Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Would the X6 1090T bottleneck 2x5850 CF?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 30, 2010 2:16:33 AM

1-Would the X6 1090T bottleneck 2x5850 CF?

I'm going to add another 5850 and was wondering if the 1090T would prevent me from running those babies to their full potential :D 

2-How much will I need to OC it to do so?

Thanks in advance
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:23:22 AM

no it wudnt prevent them from getting their full numbers, but if the pc is just for gaming, ur better off with a 945/955/965
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 3:44:07 AM

My friend seen a huge FPS boost in L4D2 when he upgraded his p4 to a 965. He kept his 8800gt.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 30, 2010 4:01:53 AM

I'm getting the 1090t for future proof

I don't update every year my friend
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 4:26:59 AM

Msshadowman said:
I'm getting the 1090t for future proof

I don't update every year my friend

How often do you update? Bulldozer desktop comes out next year.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 5:25:49 AM

Quote:
What is going on is very simple, the CPU is creating a bottleneck and as a result the GPU performance is being limited. If the Radeon HD 5870 can easily average 200fps at 1920x1200 but you limit it with a processor that will only allow for 100fps at 1024x768 then you are going to see virtually the same amount of frames being rendered at higher resolutions as the GPU is capable of much more.

So based on that look at the Unreal Tournament 3 results. The Core i7 980 XE allowed for 323fps at 1024x768 and 218fps at 1920x1200 as this is the limit of this GPU setup at this resolution. This limit was also reached with the Core i7 975 EE and Core i7 930 processors.

Now the Phenom II X6 1090T was only able to render 187fps at 1024x768 and we already know that the Radeon HD 5870 is capable of much more at this resolution. Therefore increasing the resolution is not going to see much of a drop in performance until the GPU once again becomes slower than the CPU. Given we have seen an average of 218fps at 1920x1200 with the Core i7 processors the Radeon HD 5870 is not going to be maxed out by the Phenom II X6 1090T using the quality settings which we tested with.


Heres a reply from some other forum discussing the thubans.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 8:24:08 AM

What if it's OC'ed to 4 GHz or higher?

Can it make full use of the GPU's then?
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 8:30:14 AM

Msshadowman said:
What if it's OC'ed to 4 GHz or higher?

Can it make full use of the GPU's then?

xaira said:
no it wudnt prevent them from getting their full numbers, but if the pc is just for gaming, ur better off with a 945/955/965

m
0
l
April 30, 2010 8:48:07 AM

^I've read this reply my friend, I'm talking about the techspot review

1090T:183fps

i7 930:218fps

and that's with 5870, the gap could be wider with 58580 cf

So will OCing it to 4 Ghz or more increase the fps to that level?

Is playing at resolution 1920x1080 GPU limited? (I only see the different performance bet both cpus in less resolutions)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 11:33:17 AM

yes, wanna know why, because when you get to high resolutions, you stop seeing frame rates like 183 and 218 fps dont you



5870 was used in tests
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 11:44:34 AM

Just gonna repeat this from another thread.

Dear oh dear.

AMD has some cool circuitry inside every chip they make. This little part of the chip allows it to sacrifice fps when it doesn't matter (ie, at anytime the fps totals are above 100), in order to boost fps when it does matter (ie, when games need to be boosted most around the 60fps area).

The evidence? You've already shown how Thuban falls behind at 200fps.





There is the evidence of AMD's plan. Make the cpu better at *real* and recent games - 20% faster in FC2 and BC2, not some ancient crap like UT3 which would run perfectly on a 5 year old laptop.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 12:37:39 PM

^WOW

I didn't know that, besides since it won't matter at my resolution I'll get the cheaper option (which is AMD XD)

Thanks for your answers, you've all been very helpful
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 12:58:03 PM

jennyh said:


AMD has some cool circuitry inside every chip they make. This little part of the chip allows it to sacrifice fps when it doesn't matter (ie, at anytime the fps totals are above 100), in order to boost fps when it does matter (ie, when games need to be boosted most around the 60fps area).

p.


This is total b/s . Its a sign of less powerful cores (there is less cache per core).
Quote:
In the same vein, the gaming benchmarks are a reminder that the latest and greatest graphics cards really do need a capable processor behind them if you want to unleash their potential. An overclockable CPU like the Core i7-920 or -930 can really open up a Radeon HD 5870 or GeForce GTX 480 when you get it up to the 4 GHz range. Dipping down to 3.2 GHz doesn’t really help the 1090T win any battles in the games (Call of Duty excepted, where Turbo CORE seems to improve performance over the X4 965). If you’re a gamer, save the money you’d spend on a six-core CPU, buy your favorite overclockable processor, and spend the difference on graphics or an SSD to cut level load times. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:05:48 PM

Farcry 2 only uses two cores, yet the phenoms are ahead at maximum settings.

It's got nothing to do with having less powerful cores. There is some flaw in the i7 architecture which prevents it from operating at it's maximum level - that is why the X4 phenoms can beat the i7.

Any game that is properly multithreaed to 6 cores will be a huge win for the X6's. BC2 is the proof of that - the i5 750 is getting destroyed - even at 4.3ghz the i5 750 cannot match a STOCK 1090T in true multithreaded games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:11:34 PM

and the winner of the biggest failure to see sarcasm is: notty22

the fact is that once ur getting more than 35 fps average, the game is more than playable, so all this talk of we need more powerfull cpus is lunacy, if a i7 gives you 102 fps and a phenom II gives you 60fps you really think ull see the difference? the only reason i recommend quad cores with higher clocks for gamers is because its cheaper...
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 1:14:05 PM

AMD has some cool circuitry inside every chip they make. said:
AMD has some cool circuitry inside every chip they make.


was it an actual circuitry or an instruction set? (3dnow)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:16:09 PM

Lol, I'm sure there is no actual circuitry designed to do that job, it just seems to work out that way for some unknown reason.

If I were in AMD's marketing, I'd be making those claims though. :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:18:17 PM

Thats more b/s, TH just did a article with current games, and the dual core 32nm Intel drove a 5850 to maximun fps in games. Showing how important , per core performance is.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588...
At higher resolutions, The gpu is doing more work and is no longer waiting on memory and computational performance from the cpu. Which is inferior in slower cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:47:26 PM



Any reason why this i7 870 is stone dead last in Crysis? :lol: 

Another FAIL argument from notty.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:52:28 PM

Interesting link however notty.

How come the i7 870 is just about always last in these benchmarks? If it's about per-core performance, and the i7 870 should be far superior to anythign else there (by intel fanboy reasoning)...why is the bloody thing always last?

Last



Last



Last




Yet more conclusive evidence of Phenom II's gaming superiority.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:19:39 PM







Hmm cherry picking benchmarks nice one jenny. I will Spare you the real world app benchs because Phenoms just get spanked all over the place.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:22:46 PM

Wait how come when I pick the benchmarks that show the Phenoms winning it's 'cherry picking' yet when somebody else shows the phenoms losing it's proof that the Phenoms are bad gaming cpus? :na: 
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:28:29 PM

Almost every review I read the Phenoms aren't doing well the only sight that seems to get favorable results from them is Toms.

Yea I sort of just cherry picked but the Phenoms get spanked way more then they win they do win in a few areas but not enough to show me that they did something groundbreaking with the Thuban.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:29:23 PM

Also, try to understand what cherry picking is. You think the full benchmarks from THG's review will show the i7 in a better light?

5th out of 6


Last


Last


Last


5th out of 6


Last


4th out of 6


Last


Cherry picking? LOL they are ALL bad for the i7. It is never better than 4th in those 10 benchmarks!

It's amusing how some of you who claim THG is the definitive guide for benchmarking are now scrambling for some low-grade websites results instead though. :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:33:52 PM

saaiello said:
Almost every review I read the Phenoms aren't doing well the only sight that seems to get favorable results from them is Toms.

Yea I sort of just cherry picked but the Phenoms get spanked way more then they win they do win in a few areas but not enough to show me that they did something groundbreaking with the Thuban.


So toms now gave a favourable review for the Thubans? You realise Builderbob was going on about how Thuban's gaming results were proof of it being a bad gaming cpu?

So which is it? You are all so confused you can't even think straight. Do you actually believe ANY of these benchmarks should be taken as 100% truth?

The only thing we know is that they all perform *about the same*.

We also know that Thuban thrashes the i5 750 in BC2, which is currently the only well threaded game we know about. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to assume that 6 cores are going to be a lot better in well threaded games.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:38:53 PM

I am not an Intel fanboy at all I even just built an Athlon II rig. There are way to many discrepancies between sites to get a definitive answer. For some reason Toms benchs show the I7 870 getting beat but it cant be right or it could be who knows really why they are getting bad results with it when every other reveiw I read shows it shining. Eithier way AMD still put out a solid processor and for gaming I would say any of those processors will give you great gaming being it AMD or Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 2:49:50 PM

Well I see plenty of reviews where the i7's are not 'shining', at least at maximum settings. More often than not they are falling behind by 1-2 fps, which is nothing in reality, but they are still coming in behind.

The only real difference is that the Phenoms score 300fps when the i7's score 350fps. however, if that game was run on say an eyefinity setup at 5760x1080, maximum settings, I'd be willing to bet that the Phenom would "win" by...1-2 fps. The closer the graphics cards get to bottlenecking, the better the Phenoms become.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:05:37 PM

The FPS in each test are certainly going to be slightly different for each result. Why the i7 was constantly last by 0.8 to 5 FPS? Who knows.

Seriously Jenny though, why do you keep highjacking threads and turning them into "everyone is saying phenoms are bad gaming CPUs" and "I'll show you!" arguments? Can't you just leave it alone and get back to the OPs question?

We've determined only what is already known. The i7 quad core beats the phenom II 965 in most cases. However, it is not by a significant margin in most cases. The thuban x6 does not perform any better because not many games can take advantage of the cores. But it will come in handy in the future if you do not intend to upgrade for a few years when more games become multi-threaded. Also, the thuban seems to have slightly better overclocking potential. Reviewers have gotten it consistently to at least a stable 4GHz as opposed to the 955 which seems to overclock to at least 3.8GHz for reviewers.

To directly answer your questions:
1. No. If at all, not by much.
2. Certainly. And 4GHz seems achievable and would definitely knock thuban above the quad core i7s or somewhere in the middle at the very least.
Share
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:18:30 PM

I'm not hijacking it I'm putting the record straight. How do you explain those i7 870 benchmarks if the i7 beats the 965 'in most cases' like you claim??

You can't, you just ignore the CLEAR evidence and repeat your tired mantra of 'the i7 is better than the 965 in gaming' even though you have NO proper evidence to support that.

Just to point out your insanity a bit more - I have shown 14 benchmarks in this thread alone which shows the phenom II is a better gaming cpu than the i7. 14 vs 3 from Saiello.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 3:20:06 PM

Best answer selected by Msshadowman.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 3:25:17 PM

Last year I used 3x4850 in "tri"-fire and there was never a bottlenecking issue using a PhII 940 or PhII 965.

As a previous poster have pointed out, a few (specific) cherry picked games consistently work better on Intel than AMD. This trend can be seen from different review sites. If you review many benchmark sites it can easily be concluded that although Intel systems seem to work better with those same 3 or 4 games, with other games that trend does not continue.

Plus you will find that there are some games where the Intel system reaches the "GPU Bottleneck" point at a lower FPS than the AMD system. This is in situations where there is definitely not a CPU bottleneck.

But none of the above has anything to do with Crossfire.

ANYWAY: It is highly unlikely that 2x 5850 would bottleneck a PhII 965 or a PhII 1090T


EDIT: BTW: I upgraded to 5870 because I wanted DX11 for LOTRO. Which they still haven't done yet dang it.

ALSO, I know many people hate synthetics for various reasons, but you can go onto the Futuremark ORB and review results from various CPU with the card you want to look at. Often it is difficult to figure out if there is only 1 or 2 cards, but the newest system info they started using generally shows if there is more than one GPU.

A long while back I did analysis and it showed that going from 1 to 2 and then 3 cards (4850 and 4870) actually showed the AMD CPU scaling better than Intel. Of course some people didn't like that and pretended the results were not acceptable since 3dMark Vantage is "synthetic". (I think this was before the i5/i7 was released. I'm sure that now it would show the i5/i7 scaling well and these "synthetic" results would now be acceptable.)
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:46:31 PM

jennyh said:
I'm not hijacking it I'm putting the record straight. How do you explain those i7 870 benchmarks if the i7 beats the 965 'in most cases' like you claim??

You can't, you just ignore the CLEAR evidence and repeat your tired mantra of 'the i7 is better than the 965 in gaming' even though you have NO proper evidence to support that.

Just to point out your insanity a bit more - I have shown 14 benchmarks in this thread alone which shows the phenom II is a better gaming cpu than the i7. 14 vs 3 from Saiello.

You need to calm down. You also need to not insult me. It is rude.
Every computer I have built and every computer I will build will be an AMD unless something significantly changes. Except one, all my friends at my LAN parties have AMD builds. I am simply stating what I have seen in benchmarks from a lot of sources over time. Yes, the 965 beats the i7 in a lot of cases, but the i7 seems to win the most. All benchmarks you have shown do not show a significant margin.
I am not going to post all the benchmarks I have read here. I don't trust a single source, so I read multiple.

Apparently because I repeat what I have read from most sites, I am "repeating a mantra that the i7 is better than the 965 in gaming". I take insult to this, hence the thread. You have insulted me with your comments and that post.

You are not satisfied unless I tell you that I think the phenom II will always beat the core i7 in gaming. I have not seen enough evidence to support this. As much as I would like to believe that, I simply cannot.

I have a better idea: How about this?
You start a thread called core vs phenom. This will be where you can have all your argumentative fun. If you want, link people to it because you can keep all your evidence and arguments there instead of taking up so much room in a question thread. Say something like "phenom II is better, read this:"
I for one, would be interested in reading such a thread.

jennyh said:
I'm not hijacking it I'm putting the record straight.

Is that what you call not answering the OP's question? And instead going into an argument about core vs phenom? Perhaps your efforts would be better put to work in your own thread that you can attempt to get it made a sticky. If you are actually dedicated to setting the record straight.

I'm going to keep everything I say in one thread to jenny from now on. But actually, I think this is my last post. I said it was insulting for you to call me insane. Not your benchmarks. You seem to be trying to get me to post evidence. Well, jenny, this is not a debate thread. If I wanted to debate with you (which would be fun), I would do it in a thread that wants debating. If you want me to become a part of your debating, please create a new thread and link me to it.You know what takes less trouble than posting 14 benchmarks and commentary and is more convincing? Linking to full reviews and instructing people what to read.
Yes, I have determined what I think I know. You have also determined what you think you know. If I were rich, I would sit down and do the benchmarks myself. But I'm not, and only have an Athlon IIx4. So I have to rely on the ones I have read. Other than benchmarks that I can do, like how the number of cores and GHz affect gaming with a radeon 3870 and various games. MW2 for example does not take advantage of more than 3 cores. And I still get no drop in framerates at 1920x1080 after using 4 cores at 750MHz. So I think I'm set with my CPU for a while lol. Sorry for going off topic.
Just a bit of advice, avoid terms like "truth" or "true reality". Those are the terms religious cults use.
I have provided NO evidence because I am not trying to debate with you. Why can't you accept that and stop bashing me?
So anyway, start that thread of yours and I would love to join in on the debate.

Scottq, I recommend we all save it for the new thread jennyh is going to create.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:51:10 PM

I answered the OP's question on another matter, if you'd read that you'd have seen it.

As for insulting? It is *very* insulting to go to the trouble of posting 14 benchmarks with commentary, which CLEARLY shows the Phenom II as a superior gaming cpu, only for you to turn around and say - while showing NO evidence of your own -

Quote:
We've determined only what is already known. The i7 quad core beats the phenom II 965 in most cases.


YOU might have determined what you think you know, I on the other hand have provided multiple evidences of the true reality. Unless you are willing to do the same, don't make blanket, false statements like you did there. All you are doing is repeating something you read some other person write, while providing no evidence at all.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 4:01:19 PM

*sigh*


Use of High Quality video settings to show the differences in CPU's??

The limitation in these scenarios is the Graphic subsection, not the processor.


To answer the OP's question: It appears to be a perfectly appropriate choice for your needs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 4:58:54 PM

Scotteq said:
*sigh*


Use of High Quality video settings to show the differences in CPU's??

The limitation in these scenarios is the Graphic subsection, not the processor.


To answer the OP's question: It appears to be a perfectly appropriate choice for your needs.


So how come the intel cpu's lead at low resolution and lose at high resolution?

I mean...if it's ALL about the graphics card at high resolution, why do the intel's lose by a couple of fps? The answer is, it is ofc not all about the graphics card.

How about thinking about it along the lines of 'the phenom II's can push a couple more frames out of games at max settings'? Why not? The reason is, you don't want to believe it. :) 

Those thg benchmarks I linked earlier? I would bet ANYTHING that if those were put to low resolution, low settings - the i7 870 would end up a long way ahead. So why is it losing at the difficult end?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:46:31 PM

..because a couple of FPS is easily attributed to the normal margin for error, and/or differences in SouthBridge implementation. Not to mention that it's perfectly logical that AMD would better optimize AMD software/drivers to run a ATI product on an AMD motherboard.

There is nothing for me to believe or not believe: It is misleading to attribute differences in high resolution performance to CPU. Period.

At low resolutions, the Graphics subsection can easily handle the throughput and therefore the stress is more on the Processor side to feed the Graphics. At High resolutions, the a faster processor makes less difference because the stress is on the GRAPHICS. This is common knowledge, and common sense. Why is it so difficult to for you to understand?

Answer: It's not difficult. And only "becomes" an issue when an individual has an agenda.



Regardless - This ASININE crusade against Intel you are hell bent on pursuing is irrelevant to the original poster: He already has an AMD setup, and simply wanted assurance that the x6 wouldn't be a bottleneck if he were to add another GPU. The answer is "No, It Won't Be A Bottleneck" - A statement which *I* as well as others HAVE ALREADY MADE.

In Plain Language, Jenny: We have already given an "AMD" answer to the OP. We have already "agreed" with your assertions that a 1090T will fit the OP's needs and serve him well.

But no - Rather than admitting that High Rez benchies aren't a reliable indicator of CPU performance, - or even merely saying nothing - you attack people who AGREED with a Pro-AMD position in this case. Because what? We *dared* to question your approach?

We would appreciate you tone down the rhetoric to something less than psychopathic.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 6:24:09 PM

Scotteq said:
Not to mention that it's perfectly logical that AMD would better optimize AMD software/drivers to run a ATI product on an AMD motherboard.


Actually if you look at the release notes you'll see that there is a general trend showing they optimize for Intel machines first; then later (sometimes months) they optimize for their own platform.

And that makes sense from a business viewpoint. You cater to your larger market percentage that brings you money. When it comes to making money with the red then there is no difference between blue and green.

In general after both are basically optimized and working well... they might try a bit harder for their own platform.

The 58xx cards currently seem to be working better on Intel than on AMD. This is not unexpected since the same thing happened with the 48xx cards. Eventually we'll get a new driver update that will make AMD platforms much better. Of course if history again repeats itself by then the review sites won't care anymore and won't redo their benchmarks and all of the fanboys will continue to believe the old outdated benchmarks. (And ignore any newer benchmarks which show things to be different than what they want to believe.)
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 6:29:27 PM

Well yea, low resolution does show which processor is better (faster), but it's just like synthetic benchmarks, unrealistic, which we don't use in real life. Also if someone does play at 800x600 at lowest setting, what does the extra 30 frames mean if we don't notice the difference (100+ FPS).
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 6:31:09 PM

milki654 said:
Well yea, low resolution does show which processor is better (faster), but it's just like synthetic benchmarks, unrealistic, which we don't use in real life. Also if someone does play at 800x600 at lowest setting, what does the extra 30 frames mean if we don't notice the difference (100+ FPS).


<GASP> Are you suggesting that it is basically only something used by some people to "win" a meaningless argument on some forum?

HEY EVERYBODY GET THE ROPE WE GOT A HANGING TO DO.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 6:57:04 PM

This thread was closed by any Mod who happens to be watching
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 7:01:28 PM

Actually this is one of the more constructive threads with less than average personal insults flying around.

EDIT: Okay I just reviewed some more... perhaps not. But I generally just mentally block out some things. When you ignore those things then you realize that there are actually some constructive answers to the OP from several people.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:14:29 PM



Here's how you beloved x6 does on FC2 when a stronger GPU is used.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:23:27 PM



I'll try not to include intel friendly games that make amd look horrible (not that it is).

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:46:50 PM

The reviews can be found on legionhardware.com.

They have 25x16 benches as well that show a Phenom II is plenty at those resolutions on even a 5970, but once the resolution is lowered to a more common resolution of 1680x1050 the tides change. This is because if you don't have a strong enough GPU to challenge the Phenom II, you'll never see a difference.

Phenom II is a great bargain and a powerful line-up, but to call it stronger than i7 because it performs better when massively bottlenecked is foolish.

PS Keith, phenom ii will not take the lead with ati drivers unless they cripple intel performance. The difference is too great.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 9:43:33 PM

Raidur said:
PS Keith, phenom ii will not take the lead with ati drivers unless they cripple intel performance. The difference is too great.



If you are are referring to the results you posted in the legion hardware review, those results do not support your opinion that: "The difference is too great."


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 9:48:33 PM

No raidur, those benchmarks show an issue with Phenom II's and motherboard crossfire (better known as drivers). The exact same thing happened with the 4xxx series cards, and AMD fixed it all in one driver...9.8 was it?

I'll save myself the bother of digging up the 5970 benchmark where the Phenom II wins at every point between 3 an 4ghz, we both know it exists and we both know the result is - the single fastest gpu performs better with a Phenom II - even at 4ghz.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 10:07:38 PM

Lol. Your worse than I thought Jenny.

The 5970 bench you speak of is on legionhardware. They used a resolution of 25x16 which bottlenecked the cards greatly, which has been my point all along. I remember us talking about it, and you saying lower resolutions (above 800x600) it wouldn't make a difference. You said, "intel is just better at lower resolutions" (lower implying <= 1024x768).

Now that legion hardware did that you blame it on a driver issue? As if only AMD boards are going to benefit from maturing crossfire drivers?

Admit it jenny. Phenom II is a bottleneck on a 5970 (or 5870xfire) at resolutions <25x16. I guarantee you don't have a single review that favors Phenom II with a 5970 or comparable setup on resolutions of 1920x1200 and under.

Show me Jenny, prove me wrong.
m
0
l
!