Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thuban conclusions over a variety of websites - AMD fans enjoy!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 7:45:03 PM

In the interest of preventing the usual intel fanboy nonsense, I compiled comments from AMD X6 conclusions from a huge variety of websites.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...

Quote:
...look at content creation, 3D design, video transcoding etc where

applications are heavily threaded then the Phenom II X6 1055T performs roughly at the

level of a Core i7 860~870 ( 300~550 USD), and the 1090T closes in on the Core i7

950/965 (580/800 USD).


http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=24332&page=1...

Quote:
The mere thought of a well-clocked hexa-core processor with Turbo functionality

being made available for less than £250 would have seemed little more than a hopeful

dream just months ago. The fact that AMD has made that dream a reality with the Phenom

II X6 line, in a backward-compatible socket no less, is certainly worthy of

acclaim.


http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-6Core-...

Quote:
in all but a couple of tests, performance of the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T fell

somewhere in between the Intel Core i7 870 (Lynnfield) and i7 975 (Bloomfield),

although it was much closer to the 975 more often than not.


Quote:
Our tests showed the 1090T performing in roughly the same neighborhood as the

Core i7 870 and Core i7 975 depending on the application, but the Phenom II X6 1090T

costs hundreds of dollars less than both.


http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom...

Quote:
Here the Phenom II X6 1090T, and even the slower 1055T, out gunned the Core i7

930, while they were significantly faster than the Core i5 750. The only processor to

beat the new Phenom II X6’s was the Core i7 980XE, but at more than three times the

price of the 1090T, this is hardly a concern.


Quote:
under the right circumstances the Phenom II X6 processors are extremely fast,

faster than the Core i5 and Core i7 quad-core processors.


http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_...

Quote:
...as soon as you feed it well threaded software, each X6 runs over their

respective competitor with ease. So much ease in fact, that it ends up beating the Core

i7-870 and 920 on many occasions.


http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=910&type=expert&pi...

Quote:
When comparing price/performance, the 1090T is very competitive with the 930,

and seriously wipes the floor with the 950 and 870 parts


Quote:
$285 vs. $999 for approximately 90% of the performance.


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

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.


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

55t-1090t-six-core-processors-review-17.html

Quote:
Frankly, AMD have done an ACE job with these new processors. The results really

do speak for themselves.


http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,746125/AMD-Phenom-II...

-a-budget/Reviews/

Quote:
when you look at bang for the buck or the fastest cpu in the sub-300 Euro

category, AMD has more to offer.


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.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

Quote:
When it comes to gauging the performance among similarly priced processors, the

six cores of the 1090T start to shine. When benchmarked, the 1090T was able to keep up

or beat the majority of the quad core processors and even topped the 980X a few

times.


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

Quote:
If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to

improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same

money as Intel. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even

better against the Core i5 750.


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

it=1&limitstart=11

Quote:
If we base the competition by price (assuming AMD's assertion of a sub-$300 MSRP

is legitimate), the Phenom-II X6-1090T is the hands-down winner on all fronts, as it

beats the i7-920 in nearly all performance measures while also offering an unmatched

price-performance ratio over the expensive i7-980X.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
After review of our test results, it's difficult to ignore how well the 3.2GHz

six-core AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T has done in comparison to Intel counterparts. Equally

impressive is how well the 3.4GHz quad-core AMD X4-965 kept up, and confirmed the power

contained within AMD's Phenom-II architecture. The X6-1090T may not have always placed

first in every benchmark we tested, but it occasionally offered unrivaled performance

and generally finished at the top.


http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1853&pageID=8969

Quote:
it is clear that AMD is continuing on the path of delivering excellent

performance at an affordable price.


http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

1&limit=1&limitstart=23

Quote:
The interesting part about the Thuban six-core processors is that they are still

a value proposition, yet, they are getting dangerously close to Intel’s top performing

flagship CPUs.


Quote:
AMD’s new flagship CPU, the Dragon that doesn’t bite its own tail but shows in

benchmark after benchmark that it is a serious contender.


http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=966&page=13

Quote:
AMD's Phenom II X6 is a fantastic chip, both at stock and overclocked speeds.

Its overclockability now settles into Intel’s Core i7 territory, previously

unattainable until now.


Quote:
the Phenom II X6 can beat the Core i7 in programs that can fully utilize the six

physical cores, whereas the Core i7 (Bloomfield / Lynnfield) only has 4 cores, and the

4 virtual threads don’t scale nearly as well as real, physical cores.


Quote:
Value-wise, the Leo platform simply can't be beat. For the cost of the Intel

980X alone, you can have most of the components for a complete AMD Leo-based

setup.


Quote:
Thuban is definitely a game changer.




a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 7:56:48 PM

I see you've deliberately put no quotes regarding gaming benchmarks here. :??: 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:01:25 PM

doesn't that make you a part of the AMD fanboy nonsense?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:09:18 PM

Is the i7 980X a wonderful gaming chip or did I miss that ksampanna?

The X6's are just as good as what the X4's are in most games. Here have a benchmark of BC2 to satisfy yourself on how much better the X6 is and will be in true multi core gaming. :) 

April 27, 2010 8:09:36 PM

^ I see you think hexcores are for gaming. Doesn't that make you part of the fanboy nonsense?
April 27, 2010 8:18:50 PM

Thuban should be most impressive release that AMD had so far ever since Athlon 64 days. However, AMD did need 6 cores to keep up with Intel's quad-core and I wouldn't call that a game changer. There is a reason 1090T is priced below $300, and AMD is not a charity foundation.
Lets see if Intel releases their own 6-core line up, even though it is unlikely since their quad-cores are matching them pretty nicely.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:19:01 PM

For gaming, a 6-core is useless, but at $200 and $300 you might as well get it even for a gaming build, it will do better in most applications and will at least give you the same gaming performance.

AMD was already rocking with the Phenom II X4s at ~$150-$160, and they dominate Intel all the way down the price ranges, but now they can finally compete with the higher end.

The only reason to go Intel now is if you want SLI and you are educated enough to know how completely horrific nVidia's chipsets really are.

Hell even for productivity, I'm not seeing any reason to spend 300-500% more for a few seconds on Intel.

The most interesting thing to me, is that the X6s overclock with the i5 750 and X4s with 4GHz being doable across the board and a bit more if you are lucky.

Like always, however, any CPU from the Athlon II X4 overclocked or a Phenom II X4 on up will perform great for anyone's needs.
April 27, 2010 8:21:45 PM

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

Quote:
The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.



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

Quote:
Again, we can only repeat that these new Thuban chips will absolutely appeal to those who take their multi-threading performance serious, those who don't have an unlimited budget, or those who do not want to upgrade their whole system. If either of those three categories applies to you, then you can't go wrong with Phenom II X6. Now having said that, if you are building a general purpose system from scratch then a Core i5-750 / Core i7-860 / Xeon X3440 processor combined with a dirt-cheap H55-based motherboard might be your best choice since it will have lower power consumption and more even performance across the board.



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

Quote:
Six-core processors raised the performance bar for Socket AM3 systems so that now they can compete successfully against platforms based on top Core i5 processors with four cores. However, unfortunately, six-core Phenom II X6 CPUs turn out even slower than quad-core Core i7 processors supporting Hyper-Threading technology.

In conclusion I would like to stress that six cores are not always better than four. There is still quite a bit of software out there that is not optimized for multi-core architectures. And it means that there are quite a few tasks that work best on dual- and quad-core CPUs. Among them are contemporary games, of course. Therefore, if you are looking to build a gaming system, Phenom II X6 will be far not the best choice despite all its indisputable advantages.



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

Quote:
AMD is moving (slowly) in the right direction. Their CPUs are getting better and better with each new release. They are not quite there yet, but I have to admit the Phenom II X6 is the first one that I have seen give current generation Intel CPUs a run for their money in a long time. I hope we see AMD continue to move this way and future releases push the performance levels up even higher.



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

Quote:
Conclusion

Despite being an astonishing £600 cheaper than the exorbitantly-priced Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition, the X6 1090T BE still isn’t a very good buy. That’s because despite being clocked at a respectable 3.2GHz and having a useful auto-overclocking feature in Turbo Core, it’s based on a comparatively old architecture – K10, which is in reality only a tweaked version of the ancient K8 architecture dating way back to 2003.

As a result, the X6 1090T BE really struggles to keep up with the similarly priced Intel Core i7-930, which has was noticeably faster in six of our eight benchmarks thanks to its far more modern Nehalem architecture. The only exception to this was our Cinebench and WPrime tests, indicating that the X6 1090T BE may be worth considering for a low cost graphics workstation. However, even then, the i7-930 retook pole position when both CPUs were overclocked to their air-cooled maximum frequency.

Ultimately, despite being a good step forward for AMD, the i7-930 still remains our first choice CPU in the £200-£250 price range. Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:26:27 PM

That's what I've been trying to say AMW. Nobody expected these X6's to be brilliant gamers, but they are just as good as the rest, and I think the BC2 benchmark I posted shows the potential of 6 cores.

So like you said, at the same price as a quad, and gaming being 'good enough' in dual/quad optimised gaming, why not get the X6?

Intel needs a price drop or 32nm quads to truly compete. While I'm sure they will continue to outsell AMD almost 10-1, the experts understand that the X6's are the 'smarter choice' right now.

I'm not saying the intel chips are bad, they aren't and that's pretty clear because even with 6 cores the AMD's are barely beating their better quads - but right now all that matters is the performance for the price and AMD is winning hands down.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:29:08 PM

Chad that bit tech review is a joke, nobody else got those results and their benchmarks are way off. I don't know if they got a bad cpu or just a bad reviewer, but bit-tech's results are simply not consistent with the majority.

The rest are pretty easily explainable. In quad-optimised and below, the lynnfields are still very good cpu's and if that's pretty much what gets benchmarked then they will look much better than they truly are in comparison to the X6's.

I know it, you know it. It's easier to make these X6's look bad if that is your agenda - just avoid the benchmarks that show good multithreading. Anything that shows optimised multithreading shows the X6 soundly beating the i7's, bloomfields and lynnfields.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:32:21 PM

Chad, yes Jenny did leave out quite a bit but the conclusion was sound.

In a few very well multi-core optimized applications and games, the 1099t/1055t smoke anything else in their price range. In other applications, they perform on par with Phenom II X4s which are damn close to i5s and i7s, and already make the purchase of an i5 or i7 an unwise price v performance decision.

The 1090T and 1055T are better options for the money, sorry but that is how it is. I maintain that the Phenom II 925, 940, or 955 are the absolute best price v. performance on the market and anything above that is pretty much a waste of money.
April 27, 2010 8:40:16 PM

jennyh said:
Intel needs a price drop or 32nm quads to truly compete. While I'm sure they will continue to outsell AMD almost 10-1, the experts understand that the X6's are the 'smarter choice' right now.

If Intel is going to continue to outsell AMD almost 10 to 1, why would they drop their prices?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:42:04 PM

jennyh said:
Chad that bit tech review is a joke, nobody else got those results and their benchmarks are way off. I don't know if they got a bad cpu or just a bad reviewer, but bit-tech's results are simply not consistent with the majority.

The rest are pretty easily explainable. In quad-optimised and below, the lynnfields are still very good cpu's and if that's pretty much what gets benchmarked then they will look much better than they truly are in comparison to the X6's.

I know it, you know it. It's easier to make these X6's look bad if that is your agenda - just avoid the benchmarks that show good multithreading. Anything that shows optimised multithreading shows the X6 soundly beating the i7's, bloomfields and lynnfields.

I'm sorry, but isn't that the exact thing what you did? Show the threaded benchmarks & skip out the less threaded ones ...?
April 27, 2010 8:43:20 PM

jennyh said:
just avoid the benchmarks that show good multithreading. Anything that shows optimised multithreading shows the X6 soundly beating the i7's, bloomfields and lynnfields.

Jenny,
I don't know how to break it to you, but many apps are not highly multithreaded nor will they become so in the next few years.

Thus a person's computing experience is almost certainly going to depend on a combination of highly multithreaded apps and not so highly multithreaded apps.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:43:43 PM

Chad Boga said:
If Intel is going to continue to outsell AMD almost 10 to 1, why would they drop their prices?

+1
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:44:50 PM

Ksampanna why would I buy a six core cpu and care about single threaded synthetics?

It's not brain science - anything that uses those X6 cores will show the superiority of the X6. Anything that doesn't use those cores will show the superiority of intel's other options.

Everything you are saying about the X6 can be said about bloomfield vs lynnfield, and has been said in the past many times. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:47:30 PM

Chad Boga said:
If Intel is going to continue to outsell AMD almost 10 to 1, why would they drop their prices?


If intel doesn't drop prices to suit the status of their cpu's, they will lose the hearts and minds of the enthusiasts. That's me and you, although obviously it will take something a bit more for intel fanboys to lose heart.

We'll see. We both know that there is no intel cpu worth buying at current pricing. The 860 is still good, the 930 is still good...but they aren't the best option at the price point any longer. Ditto the 750.

All other i7's and i5's are a total joke at their current prices, and that's a fact.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:47:35 PM

Chad Boga said:
If Intel is going to continue to outsell AMD almost 10 to 1, why would they drop their prices?


They won't, because most people will buy Intel because of the name and not whether the products fit their needs better than AMD. That said, anyone looking for the best processors under $1000 should be looking at AMD now.

AMD has:
$50 market with the Athlon II X2s
$60-$80 with the Athlon II X3s
$90-$120 with the Athlon II X4s and Phenom II X3s
$130-$150 with the Phenom II X4s
$150-$180 with the High end Phenom II X4s
$190-$300 with the Phenom II X6s

Intel has:
$200-$300 with the i5s and i7 if you absolutely must have SLI
$1000 with the i7 980x

That changes almost nothing to Intel's sales, however.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:49:26 PM

Chad Boga said:
Jenny,
I don't know how to break it to you, but many apps are not highly multithreaded nor will they become so in the next few years.

Thus a person's computing experience is almost certainly going to depend on a combination of highly multithreaded apps and not so highly multithreaded apps.


Right so the X6s defeat the i5s and i7s in well coded apps, only to become more numerable with time, and matches them with lesser optimized apps and games.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Remember the quadcore is 3 years old and yet for the first time ever the next step in core count is already showing a lot of benefit, that's pretty nice too.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:52:40 PM

It is clear. Looking forward, the X6 is the only valid choice of current cpu's at that price range.

Intel badly needs a price drop or a new cpu, simple as that. People will still buy the i7's, but they are doing it out of basically not really understanding that AMD offers the better cpu, for less.
April 27, 2010 8:52:47 PM

jennyh said:
If intel doesn't drop prices to suit the status of their cpu's, they will lose the hearts and minds of the enthusiasts. That's me and you, although obviously it will take something a bit more for intel fanboys to lose heart.

We'll see. We both know that there is no intel cpu worth buying at current pricing. The 860 is still good, the 930 is still good...but they aren't the best option at the price point any longer.

The 860 and 930 win as often as they lose to Thuban and when they lose, it is never by much.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:54:09 PM

Higher performance, lower power draw, much better futureproofing.

The X6 has all of that vs any i7, except obviously Gulftown which is on a different level (and it's not a true i7 either, just a marketing trick of a name).
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:55:51 PM

Chad Boga said:
The 860 and 930 win as often as they lose to Thuban and when they lose, it is never by much.


With that difference changing in time, around 2 years by my estimate. Also the 1055T will do the same at $100 less.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:56:19 PM

Chad Boga said:
The 860 and 930 win as often as they lose to Thuban and when they lose, it is never by much.


It was never going to be much. The 1055T is obviously on a par with the 860 and 930, with the 1090T being a step beyond. There was never going to be a huge difference amongst any of these cpu's though.
April 27, 2010 8:57:42 PM

jennyh said:
It is clear. Looking forward, the X6 is the only valid choice of current cpu's at that price range.

Intel badly needs a price drop or a new cpu, simple as that. People will still buy the i7's, but they are doing it out of basically not really understanding that AMD offers the better cpu, for less.


Why would they?? Since AMD only managed to keep up with i7s as of now and it took them to bring out 6 core to do it. 860s and 930s
are very competitive against 1090Ts.
I don't think you would want Intel to start price war against AMD, AMD is already running on thin margin with those $289 6 cores.
April 27, 2010 8:58:50 PM

AMW1011 said:
Right so the X6s defeat the i5s and i7s in well coded apps, only to become more numerable with time, and matches them with lesser optimized apps and games.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Remember the quadcore is 3 years old and yet for the first time ever the next step in core count is already showing a lot of benefit, that's pretty nice too.

Don't confuse well coded with multithreaded.

Some apps are unlikely to ever become multithreading champions, certainly not in the next few years.

As for your claims about defeating and matching, you bias blinds you to the fact that there are at least as many apps that Thuban loses to an 860, as beats it, yet you use the language of "matches", when Thuban loses out.

For BOTH processors, there are wins, losses, draws.

Overall, the most generous interpretation I could give is that top end Thuban matches an i7-860, a more realistic interpretation is that the i7-860 slightly edges it out.



April 27, 2010 8:59:47 PM

jennyh said:
It is clear. Looking forward, the X6 is the only valid choice of current cpu's at that price range.

Intel badly needs a price drop or a new cpu, simple as that. People will still buy the i7's, but they are doing it out of basically not really understanding that AMD offers the better cpu, for less.


I agree. Most people are saying that not a lot of programs uses 6 cores, which is true for now. How about the next year or two, or three years from now. Not everyone builds a new rig every year. Especially with the thuban release and gulftown not long ago, many programers will start writing there programs so they can use all the available cores. So thats why I'm getting Thuban instead of 930 as I planed at beginning.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 8:59:53 PM

JJLD said:
Why would they?? Since AMD only managed to keep up with i7s as of now and it took them to bring out 6 core to do it. 860s and 930s
are very competitive against 1090Ts.

I don't think you would want Intel to start price war against AMD, AMD is already running on thin margin with those $289 6 cores.


The 1055T is cheaper and will pull ahead in well optimized applications and games, which are becoming more numerable by the day. So how is it very competitive?

I don't think you will notice much of a difference, but the 1055T is the obviously the better deal.
April 27, 2010 9:01:09 PM

jennyh said:
It was never going to be much. The 1055T is obviously on a par with the 860 and 930, with the 1090T being a step beyond. There was never going to be a huge difference amongst any of these cpu's though.

Seriously, it is one thing to put forward the argument that the 1090T is on par with the 860 and 930, but it is sheer nonsense to be suggesting the 1055T manages that.

You make a laughing stock of yourself, but I guess as you have no credibility to lose, why not. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:02:50 PM

So isn't that a handicap for the 1090T? I mean, 50% more processors than the 930/920, yet similar performance. Not very efficient, is it?
Exactly why Intel can price the 980X at a premium. It's per-core performance scaling is unmatched
April 27, 2010 9:04:01 PM

ksampanna said:
So isn't that a handicap for the 1090T? I mean, 50% more processors than the 930/920, yet similar performance. Not very efficient, is it?
Exactly why Intel can price the 980X at a premium. It's per-core performance scaling is unmatched


Thuban has 6 cores which makes 6 threads, 930 has 4 cores 8 threads... Which is more fair?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:05:18 PM

Chad Boga said:
Don't confuse well coded with multithreaded.

Some apps are unlikely to ever become multithreading champions, certainly not in the next few years.

As for your claims about defeating and matching, you bias blinds you to the fact that there are at least as many apps that Thuban loses to an 860, as beats it, yet you use the language of "matches", when Thuban loses out.

For BOTH processors, there are wins, losses, draws.

Overall, the most generous interpretation I could give is that top end Thuban matches an i7-860, a more realistic interpretation is that the i7-860 slightly edges it out.


I see Thuban defeating the i5 750 and the lower i7s more than it loses to them, with the majority being a tie with the swing only slightly in one direction or the other.

How do you see anyway that the i7 860 edges out Thuban? The 1055T costs $80 less and is very much on par with the performance of the i7 860, 920, or 930.

Oh and as for bias, look at my signature. Your right, I'm a huge AMD fanboy.

Bringing up accusations of bias and the ad hominem remarks do not validate your opinion, they actually do quite the opposite.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:08:32 PM

ksampanna said:
So isn't that a handicap for the 1090T? I mean, 50% more processors than the 930/920, yet similar performance. Not very efficient, is it?
Exactly why Intel can price the 980X at a premium. It's per-core performance scaling is unmatched


First, your comparing 6 cores to 4 cores and 8 threads, a pretty legitmate comaprison in my mind.

Second, I don't care how many cores it uses, as long as it gives similar or better performance while not throwing power efficiency out the window.

So I guess you never buy ATI cards because it takes, on average, 4 of ATI's shaders to match 1 of nVidias, regardless of price or performance.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:08:45 PM

dude, 6 physical cores should theoretically give better performance than 4 physical threads + 4 virtual ones (everything else neglected). But it doesn't happen on the Thuban. Which is why it is not very efficient.
April 27, 2010 9:09:08 PM

AMW1011 said:
I see Thuban defeating the i5 750 and the lower i7s more than it loses to them, with the majority being a tie with the swing only slightly in one direction or the other.

How do you see anyway that the i7 860 edges out Thuban? The 1055T costs $80 less and is very much on par with the performance of the i7 860, 920, or 930.

Knock yourself out and try not to embarrass yourself to this extent again.

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

If you can't work out how I reached my conclusions after reading that review, I can only assume your are unable to read.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:12:07 PM

AMW1011 said:
I see Thuban defeating the i5 750 and the lower i7s more than it loses to them, with the majority being a tie with the swing only slightly in one direction or the other.

How do you see anyway that the i7 860 edges out Thuban? The 1055T costs $80 less and is very much on par with the performance of the i7 860, 920, or 930.

Oh and as for bias, look at my signature. Your right, I'm a huge AMD fanboy.

Bringing up accusations of bias and the ad hominem remarks do not validate your opinion, they actually do quite the opposite.

Then why on earth do you have an i5 750 running at 4 G? Why not an AMD BE 965 or something?
April 27, 2010 9:12:26 PM

^ Because he is using SLI? Just a thought.

I wish I could justify spending the money and upgrading my processor to one of these. Maybe in a couple years, but the difference in performance isn't great enough to warrant it IMO.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:13:16 PM

AMW1011 said:
First, your comparing 6 cores to 4 cores and 8 threads, a pretty legitmate comaprison in my mind.

Second, I don't care how many cores it uses, as long as it gives similar or better performance while not throwing power efficiency out the window.

So I guess you never buy ATI cards because it takes, on average, 4 of ATI's shaders to match 1 of nVidias, regardless of price or performance.

Au Contraire. I've a 5850 & I love.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:13:24 PM

Chad Boga said:
Knock yourself out and try not to embarrass yourself to this extent again.

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

If you can't work out how I reached my conclusions after reading that review, I can only assume your are unable to read.


I've read 4 reviews.

Why don't you read the review yourself and note how close the 1055T and the i7 860 are, with some winning and some losing at times. Notice how most leads are insignificant for both sides.

Now tell me, honestly, that you would pay $80 for the i7 860.

Your abrasive and ignorant remarks are not appreciated Chad, I've been civil and I would like it if you showed me the same respect, or this will become another useless thread of flaming and insults.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:16:35 PM

These intel cpu's are smarter than we thought, using 8 threads when winning but 4 cores when losing. :lol: 

Basically just ignore Chad AMW, most of the rest of us do by now. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:17:01 PM

ksampanna said:
Then why on earth do you have an i5 750 running at 4 G? Why not an AMD BE 965 or something?


Like Look said, I was prepared to spend the extra money on an i5 750 based system over a cheaper Phenom II 925 or 955 system, a $60 difference at the time, so that I could avoid nVidia chipsets and have the option to use crossfire since, at least at that time, ATI was completely dominating. I would never see the difference between the Phenom II X4 and the i5 750, even the handful of apps where the i5 750 gives a semi-significant lead in are totally useless and unused by me.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:21:18 PM

This is the difference here.

These X6's are truly trouncing the i7's at the same price point, when both cpu's are being pushed to the limit. Even the i7 975 EE cannot compete with the 1090T's real cores.

The intel crowd is basically arguing that the X6 is a mediocre cpu at doing what it wasn't really designed to do. Looking forward, it is patently clear that 6 real cores are a far better choice than 4 cores with HT.
April 27, 2010 9:22:40 PM

jennyh said:
Basically just ignore Chad AMW, most of the rest of us do by now. :) 

Actually YOU can't ignore me because I keep exposing your lies.

Later on this week when I have some time, I will gather some results of the 1055T(in particular) vs an i7-860, to show just how ridiculous your claims of a 1055T being on par with an i7-860/i7-930 really are.

You won't be able to hide.


a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:25:41 PM

OK forget pricing, forget everything.
Lets say someone puts a 6 core 1090T & a 4 core 860/920/930 in front of you, & tells you they are similarly priced, & have overall similar performance. Would you not wonder that why the 6 core chip is not outpacing the others by a significant margin? You know that the 4 core chips are proving more than a handful for the 6 core. Would you not say then, that the 6 core chip must be inferior?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:26:28 PM

Chad Boga said:
Jenny,
I don't know how to break it to you, but many apps are not highly multithreaded nor will they become so in the next few years.

Thus a person's computing experience is almost certainly going to depend on a combination of highly multithreaded apps and not so highly multithreaded apps.


However, most people create their own multithreaded environments. Almost all people Multitask in some form that makes multiple core advantageous. Especially if have remotely effective security software. The single app benchmarks that most sites use dont really reflect all this. So in a way, it doesn't entirely matter that the individual apps are not entirely multithreaded.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:26:53 PM

Well all I have to say is this, 3 years later the Q6600 will dominate any dualcore in GTA 4, BFBC2, and almost any intensive app. Yet at launch the Q6600 got its ass handed to it pretty regularly by the equal priced 3.0 GHz E6850. And unlike the Q6600, there are a few apps and games that fully use the extra cores that are provided at launch.
April 27, 2010 9:27:22 PM

AMW1011 said:
I've read 4 reviews.

Why don't you read the review yourself and note how close the 1055T and the i7 860 are, with some winning and some losing at times. Notice how most leads are insignificant for both sides.

I disagree that they are close overall.

Close on a few benchmarks, but not close overall.

Are you seeing the results of the 1090T and confusing them with the 1055T?

Quote:
Now tell me, honestly, that you would pay $80 for the i7 860.


Yes, and later on this week when I deal with Jenny's ignorance I will provide information which shows how little attention you have been paying to reviews as well.



EDIT: for the F@#King quote tags
April 27, 2010 9:29:29 PM

ksampanna said:
OK forget pricing, forget everything.
Lets say someone puts a 6 core 1090T & a 4 core 860/920/930 in front of you, & tells you they are similarly priced, & have overall similar performance. Would you not wonder that why the 6 core chip is not outpacing the others by a significant margin? You know that the 4 core chips are proving more than a handful for the 6 core. Would you not say then, that the 6 core chip must be inferior?


You would also inform the person that the 4-core processors have HyperThreading, correct? Or are we going to pretend that HT doesn't exist?
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:30:59 PM

ksampanna said:
So isn't that a handicap for the 1090T? I mean, 50% more processors than the 930/920, yet similar performance. Not very efficient, is it?


Only as an academic argument. How a processor achieves speed is of little consequence to the end user. Debates like more cores, vs more faster cores doesn't really matter in the end.
a b à CPUs
April 27, 2010 9:32:39 PM

ksampanna said:
OK forget pricing, forget everything.
Lets say someone puts a 6 core 1090T & a 4 core 860/920/930 in front of you, & tells you they are similarly priced, & have overall similar performance. Would you not wonder that why the 6 core chip is not outpacing the others by a significant margin? You know that the 4 core chips are proving more than a handful for the 6 core. Would you not say then, that the 6 core chip must be inferior?


No...

Where you aware when the C2Qs came out? They were useless compared to duals. Give the hexacores time, likely less than 3 years this time, and they will show their true colors. They might not be 50% faster, but they will be faster.

Chad Boga said:
I disagree that they are close overall.

Close on a few benchmarks, but not close overall.

Are you seeing the results of the 1090T and confusing them with the 1055T?

Quote:
Now tell me, honestly, that you would pay $80 for the i7 860.


Yes, and later on this week when I deal with Jenny's ignorance I will provide information which shows how little attention you have been paying to reviews as well.



No, the i7 860 is slightly ahead overall, but that will change in time and is NOT in anyway worth $80 more. We are talking a 5% difference here from my guesses.

Really? So you would throw $80 at theoretical, insignificant, and unnoticeable performance? Perhaps it is not I that needs to step back for a moment.

No, the X6s aren't as good as Jenny makes them out to be, but did you expect anything less? They are good enough to make buying an i5 or i7 a very difficult decision.
!