which is just one less than the quad core Phenom IIs, you'll be getting a boost of 400-500MHz, with is higher than the 200MHz you lost by moving to Thuban.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 10:32:44 PM

xaira said:
2.6GHZ 95WATTS
2.8GHZ 95/125WATTS
3.0GHZ 125WATTS
3.2GHZ UNKNOWN SPECULATED 140WATTS


Your right about the 2.8. It was the 95 watt version, not the 3.0. I misspoke earlier. But the 3.2 x6 1090 is reported at 125 watts. But of course, no being certain till they are actually released.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2010 10:43:11 PM

i just noticed that Gigabyte is officially listing the 1055t (the 2.8 GHz chip)as a 95 watt part on supported motherboards. They are not listing any 125 watt X6 chips yet.
April 11, 2010 11:17:32 PM

my understanding is that these new cpus are just 2 extra cores added onto the original phenom II cpu's. Nothing really amazing there except 2 extra cores, it isnt even a new architecture. Personally it doesn't seem like anything special, but I could be wrong... though the price point is great I dont see it adding anything to people that game, and for things that utilize more threads then the i7 with hyper threading will just out shine it.
April 11, 2010 11:22:33 PM

impaledmango said:
my understanding is that these new cpus are just 2 extra cores added onto the original phenom II cpu's. Nothing really amazing there except 2 extra cores, it isnt even a new architecture. Personally it doesn't seem like anything special, but I could be wrong... though the price point is great I dont see it adding anything to people that game, and for things that utilize more threads then the i7 with hyper threading will just out shine it.

Turbo core seems interesting and the and the two extra core for that price is amazing!
April 11, 2010 11:36:22 PM

impaledmango said:
my understanding is that these new cpus are just 2 extra cores added onto the original phenom II cpu's.

we already knew that captain obvious.

I bet you'll break the news that quad cores have 4 cores too :bounce: 
April 11, 2010 11:59:53 PM

by that i mean there it exactly the same architecture and cpu frankensteined with 2 extra cores, not really new or innovative.
April 12, 2010 12:06:26 AM

impaledmango said:
by that i mean there it exactly the same architecture and cpu frankensteined with 2 extra cores, not really new or innovative.

What is the difference between dual and quad?
2 CORES! :o 
It's always like that what makes interesting is the price point.
April 12, 2010 12:07:38 AM

Too bad Thuban's implementation of Turbo Core is not as elegant as Intel's. Still will be interesting to see how the gap closes (or opens - hopefully not) on single- and highly-threaded benchmarks.
April 12, 2010 12:16:09 AM

Yea, I really hope they can get power-gating in with bulldozer. Increasing the voltage of the entire chip is quite innefficient. Leaving idle cores at 800MHz is also.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 1:31:53 AM

impaledmango said:
my understanding is that these new cpus are just 2 extra cores added onto the original phenom II cpu's. Nothing really amazing there except 2 extra cores, it isnt even a new architecture.



are you high, 6 cores at 2.8ghz, with turbo to 3.3ghz, all fitting snugly into 95watts and they keep L3, it might be the same arch, but there have been some major improvements
April 12, 2010 1:37:36 AM

Userremoved said:
What is the difference between dual and quad?
2 CORES! :o 
It's always like that what makes interesting is the price point.


I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It has the same architecture as the phenom II without anything really special added on except more power needed and probably more heat. Also since it is the same architecture it wont be as efficient compared to nehalem and there really is no point of adding 2 cores to compensate for that when you don't need 6 cores and for the things that do use it the i7 will beat it out. It really isn't anything special. Not to mention it is still 45nm. I honestly hope that no one with a quad core buys this thing.

Edit: I do admit that at that price point it would be a GOOD buy for anyone that doesn't have a quadcore and is looking to buy a pc. I know I wouldn't pick one over a i7 and I would need to see benchmark to see if it is better then an i5.
April 12, 2010 3:58:37 AM

I've been noticing how a lot of people on these forums complain about software being behind hardware. To this, I would like to make a few simple points:

1) Without parallel hardware, there is no incentive for software developers to parallelize. Hardware parallelization must naturally be driven first, otherwise the incentives are in the wrong order.

2) People who don't want to upgrade their quad cores until software catches up with it are hypocrites. You all know that you've already upgrades your machine to something that can adequately handle the common tasks that we throw at it. No one "needs" a quad-core per se, but we sure do love buying a higher-end processor to breeze through simple, everyday tasks like anti-virus scans, video/audio rendering, games and the like. There is software out there than can use all cores and there is a lot that can't. Regardless, you all know you feel far more comfortable having a system that has a core or two free to do the operating system's menial tasks, instead of watching your precious quad-cores get saturated by a single heavily-threaded application (let alone anything else that you might want to be doing at the same time).

3) In considering of the above two points, we all know that there are plenty of power users out there who can benefit from more cores. But, plenty of casual users I'm sure do enjoy the extra bit of oomph that a couple of extra cores can provide during heavy workloads. I mean, come on, I don't go out looking for a car that has JUST ENOUGH horsepower to get me up the steep driveway to my apartment. I, just like a lot of you guys, like to have a little bit of untapped power to dip into when I want to have some fun... or merge at 75mph on highways when the traffic is flying.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 6:29:02 AM

impaledmango said:
I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It has the same architecture as the phenom II without anything really special added on except more power needed and probably more heat...............


Apparently, 2 additional cores isn't special in your mind. The TDP on these chips is darn near identical to the X4 at the same clockspeed, if you believe the ratings we have seen. And Gigabyte posting 95 watts at 2.8 GHz is a trustworthy source. This suggest a significant core revision. Turbocore will give up to a 400 Mhz boost. And it should be a drop in replacement for most am2+ and AM3 boards.

It isn't going to be worldbeater, but these should be the most competitive chips from AMD in 4 years. There is every reason to believe they will be able to match the core I7/I5 quads at the same clock speed.

But no telling for sure till we see the chips.

a c 126 à CPUs
April 12, 2010 6:33:17 AM

sseyler said:
Depending on how cheap the new Thubans are, my next set of upgrades will likely include:

AMD Thuban of some sort
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX 600GB
Intel X-25M 160GB or OCZ Vertex 2 100GB
A set of 3 silent case fans - probably Nexus 120s
A second HD 5850 for Crossfire


You are better off waiting for Intels new 28nm SSDs that should ramp up by the end of this year and push to 600GB as well as support SATA 6.0. From what I have read, Intel and Seagate have gotten SATA 6.0 SSDs to hit about 600MB/s.......

As for Thuban... meh. No reviews still so you can't truly see what its able to do. Plus by the time Thuban is fully ramped up and as is the quad versions of it, Sandy Bridge will hit.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 6:53:11 AM

jimmysmitty said:
You are better off waiting for Intels new 28nm SSDs that should ramp up by the end of this year and push to 600GB as well as support SATA 6.0. From what I have read, Intel and Seagate have gotten SATA 6.0 SSDs to hit about 600MB/s.......

As for Thuban... meh. No reviews still so you can't truly see what its able to do. Plus by the time Thuban is fully ramped up and as is the quad versions of it, Sandy Bridge will hit.


I love the people like you who say "you should wait for XYZ". Its idiotic. You will wait forever if you do that. Computer components are constantly getting better. Tomorrows stuff will always be better than todays. If it works for you now, why wait.

Then after talking about Sandy Bridge which is nothing more than Vaporware at the moment, you turn around and criticize Thuban because it hasn't been released yet. Amazingly illogical!
a c 126 à CPUs
April 12, 2010 8:25:05 AM

FALC0N said:
I love the people like you who say "you should wait for XYZ". Its idiotic. You will wait forever if you do that. Computer components are constantly getting better. Tomorrows stuff will always be better than todays. If it works for you now, why wait.

Then after talking about Sandy Bridge which is nothing more than Vaporware at the moment, you turn around and criticize Thuban because it hasn't been released yet. Amazingly illogical!


So lets see. At this time, most people have a quad. Right now a quad is not fully utilized. So why would you put up more money to go to a 6 core? And so you do a 6 core now, Sandy Bridge will hit as will Bulldozer. Both will outdo current tech along with the 6 core CPUs out.

I am all for the advancement of tech but as of right now, a 6 core either 980x or Thuban is pointless. The best thing to do is wait until the end of the year. Its like cell phones. Droid is great but by the end of the year there will be newer phones more capable and newer OS versions (WM7 for example). SO why drop the money on a new cell phone when in 6 months you will see something much better?

BTW, Sandy Bridge is not "vaporware". Its a working chip. And its set for more than just standard improvements as is Bulldozer. So why waste money going from a quad to a 6 core thats simply no better except in a handful of apps when something thats set to enhance not only the number of cores but also the actual performance per core.

Ah and I didn't critisze Thuban. I just said meh. Mainly because of what I have seen from the servers variant is unimpressive. But I am waiting for benchmarks to show its abilities and instead of jumping the "bandwagon" I am taking a grain of salt with it so I don't expect more and get delivered less like with both Pentium D and Phenom.
April 12, 2010 10:50:15 AM

jimmysmitty said:
So lets see. At this time, most people have a quad.

Really? Where do you live? I wanna go live with you because last time I checked, most people still have single core and dual cores.
April 12, 2010 11:05:20 AM

impaledmango said:
I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It has the same architecture as the phenom II without anything really special added on except more power needed and probably more heat. Also since it is the same architecture it wont be as efficient compared to nehalem and there really is no point of adding 2 cores to compensate for that when you don't need 6 cores and for the things that do use it the i7 will beat it out. It really isn't anything special. Not to mention it is still 45nm. I honestly hope that no one with a quad core buys this thing.

Edit: I do admit that at that price point it would be a GOOD buy for anyone that doesn't have a quadcore and is looking to buy a pc. I know I wouldn't pick one over a i7 and I would need to see benchmark to see if it is better then an i5.

You know the Athlon X2 were just two single cores attached.
April 12, 2010 11:31:22 AM

Userremoved said:
You know the Athlon X2 were just two single cores attached.

And were they as good as the core 2 duos? My point is that its an architecture we already have in a time where software barely utilizes 4 cores. And no 2 Frankenstein cores added on isn't impressive. I want to see a completely new architecture or a die shrink when I get a 6 core, not just more of the same. I do applaud AMD for the low price, but I honestly have very low expectations for the CPU because it brings nothing new to the table. These are definatley experiment CPUs so AMD can see what they can do with 6 cores and what to expect when they start focusing on bulldozer.

Quote:
It isn't going to be worldbeater, but these should be the most competitive chips from AMD in 4 years. There is every reason to believe they will be able to match the core I7/I5 quads at the same clock speed.


You'd think it could beat out the i7/i5, but it is the same arch as the deneb processors so in none threaded apps I would assume it would perform like a deneb processor with similar speed (nothing new performance wise in games). Though in apps that are made to use more cores/threads I would see it doing slightly worse or = to the i7.

To be honest we can only speculate on its performance. Untill we see some benchmarks I don't see anything special being released. I could be wrong and it could totally wreck intel's lineup, but I doubt it. AMD isn't hyping up its first normal commercial 6 core CPU at all. They had so much to show when deneb came out (dragon bs etc.), but nothing now. If it really was amazing they would do the whole advertising campaign again.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2010 12:16:49 PM

Userremoved said:
You know the Athlon X2 were just two single cores attached.


On the same die ... with a meaty HT link between them.

Now Intel's first dual core was just what you stated though.

Then their first quad was the same .. two real dual cores (not their first dual but a later native part) connected together.

AMD's forst quad was a native part ... albeit Phenom I was a dog due to the latency issues with the cache heirachy, and insufficent L3.

These are facts ... your spruking FUD however.

Just thought I'd make things clear ... AMD has been the driver for innovation.

Without them we would still be driving Pentium 2's ... probably at arounf 900Mhz by now ... as Intel would have driven innovation at a snails pace to suit them ... not the customer.
!