Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Official Thuban Reviews

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 122 à CPUs
April 27, 2010 10:30:22 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...

Well THG finally posted thier review and the results are:

Its really a toss up. Even in Mead/Audio encoding only some programs push it above Core i7 quads and others its about the same as a Core i7 920. In most things its faster than a Phenom II X4 but in games it seems its slower than its quad core cousin, even in Left 4 Dead 2 which is a pretty multi core happy game.

The only game it seems to excell in is CoD MW2, which is only by 1FPS so not enough to actually pronounce it king. its possible that the low L3 cache might hinder it. It is 50% core increase but it only has 30% more transistors so maybe AMD cut a bit of fat off to be able to fit it in the 125w TDP?

They didn't do a overclocking on it yet so nothing there. I will say its power consumption bump from Phenom II X4 is quite impressively low but is just a bit more than Gulftown which has about 200 million more transistors (Thuban is estimated at 904 Million by THG, Gulftown is 1.17 billion) so its not that impressive.

Overall, if you game its best to get a nice overclockable quad like the Phenom II X4 945 or Core i7 820/Core i5 750 and spend a bit more on the GPU. For production its a toss up depending on what apps you use.

Can't wait to see a overclocking comparision between Thuban, Phneom II X4, Core i7 and Gulftown.

Thoughts?


*Edit*

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-ph...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3251/amd_phenom_ii_x6_...

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_10...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-...

http://hwbot.org/article/news/hwbot_research_lab_amd_th...

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

Added all the current benchmarks found for Thuban as well as changed the name to "Official Thuban Reviews".
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 10:47:11 AM

I'd take the six cores anyday, simple fact is you'll be gaming at close to maximum settings with at least 1680x1050 resolution not some silly medium settings 1280x1024.

Gulftown draws 50% more power for 'only' a couple hundred million more transistors btw.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:28:04 AM

Looks amazing value for anyone working in graphics, encoding, video editing etc, if not the gaming chip some were hoping for.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:28:59 AM

I don't know which charts you're looking at but they all look like they're within 3-5% of each other across the board to me. I'd take a quad at most if I was just gaming, or a dual if I was on a budget and didn't plan on playing anything that was CPU bound.

I'm disappointed in the productivity performance. I would like to see 3DS Max done with Mental Ray instead of the scanline renderer though, it scales better. POV-Ray would be nice to see as well as it has extremely good scaling.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:45:34 AM



a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:49:42 AM

The 980X is a tough sell if you use POV-Ray unless you're doing it in a production environment (who uses POV-Ray in a production environment?) where the 44% improvement outweighs the initial cost.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:54:01 AM

Anything that uses 6 real cores is going to swing hugely in favour of the Thubans basically. Even the 1055T beats the i7 870 in that one.

If you want any rendering the smart choice would be the 1055T and overclock it to 4ghz, saving a fortune. It won't catch the 980X but on price/performance it is miles ahead.
a c 122 à CPUs
April 27, 2010 11:58:25 AM

jennyh said:
I'd take the six cores anyday, simple fact is you'll be gaming at close to maximum settings with at least 1680x1050 resolution not some silly medium settings 1280x1024.

Gulftown draws 50% more power for 'only' a couple hundred million more transistors btw.


These beg to differ:









Every last game is at a super high res (past 1680x1050) and max settings and with or without AA/AF, the Phenom II X6 performs just as well if not under everything else.

According to the review, Gulftown has a draw of 226W at load while Thuban has a draw of 229W at load. So not sure how Gulftown is drawing more, considering that Gulftown does have about 200 million more transistors and double the L3 cache.

Unless you can show something else that shows Thuban is better for high res gaming, its no better right now than a quad and until we see how far it can be overclocked, its not worth getting at this point for gaming.

For media, it depends on what program you use. Some programs favor Intel, other favor AMD. If you use the ones that prefer AMD then get the Thuban for that purpose. If not as I have stated, Thuban is not worth upgrading to IF you plan to game mostly and have a quad, just like Gulftown is useless for anything beyond server/media apps.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:02:53 PM

As far as price/performance goes if you need CPU power for a highly scalable program like this you're either going to go for a 1055T or blow some cash on the 980X. Paying for anything else wouldn't be worth it.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:14:39 PM

Jimmy there is like 1 fps between those gaming results, I wouldn't use anything except price as an indication of which is the best for that, and I certainly wouldn't justifty say an i5 750 over a 1055 because of it either.

With both at similar prices, the 1055 beats the i5 silly in everything non-gaming, has a better upgrade path due to 1156 being dead and is obviously going to be a much more future proof cpu. Nobody is going to buy an i5 750 now unless it drops in price quite dramatically.

As for power draw, we both know that cpu's spend much more time at idle, and the gulftown idles 50% higher.

a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:28:33 PM

It's not earth shattering but is there any good reason to buy an i5 750 instead of a 1055T?

Is there any good reason to buy an i7 instead of a 1090T? AMD is back, this is good for all of us. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:29:06 PM

Spare a thought for those of us on the old 920s. We idle almost as much with only 2/3 the cores :p 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:31:19 PM

randomizer said:
Spare a thought for those of us on the old 920s. We idle almost as much with only 2/3 the cores :p 


It speaks volumes actually.

The best intel can do on their much more mature 45nm is a single speed bin increase at the same TDP. The 920 and 930 are still great chips, but I really would have expected a bit more than a simple 133mhz speed bump in 18 months.

AMD add 2 cores and 3mb cache while increasing overclocking ability at the same TDP in the same timeframe (without HKMG).
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:40:46 PM

Well the 8x0 do alot better with Turbo than the 9x0, as indicated by the (marginally) higher scores for highly threaded apps, and much higher scores in single/dual-threaded apps.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:46:06 PM

Quote:
The review shows that basically 6-core PII-X6 performs just about the same as 4-core i7 if they are OCed to the same frequency... Not impressed at all performance-wise! How sad that AMD CPUs need 50% more cores to match Intel CPUs at any given frequency. Given that the PII-X6 1090T costs approximately the same as i7-930/i7-860, I will definitely choose i7 between the two considering i7 OCs higher and more efficient.

1055T which costs a little more than i5-750 seems to be the only hope for AMD now. It would be a huge success for AMD if the 1055T can at least reach 4GHz, because consumers would get an i7 equivalence for the price of i5-750. Otherwise, although PII-X6 is definitely not a fail, it would not be impressive/attractive too.


Stop the craps now and get a life, AMD fanboys.

@ randomizer: Nice to see you again. Haven't seen you much these days. I really miss you.... ahhhhhh I am not gay, so don't be scared.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:51:37 PM

Lol where did you drag up that nonsense andy.

The benchmarks don't lie. :) 

Quote:
While some of the more expensive Intels quadcore processors can keep up with AMDs sixcore cpus, the future and more threaded applications will shift the bias more toward AMDs offerings, making them even more attractive. AMDs Phenom II X6 10xxT is really putting Intel under pressure.




a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:55:12 PM

jennyh said:
Lol where did you drag up that nonsense andy.

The benchmarks don't lie. :) 

Quote:
While some of the more expensive Intels quadcore processors can keep up with AMDs sixcore cpus, the future and more threaded applications will shift the bias more toward AMDs offerings, making them even more attractive. AMDs Phenom II X6 10xxT is really putting Intel under pressure.


http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2010/04/Phenom-II-X6-Truecrypt.png


More correctly, RELIABLE benchmarks from REPUTABLE sites like TOM and Anadtech don't lie.

Read TOM's review jimmysmitty showed you. Or you can move to sites showing AMD being superior no matter what the truth is.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 12:58:13 PM

andy...WOW. :D 

from THG -

Quote:
As a result, it’s easy to recommend the Phenom II X6 1090T for folks able to employ its six cores. Video work, threaded Photoshop filters, rendering—in those workloads, AMD’s new flagship is, in many cases, able to keep up with the quad-core Core i7-975.


You see that in the conclusion? the i7-975, intel's only true production cpu costing what, $900 or so, is losing to the 1090T as often as it wins.







AMD is back. :D  :D 

a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:02:27 PM

andy5174 said:
@ randomizer: Nice to see you again. Haven't seen you much these days. I really miss you.... ahhhhhh I am not gay, so don't be scared.

I'm still around a bit, just been busy lately so I have spent less time posting and more time doing other things I don't get paid for.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:02:38 PM

jennyh said:
andy...WOW. :D 

from THG -

Quote:
As a result, it’s easy to recommend the Phenom II X6 1090T for folks able to employ its six cores. Video work, threaded Photoshop filters, rendering—in those workloads, AMD’s new flagship is, in many cases, able to keep up with the quad-core Core i7-975.


You see that in the conclusion? the i7-975, intel's only true production cpu costing what, $900 or so, is losing to the 1090T as often as it wins.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/E/245462/original/MainConcept.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/9/245457/original/HandBrake.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/S/245476/original/TMPGEnc.png

AMD is back. :D  :D 

You are such a clever boy who only pick the VERY VERY little benchs showing that AMD is better.

OMG that you said "AMD is back"! Didn't you always state that AMD is better?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:03:19 PM

keep ignoring i7-930 which costs the same and performs as good at the same frequency as other AMD fanboys do.

Quote:
1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.

AMD win? I don't see it anywhere!
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:10:11 PM

Lol andy don't cry too much.



Look your i5 750 is holding up well vs the Athlons there. :D  :D 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:12:27 PM

Furthermore, do notice that PII-X6 is 600MHz higher than i7-930 in TOM's review.

Quote:
1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.


Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.
April 27, 2010 1:12:52 PM

Well jennyh made a promise to all of us in this forum and it was that AMD's
6cores will be the fastest cpu when they arrive.
Needless to say but i will jennyh you are completely WRONGE
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:15:03 PM

andy5174 said:
Furthermore, do notice that PII-X6 is 600MHz higher than i7-930 in TOM's review.

Quote:
1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.


Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.


LOL. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:15:24 PM

earl45 said:
Well jennyh made a promise to all of us in this forum and it was that AMD's
6cores will be the fastest cpu when they arrive.
Needless to say but i will jennyh you are completely WRONGE


:lol: 

Perhaps I was a little hasty...the 1090T is only as good as the i7 975, while costing 1/3rd the price. :D 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:15:39 PM

earl45 said:
Well jennyh made a promise to all of us in this forum and it was that AMD's
6cores will be the fastest cpu when they arrive.
Needless to say but i will jennyh you are completely WRONGE

As always!

Get used to it. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:22:07 PM

Real world gaming.

April 27, 2010 1:24:47 PM

andy5174 said:

Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.


I've seen some 1055t's OCed to 4-4.5 GHz on air.

They're not groundbreaking but givin their price they are a steal. Definatly going AMD for my first build.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:26:14 PM

That's extreme/unstable OC, not 24/7 OC. I can guaranty that you will fail Prime95/LinX under that condition.

I have seen i7 at 5GHz with extreme OC.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:29:08 PM


Remind you what I said:
Quote:
andy5174 wrote :

Furthermore, do notice that PII-X6 is 600MHz higher than i7-930 in TOM's review.

1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.

Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.

It seems that OCing is too hard to you!

Quote:
andy5174 wrote :
More correctly, RELIABLE benchmarks from REPUTABLE sites like TOM and Anadtech don't lie.

Read TOM's review jimmysmitty showed you. Or you can move to sites showing AMD being superior no matter what the truth is.

Stop posting unreliable benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:31:41 PM

@Jenny: Well I don't think anyone expected different. Now does any review have FSX?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:34:44 PM

They just keep rolling in really. :D 

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

Quote:
MD's X6-1090T delivered impressive results. The Music tests in PCMark Vantage certainly lend proof to at least one area of dominance, while the TV and Movies tests showed us that the X6-1090T could match performance with the 980X... and cost nearly $840 less. Gaming performance was moot, since most critics would agree that 1 FPS of difference is barely enough measure, and not enough to notice. In terms of real-world professional design application performance, nearly all 4-thread SPECviewperf benchmarks agreed that AMD made the best processor for their tasks.


edit - no fsx benchmark yet random.
April 27, 2010 1:44:57 PM

Jenny posted some select benchmarks from Lost Circuits, well here are some more from that site.













a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:45:59 PM

blaze200 said:
I've seen some 1055t's OCed to 4-4.5 GHz on air.

They're not groundbreaking but givin their price they are a steal. Definatly going AMD for my first build.


Theres posting cherry picked benchies, then spinning them, and then there is this. Absolute fairy tails. lol Yeah 4 , 4.5 they are basically the same thing right ?noob :) 

edit: A fifty dollar rebate on the slower 200 dollar hex core(tiger direct) is a nice offering. This will be in alot of profitable/expensive ebay rigs.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:47:00 PM
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:53:29 PM

News Flash! April 27, 2010!!!

(1) AMD release their new Processor

(2) New AMD Processor aquits itself reasonably well - Albeit not 'winning', it's usually in the ballpark. Only getting spanked by large margins in areas where Intel have newer instruction sets.

(3) AMD Processor is cheaper and offers good value for the money. Though the same arguments can be made for Intel's own Lynnfield (i5 and i7 8**) chips.

(4) Rabid Fanboiz/galz go into apoplectic fits over detailia; demonstrating their superior skills at cherry picking examples that support their preconceived notions while ignoring/belittling everything else.


Huzzah! and Hurrah! Three Cheers for The Predictable!



Summary: If you are in the market for a good multi~core processor; understand that more cores help in some areas, but are less useful in others; understand the added cores don't get all that much performance in Games but are happy for the improved rendering/encoding performance, then the new AMD 6 Core deserves a look.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 1:59:00 PM

@AMD fanboys:

1)
AMD PII-X6 with IPC=2/per core: IPC=2x6=12(4+ thread apps), IPC=2x4=8(4 thread apps), IPC=2x3=6(3 thread apps), ...etc

Intel i7 with IPC=3/per core: IPC=3x4=12(4+ thread apps), IPC=3x4=12(4 thread apps), IPC=3x3=9(3 thread apps), ...etc

p.s. IPC = Instruction per clock

2)
i7-930 OCs higher than PII-X6 costing the same.

Which is the winner?
April 27, 2010 2:05:24 PM

jennyh said:
:lol: 

Perhaps I was a little hasty...the 1090T is only as good as the i7 975, while costing 1/3rd the price. :D 



Take a 920 or 930 i7 and overclock them to same speed of the AMD 6 core for the same money.
Everybody can see that 4 intel cores is as good or better then 6 amd cores.
April 27, 2010 2:09:18 PM

notty22 said:
Theres posting cherry picked benchies, then spinning them, and then there is this. Absolute fairy tails. lol Yeah 4 , 4.5 they are basically the same thing right ?noob :) 

edit: A fifty dollar rebate on the slower 200 dollar hex core(tiger direct) is a nice offering. This will be in alot of profitable/expensive ebay rigs.


They arent benches, they are people who actually bought it. just sayin'.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 2:22:38 PM

It could be true but there's immensely little chance that you will get this kind of top end chips. On average, expect it to do less than 3.8~4.0GHz.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 2:23:23 PM

Well, unfortunately pretty much as I expected - Thuban seems to be solidly in the middle of the pack, probably comparable to an i7-930 on average. IIRC this is pretty much what the average poster here thought all along, so no surprises.

AMD really needs Bulldozer with the improved IPC - Thuban just seems to be a stopgap CPU to keep the AMD enthusiasts in the AMD camp. But if AMD 'gaurantees" :D  drop-in compatiblity for Bulldozer, then certainly something to consider.

@Jenny - you know, you don't do AMD any great favors when you hype Thuban or other AMD products up the wazoo, and then the benchies come out and greatly disappoint. This is what AMD itself did with Barcelona, and look at all the negative repercussions they have had ever since then. Just sayin'...
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 2:25:25 PM

AT got their 1090T up to 3.8GHz on air, and thought maybe 3.9 was doable with more tweaking. Methinks it'll be a while before AMD gets it past 4GHz reliably.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 2:27:17 PM

Scotteq said:
News Flash! April 27, 2010!!!

(1) AMD release their new Processor

(2) New AMD Processor aquits itself reasonably well - Albeit not 'winning', it's usually in the ballpark. Only getting spanked by large margins in areas where Intel have newer instruction sets.

(3) AMD Processor is cheaper and offers good value for the money. Though the same arguments can be made for Intel's own Lynnfield (i5 and i7 8**) chips.

(4) Rabid Fanboiz/galz go into apoplectic fits over detailia; demonstrating their superior skills at cherry picking examples that support their preconceived notions while ignoring/belittling everything else.


Huzzah! and Hurrah! Three Cheers for The Predictable!



Summary: If you are in the market for a good multi~core processor; understand that more cores help in some areas, but are less useful in others; understand the added cores don't get all that much performance in Games but are happy for the improved rendering/encoding performance, then the new AMD 6 Core deserves a look.

I completely agree. While I was reading the benchmarks this morning I was thinking exactly the same thing. I knew there would be a thread exactly like this one going on. It's so predictable it's comical.
a c 133 à CPUs
April 27, 2010 2:55:20 PM

LOL this was just as I expected the X6 1090 barely just barely getting over on a I7 930 but you have to factor in the 400 mhz clock difference so an I7 930 with 2 less cores is still better than the 1090T. In some of the benchs I saw the I5 750 performed almost the same as the 1090. Sorry jenny better luck with Bulldozer maybe.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 3:08:38 PM

Anyone have a link to o/c attempts with the 1055, those are noticeably absent.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 3:17:28 PM

notty22 said:
Anyone have a link to o/c attempts with the 1055, those are noticeably absent.



Not much yet, but: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-...

Quote:
Overclocking
The Phenom II X6 1090T is a Black Edition part, meaning it has a fully unlocked clock multiplier. With very little effort our 3.2GHz sample was up and running at 3.80GHz without any additional cooling beyond the stock heatsink/fan.

With a little extra effort, 3.9GHz should be possible, but the fact that we can even run at 3.8GHz with six 45nm cores is very impressive.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 3:18:08 PM

notty22 said:
Anyone have a link to o/c attempts with the 1055, those are noticeably absent.


Nope, haven't been able to find any. looks like everyone a little more worried about AMD new flagship.
April 27, 2010 3:30:01 PM

The i7 860 and 930 are around $200 - $230 at microcenter. I paid $199.99 for my 860, and that is without a rebate. I see them with rebates (for those who send those in and count the value) all the time. The i7 is the better choice, even at the same price, overall performance is going to be better.

I am waiting for a more proper OC'ing review to garnish my overall opinion, but this (screenshot below) shows alot imo of scaling possibly not being AS good when the OC's are compared.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/3/245451/original/Crysis...

For a new build, If you arent doing HEAVY video encoding (notice that I say heavy) then the i7 is clearly the way to go (imo especially if OC'ing is considered due to the possibility of lesser scaling capabilities). The X6 is a solid CPU, my roommate will be getting one and dropping it into his AM2+ board, so I look forward to playing with it myself.

Edit: I found a few more OC'ing being done (though I want to see a more apples to apples comparison and certainly one of the 1050T so that we can see the OC'ing without an unlocked multiplier. I am still unimpressed with the scaling I have seen in the information below as well as the amount of voltage taken to stabilize the cpu. I want my OC's to be done for 24x7 usage.)

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-ph...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-ph...

Best,

3Ball
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 3:51:35 PM

andy5174 said:


Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_10...

... nope, didn't happen.

1055T @ 4ghz

Anyone who already owns an AM2+/AM3 system and is looking for improved multi-threaded performance would be foolish not to consider jumping on the Phenom II X6 bandwagon. For $200, you can have a new six-core 1055T chip that can hit about 4.0Ghz fairly easily, what's not to love? It is a mainstream power user's dream. Having said that, make sure that your applications can harness this processor's capabilities. There are only a tiny handful of games that can make use of more than 4 threads, so don't bother upgrading your Phenom II X4 just yet since you likely won't be too impressed with the additional power.

Speaking of power, we were very pleased to see that these chips have roughly the same power consumption as the higher-end Phenom II X4 processors. This is an accomplishment for AMD and GlobalFoundries since they have managed to increase multi-threading performance by up to 50% without increasing power usage, and without having to resort to a new manufacturing process. They also run exceptionally cool too, which is a blessing compared to the usually scorching hot Intel Core i7 processors. This is a huge boon since it means you can overclock without worrying about having to spend a small fortune on cooling solutions. And you should overclock (at your own risk, of course) since many of these chips are capable reaching a stable 4.0Ghz with a minimal voltage increase which is actually a slight improvement over the latest C3 revision Phenom II's.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Thats just the teaser for their OC review on monday.

$200 too much? how about $150.

As far as AT oc results, thats on the STOCK COOLER. 4.1-4.2 is easily doable with the 1090T and a good air heatsink.
!