Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD 1090T[BE] or 1100T[BE] or Bulldozer alternative

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
  • Bulldozer
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
December 5, 2011 10:01:28 PM

For reference, I posted another thread with my proposed build here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/327221-13-powerful-...

Warning: an overclocking newbie wrote this post. :p 

I was originally considering the 1100. The 1090 and 1100 are very similar to my untrained eye! The emphasis for performance is on compression, rendering and compiling; gaming would be nice but it's not essential. I fully intend to overclock the CPU that I buy as far as I can; I have seen some reviews which compare the 6100 Bulldozer to the Phenom hex cores unfavourably for both performance and overclocking. I have also read about the process of 'binning' and for this reason I am currently leaning towards the 1090.

Please help me come to some sort of reasonable decision so that I can move of with the build.

More about : amd 1090t 1100t bulldozer alternative

a c 323 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 5, 2011 11:28:14 PM

the 1100 is just a 1090 with a higher factory multiplier. When you overclock a black edition you just increase the multiplier so with 1 tick you turn you 1090 into an 1100. They both will overclock to near the same point with a good cooler.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 6, 2011 12:24:42 AM

yup. what popatim said.

however i will throw in this
I see VERY LITTLE difference between my 1090T BE @ 4ghz and a friends 965BE @ 4ghz.

For gaming atleast anyway. (as most modern games only use 2-4 cores)

Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 6, 2011 2:16:05 AM

Gizzo said:
For reference, I posted another thread with my proposed build here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/327221-13-powerful-...

Warning: an overclocking newbie wrote this post. :p 

I was originally considering the 1100. The 1090 and 1100 are very similar to my untrained eye! The emphasis for performance is on compression, rendering and compiling; gaming would be nice but it's not essential. I fully intend to overclock the CPU that I buy as far as I can; I have seen some reviews which compare the 6100 Bulldozer to the Phenom hex cores unfavourably for both performance and overclocking. I have also read about the process of 'binning' and for this reason I am currently leaning towards the 1090.

Please help me come to some sort of reasonable decision so that I can move of with the build.

I have both 1100t and 1090t , no difference in performance , both are blazing fast . For overclocking both will get to just about the same level .
I was going to get BD but decided on the 1090t (already had the 990 fx board waiting ) , for now it is better than 6100 and there are no power savings with 6100 so why spend the extra $$ for no improvements ?
December 6, 2011 4:38:56 AM

popatim said:
the 1100 is just a 1090 with a higher factory multiplier. When you overclock a black edition you just increase the multiplier so with 1 tick you turn you 1090 into an 1100. They both will overclock to near the same point with a good cooler.


So there isn't much point in paying more for the 1100 then... I'm seeing some large price differences for these in the UK.

HugoStiglitz said:
yup. what popatim said.

however i will throw in this
I see VERY LITTLE difference between my 1090T BE @ 4ghz and a friends 965BE @ 4ghz.

For gaming atleast anyway. (as most modern games only use 2-4 cores)


I have heard this, and to be honest I have been wondering about it. Are any of the 'replacements' AMD threw out as 'successors' to the 965 better or are they the same thing with a new fancy name? (The 965 seems rarer now.) The main thing I plan to use this computer for is heavy multitasking, rendering and compiling. Games are not my main concern as long as I can play modern games at a decent rate (not 15fps is good to me). I would happily sacrifice gameplay quality for a better multitasker.

jerry6 said:
I have both 1100t and 1090t , no difference in performance , both are blazing fast . For overclocking both will get to just about the same level .
I was going to get BD but decided on the 1090t (already had the 990 fx board waiting ) , for now it is better than 6100 and there are no power savings with 6100 so why spend the extra $$ for no improvements ?


That's good to know. What sort of level are we looking at on an optimal air-cooled rig? The 6100 is out the door now; I'm no longer considering it based on what I've read here and at other sources.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 6, 2011 9:32:52 AM

What PC case do you intend to use is an important question as is what CPU cooler, i have a 1090t OCd to 4.0ghz inside a Silverstone FT02 case with this cooler..

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/be-quiet!-dark-rock-pro-bk016-cpu-cooler-socket-lga775-1155-1156-1366-am2-am2plus-am3-754-940


It runs very well indeed and temps never exceed 50C, normally stay around 42C under 100% load.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 6, 2011 4:33:09 PM

I'm using the stock cooler , o/c @ 3.6 and temps are 56c @100% cpu . A good cooler will help for higher O/C . For what you're doing the 6 core will be better than the 965 , like you there is more to life than gaming , and the 1090t just flies . I save weeks of time , maybe a month or 2 over a year with the 6core .
And it does really well in games , at least my son thinks so .
December 6, 2011 5:12:18 PM

Uther39 said:
What PC case do you intend to use is an important question as is what CPU cooler, i have a 1090t OCd to 4.0ghz inside a Silverstone FT02 case with this cooler..

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/be-quiet!-dark-rock-pro-bk016-cpu-cooler-socket-lga775-1155-1156-1366-am2-am2plus-am3-754-940

It runs very well indeed and temps never exceed 50C, normally stay around 42C under 100% load.


Sorry, I should have mentioned the case (doh!). It's the Coolermaster 430.* Thanks for your cooler suggestion. Those temps look nice. :D 

*With loads of nice fans. :p 

jerry6 said:
I'm using the stock cooler , o/c @ 3.6 and temps are 56c @100% cpu . A good cooler will help for higher O/C . For what you're doing the 6 core will be better than the 965 , like you there is more to life than gaming , and the 1090t just flies . I save weeks of time , maybe a month or 2 over a year with the 6core .
And it does really well in games , at least my son thinks so .


That's interesting... I may start with the stock cooler and overclock higher after purchasing a better one. Your reasoning matches mine; I really want a processor that can increase my productivity. That may have sounded like business or marketing jargon, but my current PC is holding me back significantly, which isn't great considering that 100% of my 'busy' time is spent on the computer.
a c 323 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
December 6, 2011 8:41:05 PM

Buy the cooler now, no point in installing twice.
The 965 is a little better in games becuase not many games can use 6 cores. The Thuban shows it power when usinig all 6 cores like during Rendering. For strictly gaming I would say go 965 with win7 or grab the 1090T if you plan on jumping to Win8 which will use those extra cores more efficiently.
December 7, 2011 8:34:57 AM

popatim said:
Buy the cooler now, no point in installing twice. The 965 is a little better in games becuase not many games can use 6 cores. The Thuban shows it power when usinig all 6 cores like during Rendering. For strictly gaming I would say go 965 with win7 or grab the 1090T if you plan on jumping to Win8 which will use those extra cores more efficiently.


Yeah, I read that games weren't really onto 6 cores yet. I suppose it depends on your needs whether you take the 965 over the 1090T.
Thanks for your advice. I reckon I'll go for the 1090T. It seems a good price and I could use the extra cores as compared to the 965.
December 7, 2011 1:16:27 PM

Thanks to everyone who posted. I have now decided which processor seems more suitable for my setup, which is the 1090T.
December 7, 2011 3:46:05 PM

I have the 1100T in my one rig and I am very pleased.