Skip to main content

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T And 890FX Platform Review: Hello, Leo

Benchmark Results: Media And Transcoding Apps

Our iTunes test is perhaps the most telling indicator of the effectiveness of Turbo CORE. We know that this application is not threaded, so we’d expect our 3.2 GHz Phenom II X6 1090T to ramp up to its maximum Turbo speed of 3.6 GHz.

The results, however, suggest that the 3.2 GHz part is merely matching the performance of AMD’s quad-core Phenom II X4 965. Meanwhile, everything from the sub-$200 Core i5-750 to the $1,000 Core i7-980X is able to outpace the two AMD chips.

Reiterating my previous point, Turbo CORE is compensating for the loss of clock speed resulting from AMD’s move to hexa-core computing without an accompanying die shrink. It does not look to improve performance versus the company’s previous flagship in single-threaded titles.

Of course, most media-oriented apps are not as handicapped as iTunes. MainConcept is well-threaded, so even if the X6 isn’t running as fast as the X4, it’s extra cores more than compensate, propelling the chip ahead of Intel’s quad-core Core i7-920 and -930, just behind the Core i7-975 Extreme. That’s a significant finish given the price gap between the -975, X6, and -930.

HandBrake, freely available, turns the tables even more in favor of AMD’s Thuban design. The Phenom II X6 1090T shaves more than two minutes off of the X4’s transcode, and AMD even manages to beat Core i7-975 by three seconds. Thuban can’t touch Gulftown, but again, we’re talking about the difference between a $295 and $1,000 processor here.

In the threaded DivX test, Phenom II X6 1090T again outperforms Intel’s quad-core Core i7-975, losing out only to Intel’s Core i7-980X. The Xvid routine isn’t threaded, though, and AMD’s X6 succumbs to the faster-clocked X4 part. The competition from Intel doesn’t do as well here.

It’s also interesting to note that, despite the fact that Intel’s six-core Gulftown part is bugged in Xvid, AMD’s six-core contender does not suffer from the same problem, and manages to complete the test without seizing up.

  • theDARKW0LF
    Awesome, good thing I waited for this release, hello six cores (first post)!
    Reply
  • dwave
    My 4 core Core2Quad @ 2.83 is still working everything great, so I won't be upgrading. Nice to see the price for 6 cores is very reasonable though!
    Reply
  • This maaayy just be my "conspiracy theory" but please also test nvidia cards with the processors. Not flacking AMD or anything but there could possibly be optimizations and "reverse optimizations" for the processors.

    I just cant remember tom's last review that had an nvidia card with an AMD processor.
    Reply
  • theDARKW0LF
    Lol I was just into the hype at that last post, I didn't even start to read the review, now I think I'll just go back to the Phenom II X4, ah well lol
    Reply
  • Finally this article comes out. I've been waiting since the morning for this. Lol but anyway, good read.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    Got some GTX 480 numbers in there as well txt, and the results weren't much prettier.
    Reply
  • englandr753
    Being that I have seemed to changed my use of my pc more toward video editing than gaming I am definitely selling off my Q9550 and going with the AMD X6. I still game some but don't care to have the cutting edge video card atm so this is perfect for me. I'm buying from AMD for my next cpu! Way to go AMD! I still have another Q9550 system so don't think I'm an AMD fan boy but I do love it when AMD gives such a great value for such a great product. Everyone should...
    Reply
  • You know, AMD can make a 48core CPU, but if it performs worse than Intel's 4 core, than it does not matter that it costs only as much as Intel's 4 core.

    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).
    Reply
  • englandr753
    Is the X6 1090T not oc'able at all? It would seem there should be some headroom for overclock to some degree. Starting out at 3.2g makes me think you should be able to get fairly close to 4.0.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    englandr753Is the X6 1090T not oc'able at all? It would seem there should be some headroom for overclock to some degree. Starting out at 3.2g makes me think you should be able to get fairly close to 4.0.
    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.
    Reply