Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The Definitive X6 1090T vs i7-930 Choice

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 28, 2010 9:17:10 AM

Good evening everyone!

Following the release of the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE on the 26th, there have been alot of threads popping up all over the place asking 'Which CPU? X6 or i7.' Well, seeing as I am building a new PC this week, I needed to know the answer as well. After doing much googlefu, and thread searching, and reading 100's of conflicting opinions, I decided to work out exactly which processor was right for my needs, with maths. Numbers do not lie.

I'm posting this thread so you can follow my method as well, should you want to.

First, I selected the two CPUs I wanted to compare. Because I am in Australia, the i7 930 and 1090T are similarly priced, so I am comparing them.

Second, I decided what my rig will be for. I do alot of video editing, and intend to do more in the future (See YT channel naturalselection2hd)

Next, I went to the THW review of the 1090T BE and extracted the following data comparing it to the i7 930. Each percentage is a measure of how much better +ve %(or worse, -ve %) the 1090T BE is against the i7 930. Note that I only selected benchmarks relevant to me. I don't play MW2 or L4D2 so I haven't included them.

Mpeg2 to H.264 10%
VOB to MP4 22%
MP2 to MP4 22%
Photoshop -2%
3D modelling 7%
Compression -10%
Crysis -4%

Idle Power 34%
Load Power -17%

Fourth, I worked out how much of my time would be spent on each of these things. I only include activities that stress the processor. I will actually spend most of my time in Word and Excel working on uni, but they don't stress the processor and are therefore irrelevant.

Video editing* 40%
Gaming 40%
Photoshopping 10%
Compressing 5%
Modelling 5%

*Sum of all 3 editing benchmarks, divided by 3

Fifth, approximately how much time I spend at load (40%) and at idle (60%)

Sixth I calculated the cost of the CPUs. This is in AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS, so do not flame me for being 'different to Newegg'

i7-930 $335
1090T BE $358

Seventh, the cost of the hardware necessary to replicate the THW benchmarks. I.e. 6Gb of ram for the i7-930 and 4Gb ram for the 1090T BE, and an X58 / 800 series motherboard. Of course, you can find cheaper boards than the P6T, but you can also use a 700 series mobo for the 1090T BE.

i7 930
Mobo: $225 Asus P6T
RAM: $188 G Skill 1333

1090T BE
Mobo: $182 GB 890G
RAM: $125 G Skill 1333

Adding all the components together I found the cost of the i7-930 base system to be $747 and the 1090T BE system $665, or 11% cheaper.

Now, at number Eight, the final equation. I multiply the WEIGHT of each task in step 4 by the performance of the CPU in step 3. I.e.

0.4*((0.1+0.2+0.2)/3)+0.4*-0.04+0.1*-0.02+0.05*-0.1+0.05*0.07 = 5% more speed from the 1090T BE

Nine, I did the same thing for power consumption. 0.4*0.34+0.6*-0.17 = 13% less power used by the 1090T BE

Ten, I express the findings in words that my credit card can understand:

The 1090T BE costs 11% less than the i7-930, peforms 5% better, while using 13% less power.

Of course, this is only relevant to my needs and by changing the numbers depending on your needs, you can find out exactly which processor is best for you.

LET THIS END THE AMD vs INTEL FLAMING!

April 28, 2010 9:49:32 AM

I predict you will do OK in your French degree. But seriously, you have done well to assess the system that meets your needs. Upgradeability would be something I also consider.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:09:47 AM

Well done Jermmau. It seems that even in historically strong intel areas (video, compression etc) the 1090T is the clear choice over the i7 930.

I suppose that has to mean that in strong AMD areas, and in true multithreaded applications, the gap will simply widen in favour of the 1090T. :) 
Related resources
a c 117 à CPUs
April 28, 2010 12:54:08 PM

If you have some DDR2 you could simply snag an AM2+ motherboard and a Phenom 1055T.

(but by the time you redo your calculations Bulldozer will be out)




:) 
April 28, 2010 1:43:26 PM

you are probably right wisecracker, as unfortunately my brain has only a single core and no hyperthreading :( 
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 1:50:52 PM

imo, no brainer for NA ppl, if you want games / single threaded apps, i7-930

if you want server / lots multitasking / multi-threaded x6

if you want cheap gaming, get the $150 tigerdirect x6 1055 (after MIB and only US and CA) and pair it up with a TRUE or CCF for a ~4 Ghz OC

if you are everyone else whom wants a cheap fast computer, buy a stinking athlon II and use the saved money for a SSD.

Seriously if I was buying now, I would go with the $150 x6 instead of the 920, and use the saved money on the platform for a second 5870 while keeping other parts the same. because I can OC the thing to 4 Ghz, and gfx matters more for games so 2x 5870s would likely help more than the 4 Ghz I7...

April 28, 2010 9:06:17 PM

Dude Jermmau, Nice Job! I love it when people go through every little detail and figure things out like this down to the tiniest detail. Interesting results.
April 28, 2010 9:47:24 PM

I'd prefer the x6 just because it can overclock to 4 GHz no problem and at that speed, it easily beats the i7 930
a c 127 à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:10:05 PM

^But you can also OC the 930 to 4GHz easily too. In some apps for media, 6 reals cores are betetr hence go for the X6. In others its not.

Its really dependant on the person.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:18:48 PM

uncfan_2563 said:
I'd prefer the x6 just because it can overclock to 4 GHz no problem and at that speed, it easily beats the i7 930


Actually if you're an overclocker its a bad thing for x6 vs 930. Remember the 930 is clocked at 2.8 for those benches, and the phenom is at 3.2. As jimmy said, both chips go to 4ghz meaning the i7 is going to comparably perform better than in the benches.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:26:19 PM

Except that just isn't true.

I've already shown benchmarks where the 6 cores of Thuban beats the i7 when both are overclocked. Anand said it happened too, I guess I should quote that?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3676/phenom-ii-x6-4ghz-an...

Quote:
Note that at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test.


Let me point out what this means, with pictures!





You can see that the 975 is ahead of the 1090T at stock. That is 3.33ghz on the i7 compared to 3.2ghz on the 1090T. But what did anand say?

Quote:
Note that at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test.


The i7 @ 3.33ghz is faster than the 1090T @ 3.2ghz.

The i7 @ 4ghz is slower than the 1090T @ 4ghz.

This is the *ultimate* proof that the X6 is the faster cpu clock for clock in well threaded apps *now*, and will easily be the faster cpu when software catches up.

Gaming benchmarks like the BC2 one I linked are yet more proof. Anybody who thinks the X6 is a weak gaming cpu needs a head examination - this cpu is 50% better than most Phenom II's in gaming *as soon as the software catches up*.
a c 127 à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:29:27 PM

50% better? Are you serious? Even in highly threaded apps more cores do not scale in a linear fashion, and gaming is one of the worst for multiple threads.
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:36:24 PM

Sorry I meant 50% better comparitively, ie any game that truly utilises 6 cores over 4, will show it.

The BC2 benchmark is proof of it Jimmy.

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

Quote:
There is currently a title on the market that is utilizing multi-CPU cores and is heavily threading. Battlefield Bad Company 2 will happily use four or more cores. The result is that very quickly the CPU(typo this should say GPU) does not matter anymore as it maximizing the incredible amount of processors power. As a result the GPU really quickly becomes a bottleneck; even the Radeon HD 5870 flat out is running at 100% whilst the processors have plenty of force left.


And Theo's benchmark is even more indicative of the power of 6 processors -



I do apologise for using that graphic *yet again* but it truly shows how silly the comments about the 1090T being a 'bad gaming cpu' are. This is a great gaming cpu just waiting on the software catching up. If it's a bad gaming cpu, it's as bad as Gulftown is bad - and I'm sure AMD would take that lol. ;) 
April 28, 2010 11:43:08 PM

Quote:
This is the *ultimate* proof that the X6 is the faster cpu clock for clock in well threaded apps *now*, and will easily be the faster cpu when software catches up.


what about the 980x? I'm pretty sure that would win for fastest cpu "clock for clock", albeit at a much higher price
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:46:15 PM

paigeinfull said:
Quote:
This is the *ultimate* proof that the X6 is the faster cpu clock for clock in well threaded apps *now*, and will easily be the faster cpu when software catches up.


what about the 980x? I'm pretty sure that would win for fastest cpu, albeit an expensive one


Well yes, but we're not even considering that. This is about AMD's 6 cores vs intels 4 cores with SMT, and you can be sure that AMD's real 6 cores are superior architecturally, and basically waiting on software catching up.

Gulftown is basically on a different level that AMD can't catch up to until they get to 32nm themselves. For 99% of us, it's Thuban vs the 45nm i7's that really counts, right now. :) 
April 28, 2010 11:53:30 PM

I wouldn't call them architecturally superior, they are basically the same architecture as the four core amd's just with two added cores and some more transistors and we all know how much better the quad core i series are then the phenom ii x4's. I think intel did pretty well considering how well the their older quad cores are doing against amd's hexa cores.
Btw i hope you realize that intel is probably waiting for AMD to play catchup before releasing their 32nm quad cores

P.S. I'm not bashing amd by any means i'm just giving intel their props. I was even about to buy that 1055t at tigerdirect even though I have no parts for it lol
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2010 11:53:56 PM

Im usually a Intel guy, but I do buy a ton of AMD parts as well. The 6 core is looking good, way to go AMD!!

Now if Intel will fire up the production line and put out some sub $300 6 cores, that would make me happy. The 970 is slated for later this year but over $500, I recon the price will change now that AMD has changed the game. Way to go AMD, my wallet loves competition.

The only reason I would buy Intel over AMD right now is because I can run OSX on Intel with no hacks, and I cant on AMD without hacks.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 12:04:30 AM

Architecture means a lot of things paigeinfull.

The 1090T has 6 cores, 200m more transistors and much better power consumption than smaller chips with less cores. AMD doesn't even have the 'advanced' power features of Nehalem, but look at the differences in power draw now even though they don't.

So what is superior? It is two very different approaches but look at where AMD is with an 18 month old 45nm process, compared to intel with a what, 30 month old 45nm process? Think how fast these X6's will be in a years time - it's going to be at least 400mhz faster. :) 

Sooner or later all of AMD's advances are going to come together.

32nm, CMT, Turbo, HKMG, advanced power gating, SOI combined with AMD's superior engineers. That is going to be one amazing chip.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 12:12:58 AM

These are exiting times to live in, technology is growing so fast. I love being a geek, lol.
a c 117 à CPUs
April 29, 2010 12:16:08 AM

Jermmau said:
you are probably right wisecracker, as unfortunately my brain has only a single core and no hyperthreading :( 


[Homer Simpson voice]: "Stupid ... human ... Flanders ... brain .. no ... multi-thread .... suck .... diddly ... uck"


I think it depends upon your practices and workflow --- and how much you want to tweak the rig.

I don't really sit around and wait on encoding. I have a dedicated box, load up a needed batch I think will take X hours, flip the switch and go on my merry way.

I think the Thuban x6 would allow you to do some experimenting with OC'ing, core affinity and p-states. You could run 4 3.2GHz cores on your encoding and 2 faster cores for gaming and 'non-essentials'. I'm tempted to snag a 1055T just to see what kind of wacky combinations I can create as BIOSs come up to speed, and find further ways to tweak with AOD.

Enterprising enthusiasts will try about anything :p 



a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 12:27:12 AM

Jermmau said:


...

Ten, I express the findings in words that my credit card can understand:

The 1090T BE costs 11% less than the i7-930, peforms 5% better, while using 13% less power.

Of course, this is only relevant to my needs and by changing the numbers depending on your needs, you can find out exactly which processor is best for you.

LET THIS END THE AMD vs INTEL FLAMING!

Well done! :)  Of course AMD knows this very well and they have been smart enough to add all this up to pricing of the X6 1090T a little higher than the i7 930. Only the short sighted people will complain about the X6 being $20-30 more expensive than the i7 930 competitor when the right thing to do is add up the cost of the motherboard & RAMs. Well someone will say that you don't need to have 6GB RAM for the i7 but just the pricier X58 motherboard alone will jack up the price of the combo. If you already have an AMD motherboard, the cost of upgrade to an X6 boils down to just the CPU itself...
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 3:45:06 AM

jennyh said:
Sorry I meant 50% better comparitively, ie any game that truly utilises 6 cores over 4, will show it.

The BC2 benchmark is proof of it Jimmy.

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

Quote:
There is currently a title on the market that is utilizing multi-CPU cores and is heavily threading. Battlefield Bad Company 2 will happily use four or more cores. The result is that very quickly the CPU(typo this should say GPU) does not matter anymore as it maximizing the incredible amount of processors power. As a result the GPU really quickly becomes a bottleneck; even the Radeon HD 5870 flat out is running at 100% whilst the processors have plenty of force left.


And Theo's benchmark is even more indicative of the power of 6 processors -

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2010_4_26/AMD-launches-the-Phenom-II-X6-Sexa-Core-CPU2c-We-take-it-for-a-spin/BC2.png

I do apologise for using that graphic *yet again* but it truly shows how silly the comments about the 1090T being a 'bad gaming cpu' are. This is a great gaming cpu just waiting on the software catching up. If it's a bad gaming cpu, it's as bad as Gulftown is bad - and I'm sure AMD would take that lol. ;) 


Theo's benchmark? Is this the Theo that I am thinking of....?
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 3:48:40 AM

Yup, That pic is from the brightsideofnews...... What a joke.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 5:11:31 AM

jennyh said:
Well yes, but we're not even considering that. This is about AMD's 6 cores vs intels 4 cores with SMT, and you can be sure that AMD's real 6 cores are superior architecturally, and basically waiting on software catching up.

Gulftown is basically on a different level that AMD can't catch up to until they get to 32nm themselves. For 99% of us, it's Thuban vs the 45nm i7's that really counts, right now. :) 



I don't understand ... how can the 1090T be architecturally superior than the i7 930/860 when both the chips perform closely overall, & yet, the former needs 6 cores to achieve that performance, while the latter makes do with 4 cores & HT?

p.s. - I thought you hated anandtech, given its "Intel ads plastered all over the place".
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 5:16:55 AM

Oh i forgot to add to my first point- the 1090T operates at 3.2 GHz clockrate, 400 MHz faster than the i7-860/930's 2.8
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 5:23:05 AM

Jermmau said:

LET THIS END THE AMD vs INTEL FLAMING!


A noble effort, but I suspect you will fall short in your goal :( 
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 5:29:13 AM

ksampanna said:
I don't understand ... how can the 1090T be architecturally superior than the i7 930/860 when both the chips perform closely overall, & yet, the former needs 6 cores to achieve that performance, while the latter makes do with 4 cores & HT?

p.s. - I thought you hated anandtech, given its "Intel ads plastered all over the place".


Thats easy. In his usage, its faster, uses less power, and cost less. Apply this to any other product. If it performs better and cost less, how would you view it? HOW it achieves those ends is of no consequence.

Its like arguing that the Agena phenoms were architecturally superior to the Core 2 quads. No end user cares.
April 29, 2010 6:03:22 AM

Good job choosing AMD. Let's all make Intel bankrupt :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 7:32:33 PM

Nobody said the x6 was going to be a bad gaming CPU, just that its a pointless upgrade. The only time the improvement will be significant is in CPU bound/threaded games like BFBC2. These will be very far and few between, and intel's IPC will help greatly in others with high end GPUs.

a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 8:12:51 PM

jennyh said:
Except that just isn't true.

I've already shown benchmarks where the 6 cores of Thuban beats the i7 when both are overclocked. Anand said it happened too, I guess I should quote that?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3676/phenom-ii-x6-4ghz-an...

Quote:
Note that at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test.


Let me point out what this means, with pictures!

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomiix6_042610231918/22620.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomiix6_042610231918/22621.png

You can see that the 975 is ahead of the 1090T at stock. That is 3.33ghz on the i7 compared to 3.2ghz on the 1090T. But what did anand say?

Quote:
Note that at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test.


The i7 @ 3.33ghz is faster than the 1090T @ 3.2ghz.

The i7 @ 4ghz is slower than the 1090T @ 4ghz.

This is the *ultimate* proof that the X6 is the faster cpu clock for clock in well threaded apps *now*, and will easily be the faster cpu when software catches up.

Gaming benchmarks like the BC2 one I linked are yet more proof. Anybody who thinks the X6 is a weak gaming cpu needs a head examination - this cpu is 50% better than most Phenom II's in gaming *as soon as the software catches up*.


Hmm, I went back and checked both of AT's reviews - where does it show the i7-975 at "4GHz"??

Seems clear that Anand meant that the 1090T at 4GHz is now faster at x264 encoding than the i7-975 at 3.33GHz, whereas at the original oc of 3.8GHz it was not faster.
April 29, 2010 8:16:00 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, I went back and checked both of AT's reviews - where does it show the i7-975 at "4GHz"??

Seems clear that Anand meant that the 1090T at 4GHz is now faster at x264 encoding than the i7-975 at 3.33GHz, whereas at the original oc of 3.8GHz it was not faster.


Jenny has her own special way of interpreting things, that is why she is pretty much always wrong.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:04:36 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, I went back and checked both of AT's reviews - where does it show the i7-975 at "4GHz"??

Seems clear that Anand meant that the 1090T at 4GHz is now faster at x264 encoding than the i7-975 at 3.33GHz, whereas at the original oc of 3.8GHz it was not faster.


Yeah, I was thinking, "I think they mean while the i7 is @ stock and the 1090T @ 4ghz." when I read that.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:09:57 PM

Chad Boga said:
Jenny has her own special way of interpreting things, that is why she is pretty much always wrong.


She is a very enthusiastic AMD supporter and definitely accentuates the positives. But she is far from always wrong.
April 29, 2010 11:39:07 PM

FALC0N said:
She is a very enthusiastic AMD supporter and definitely accentuates the positives. But she is far from always wrong.

Yes and I have no clue why you guys have a little gang that by peer pressure is trying to make everything she says immediately assumed wrong. Give her a chance geez
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:45:42 PM

Lol I missed this one until now.

You guys are great, really. :D 



But please use a bit of logic :)  A 4ghz 1090T almost catches Gulftown in x264. It is WAY ahead of a 975 at stock. Although the 975 isnt on this, you can sorta figure it out by the 870 being so far behind, yes?

Ergo, Anand obviously meant the 975 at 4ghz too. I agree he should have written it more clearly than he did for those who aren't really up to speed on the art of benchmarking.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:48:51 PM

uncfan_2563 said:
Yes and I have no clue why you guys have a little gang that by peer pressure is trying to make everything she says immediately assumed wrong. Give her a chance geez


Thanks for bringing this back up btw uncfan - I knew I had forgotten something I posted last night and this was it. :) 
April 30, 2010 12:28:46 AM

jennyh said:
Lol I missed this one until now.

You guys are great, really. :D 

http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Thuban/graphs/18.png

But please use a bit of logic :)  A 4ghz 1090T almost catches Gulftown in x264. It is WAY ahead of a 975 at stock. Although the 975 isnt on this, you can sorta figure it out by the 870 being so far behind, yes?

Ergo, Anand obviously meant the 975 at 4ghz too. I agree he should have written it more clearly than he did for those who aren't really up to speed on the art of benchmarking.

Jenny, why are you focussing on the less CPU intensive Pass 1 of x264 and ignoring the more CPU intensive Pass 2?

I think we all know the reason why.

In Anandtech's review, the 1090T is 5.76% behind the 975 and 11.3% behind Gulftown on Pass 1 of x264.

In Pass 2(the more CPU intensive) the 1095T is 16.14% behind the 975 and 71.22% behind Gulftown

That is the problem with you Jenny, constant dishonest cherry picking and then pretending that the cherry picked results are reflective of a wider reality.
April 30, 2010 1:04:58 AM

It doesn't matter how much better intel is at any price range amd will always be the fastest CPU's to JennyH. She's a hopeless fanboy who distorts the truth to make amd look better.
And why don't we look at similar clockrates on that graph or did you Forget that the 930 and 1055t are at the same clockrates. Not to mention the i5 750 beats the i7 920 which shows that hyperthreading hinders the CPU
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:18:32 AM

Ah Chad, I really do hope you are pretending to be stupid in the hope that I'm lying :D .



You see that OC'd 930 result there Chad? 36.7 @ 4ghz I can't link it because it's not an image, but you can click the link and see for yourself how a 930 @ 4ghz scores :) 



37.15 @ 4ghz.

Give up Chad, you're just hopelessly outmatched.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:25:10 AM

paigeinfull said:
It doesn't matter how much better intel is at any price range amd will always be the fastest CPU's to JennyH. She's a hopeless fanboy who distorts the truth to make amd look better.
And why don't we look at similar clockrates on that graph or did you Forget that the 930 and 1055t are at the same clockrates. Not to mention the i5 750 beats the i7 920 which shows that hyperthreading hinders the CPU


Distorts the truth? You better have some real facts to prove that. I'm the only one telling the truth here, the rest of you are either stupid or pretending to be stupid in order to deceive. I never lie, that's why I'm *always* sure when I'm right.
a c 127 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:29:44 AM

Heh..... 4GHz Thuban still can't beat a stock 980X Gulftown. Hah.

Wish Intel would release cheaper 6 cores though. Would be interesting to watch AMD drop Thubans prices to $200 or lower fast.
April 30, 2010 1:38:32 AM

hey baby,look at the price of the amd and say heh...!!that beat all intel cpu in 900$.i don't care that amd has 6 core but they have 4 core.look at the price!!!!a donkey know choose between amd 1090 and core i7.if you can't .....!!!
April 30, 2010 1:44:09 AM

jennyh said:
Ah Chad, I really do hope you are pretending to be stupid in the hope that I'm lying :D .


Jenny you are lying.

You said the 4Ghz Thuban almost catches the Gulftown at x264, yet that Hexus graph shows a stock Gulftown is 24% faster than a 4Ghz Thuban.

If 24% is "almost catching", then I can see why you were so deluded into think the PhII's were the equal of i7. :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:53:45 AM

Bad attempt at smokescreening Chad.

You lost, again. A 4ghz i7 (except gulftown) will lose to a 4ghz Thuban in x264. Any pass. I told you what Anand meant and was happy to leave it at that, but you kept going until it was proven without doubt. Why do that to yourself over and over? :D 

Try to at least accept it when you are proven wrong. I would, if I'm ever proven wrong. :lol: 
April 30, 2010 2:17:17 AM

jennyh said:
Bad attempt at smokescreening Chad.

You lost, again. A 4ghz i7 (except gulftown) will lose to a 4ghz Thuban in x264. Any pass. I told you what Anand meant and was happy to leave it at that, but you kept going until it was proven without doubt. Why do that to yourself over and over? :D 

Try to at least accept it when you are proven wrong. I would, if I'm ever proven wrong. :lol: 

The two reviews are not identical.

On the Hexus review the AMD chips are closer to the Intel chips, thus you cannot use the Hexus review scores to compare with another review(in this case the Anandtech review)

In the Anandtech review, on 2nd Pass x264, the 1090T gets 28.5 on the Hexus review it gets 30.51

Similarly the Intel chips get lesser scores, with the Gulftown and i7-920 getting 46.1 and 25.8 respectively on Hexus, and 48.8 and 26.7 on Anandtech.

So only a fool would draw the conclusions you have, and you clearly lied about the 1090T almost catching up to the Gulftown.
April 30, 2010 4:39:46 AM

Why do you guys argue over CPU's chips exactly?Why do you guys argue over CPU's chips exactly?

I7 980X is better obviously better its freakin 3.3 times the price of the 1090T and 5 times of the 1055T. thuban is budget six core, there isnt much else to it. :/ 
April 30, 2010 6:07:15 AM



Jenny stop cherry picking benchmarks where amd wins and posting only those graphs.

If you read multiple reviews the i7 win more than they lose, and the X6 is only competitive in high thread apps like encoding and rending.

The i7 has the IPC advantage so amd chips still need atleast 400-500mhz extra clock speed to equal it.

The 4 Ghz X6 ties or is slightly faster in Encoding benchmarks or rending as a 4Ghz i7, but in all the other applications it loses!

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799

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

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



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 11:09:32 AM

Most of them don't use 6 cores
Clock for clock means clock for clock when both chips are at maximum, not when one of the chips is at 66% due to only using 4 out of 6 cores.

As I've mentioned earlier, this is what happens when all 6 cores of Thuban are being used at maximum.





Even the 1055T beats the i7 870 when all 6 cores are properly used

If that wasn't the case, why is it happening? It clearly points to the simple FACT that when Thubans 6 cores are fully utilised, it blows the i7 away clock for clock. The reality of it is, the X6 has *at least* a 200mhz clock for clock lead and if that wasn't true then neither of these graphs would exist.

How do we know Pov ray scales well with clock speed? That's very simple just look at the differences between the intel chips at different clock speeds. How do we know Pov Ray scales well with cores? Again that's very simple just look at the difference between Deneb and Thuban.

An application which shows near perfect scaling of cores and clock speeds shows Thuban has *at least* a 200mhz IPC advantage.
!