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

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

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.
11 answers Last reply
More about 1090t 1100t bulldozer alternative
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. Gizzo said:
    For reference, I posted another thread with my proposed build here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/327221-13-powerful-gaming-multitasking-build-review

    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 ?
  4. 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.

    Anonymous 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 .
  7. 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

    Anonymous 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Thanks to everyone who posted. I have now decided which processor seems more suitable for my setup, which is the 1090T.
  11. I have the 1100T in my one rig and I am very pleased.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Overclocking Bulldozer Product