
At idle, the Phenom II X6 1090T results in slightly higher system power than the Phenom II X4 965. Under the load of Prime95, we also see somewhat higher energy usage numbers.
Compare those figures to Intel’s, though. Under load, the Phenom IIs generate comparable system power draw. But at idle, AMD’s Phenom II CPUs use quite a bit less.
Of course, these are snapshots at the top and bottom of each processor’s range. The more realistic measure of consumption comes from our exploration into Turbo CORE on page three, where we determined that, despite its additional complexity and Turbo CORE technology, the Phenom II X6 1090T only averages a few watts higher power use in a logged PCMark Vantage run.
Previous
Next
Summary
- AMD Can Do Six Cores, Too
- Phenom II X6: A Family Of Two
- Making Sense Of Turbo CORE
- 8-Series Chipsets, Revealed
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Media And Transcoding Apps
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: Left 4 Dead 2
- Benchmark Results: Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
- Power Consumption
- Conclusion
Ask a Category Expert
I just cant remember tom's last review that had an nvidia card with an AMD processor.
In this case, it does not perform better than i7-920, even though the 920 is a 4 core cpu (and no, no one really runs it at 2.66, everyone pushes it at least to 3, since it takes nothing to get it to that speed, and it right away outperforms AMD's 6 core, and has a much better memory throughput).
I was able to hit 3.7 with Turbo CORE enabled fairly easily. It might go higher, but I'd argue this probably isn't as much of an overclocking chip as a 965 might be.
Actually it's under 300$, but still really affordable
Like playing games while having handbreak and antivirus running at the same time.
I can see why you would but do you realize the time this would take to do everyones favorite game? Not a reasonable thing to do...
I was talking about 1055T.