AMD 1090T BE Processor and 1055T (Thuban) tested

[richierich1212]

Leave all i7s out of this? Getting your "rape" panties all bunched up aigo? You're getting so mad that you have to post up a bunch of 980X benches? LMAO

 

[soccerballtux]

Core i7 860 is $230 at Microcenter or around $300 elsewhere. Comparing avg overclock for the 860 at 3.9ghz to stock 3.2ghz X6 Thuban reveals that X6 would need to be overclocked to have any chance competing with a Core i7:

Fritz Chess Benchmark
1055T = 9037 kilo nodes per second
860 OC = 13,897 kilo nodes per second (+54% faster)
*Couldn't find this bench for the 1090T

SuperPi 1.5 XS 1 million
1090T = 21.435 s
860 OC = 10.265 s
860 OC 2 million decimals = 22.901 s (almost 100% faster)

3dMark 06 CPU Score
1090T = 5,673
860 OC = 6,553 (+15% faster)

Nuclearus MultiCore V 2.0
1090T = 5,872 ALU / 6,325 FPU Speed
860 OC = 7,521 ALU (+28% faster) / 11,056 FPU Speed (+75% faster)

WinRAR Multi-threaded
1090T = 3,015
860 OC = 3,929 (+30% faster)

Cinebench 11.5 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 5.29
860 OC = 6.26 (+18% faster)
860 OC (ran in 64-bit) = 6.65 (64-bit FTW!)

Cinebench R10 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 2,920 Single / 14,381 Multiple CPU (61 seconds)
860 OC = 4,315 Single (+48% faster) / 18,584 Multiple (+29% faster, 47 seconds)

Also considering how way off AMD's TDP ratings are from actual real world power consumption, I doubt the 1090T will be more power efficient either:

I think the $199 1055T OCed to 4.0ghz would be awesome value however! Also, since most games don't benefit from Core i7 980x, Phenom II X6 @ 3.8-4.0ghz will still be slower in games for minimum frames compared to a core i7. Can't complain for the price <$300, but I am sure if Aigo replicated these benches, the 4.4ghz 980x would absolutely crush the Thuban X6 (and my 860 )

Uh yeah, naysayer, my 3.5ghz Ph2 gets 14000 on Cinebench Multithreaded. Sorry, but there's no way a 6-core is only getting a 14300.

 

[atari030]

OK this is where i need to pull the line on this fuel.

No.. an i7 will smash it... no trading blows.. its called straight up RAPE:

Er, hold on there.....was it a dream, or did my thirteen-year old junior high nephew somehow get a hold of one of the moderator accounts here?

Seriously though, these chips are certainly a step in the right direction for AMD. If they can overcome the emotional trauma of a potential raping .....I think they should perform well enough to level the playing field somewhat from how it's been.

 

[Ares202]

People get really angry when anyone challenges the i7's supremacy, its like it just like you hit their child or something. If AMD goes bankrupt you know what would happen right?

I dont understand why anyone could be an Intel fanboy, historically they are one of the most evil, corrupt and anti-competitive companies around.

 

[Martimus]

Thanks Russian Sensation for proving that an equivalently priced i7 needs to be overclocked heavily to compete with a Thuban at stock speeds. I guess i7 prices will come down, or more likely they will need to increase the stock speeds of the lower priced CPUs.

We have no indication on how well these new chips overclock or scale, so your other assertions that the cheaper i7s will be better when overclocked have no merit. We have less than 2 weeks to find out though.

 

[aigomorla]

How about this:

It'll go toe-to-toe with Intel's $200-$300 offerings.

awesome correction.
Would be better statement because the 920 is not 200 dollars outside of Microcenter.

Leave all i7s out of this? Getting your "rape" panties all bunched up aigo? You're getting so mad that you have to post up a bunch of 980X benches? LMAO

No because none of u guys will pull a fair comparison.
Its a hexcore.. so you battle it against a hexcore..
But even then the i7's will still beat it.

You guys are giving remorse to current 920 owners by making them think this is a better cpu.
When its not... This is what I am getting sick and tired of.
So when i see this, i will stomp it.

If you think its a better cpu.. SHOW ME.... u guys are all shouting.. "oh boy the 920 is in trouble.." From WHAT FACTS?

Er, hold on there.....was it a dream, or did my thirteen-year old junior high nephew somehow get a hold of one of the moderator accounts here?

Seriously though, these chips are certainly a step in the right direction for AMD. If they can overcome the emotional trauma of a potential raping .....I think they should perform well enough to level the playing field somewhat from how it's been.

When you lay out competition and its all pointed to one side, the result is called a rape no?

Does my benchmarks not represent a rape?

U guys wanted to see a comparison against a i7.. i gave u guys a hard awakening on one...

Superior vs an i7? no
Competition to an i7? no
Equal to an i7? Only at stock when comparing the low floor model i7's.

Wanna debate with me? lets show numbers...


However instead of trying to shove numbers on a i7 vs 1090... i prefer to see a 1090 vs a 965 BE, at least this way we can see if the hexcores have a clock per clock advantage over the old PH2.

And i can give my friend a good excuse to upgrade her 965 BE.

 

[richierich1212]

ridney at XS almost hits 22k Cinebench R10: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4343847&postcount=120

He said his 1055T had four cores kick into turbo mode.

 

[aigomorla]

ridney at XS almost hits 22k Cinebench R10: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4343847&postcount=120

He said his 1055T had four cores kick into turbo mode.

what would a 965BE do at the same clock.

this is important cuz we can see if the cores scale.

And if they do scale better... the X6 is a better cpu then the X4.

BUt if the X4's scale better... the X6 is a flop....

This is what i want to see, because i have a few friends who would fit in a X6 upgrade right now.

 

[richierich1212]

Well here's a few guys with extreme 965's posting up some R10 scores:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229492&page=7

Looks like it ranges from 17k-18k.

 

[aigomorla]

Well here's a few guys with extreme 965's posting up some R10 scores:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229492&page=7

Looks like it ranges from 17k-18k.

so take the final number divide it by the amount of cores.

Then compare the value X to each other and see if the X6 has a greater score.

18k / 4 ~ 4.5 per core on the X4
22k / 6 ~ 3.6 per core on the X6

Just looking at it, if the mhz are held the same... the X4 has better scaling.. and is a better cpu.

Wprime would be another good benchmark to compare the two.

The important thing is did AMD advance on the X6 design with better scaling.. or is it the same thing as a X4.
4.5 x 6 = 27... the number would need to be greater then 27 for the X6 to have better scaling.

Reason is to most people, i dont see the need to upgrade from a X4 to a X6 minus greed unless the cores scaled better.

 

[richierich1212]

True, but for some reason, he said, most of that benchmark was run with four cores in turbo mode @ 4.5GHz, while the other two were running @ 1GHz or something like that. And he hasn't able to disable turbo yet.

 

[piesquared]

Moderator, give it up. Its evident that you'll twist, bend and deform the numbers until you see a little light at the end of the intel love tunnel. If you want to compare a $1000 cpu to a $300 cpu then you should probably know that your true colors shine through like light through glass. How about a 12 core to a 6 core? Same threads, proper comparison. (Waiting for you to role out superpi as some sort of relevabt benchmark..) Lol you're a real piece of work! Your parents work at intel or something?

 

[VirtualLarry]

awesome correction.
Would be better statement because the 920 is not 200 dollars outside of Microcenter.



No because none of u guys will pull a fair comparison.
Its a hexcore.. so you battle it against a hexcore..
But even then the i7's will still beat it.

You guys are giving remorse to current 920 owners by making them think this is a better cpu.
When its not... This is what I am getting sick and tired of.
So when i see this, i will stomp it.

If you think its a better cpu.. SHOW ME.... u guys are all shouting.. "oh boy the 920 is in trouble.." From WHAT FACTS?

You're comparing straight max performance, including overclocking. Fair enough, I'm sure that Gainstown wins that match.

But when you take price into account, at stock speeds. Well, let me ask, aren't six REAL cores better than only 4 (8 virtual)?

We'll have to wait for benchmarks to determine this, but I'm favoring the AMD chip.

 

[manimal]

When you lay out competition and its all pointed to one side, the result is called a rape no?

Does my benchmarks not represent a rape?


Can we have honest discourse without the use of words like rape. Its insensitive, crass, base, and instantly outlines you as a 14 year old.

 

[heyheybooboo]

OK this is where i need to pull the line on this fuel.

No.. an i7 will smash it... no trading blows.. its called straight up RAPE:

...


So... its not wise to compare AMD with an i7 @ performance unless u want to see spanking.

Easy, Big Guy. Take a deep breath

It's just a computer.

We'll find out soon enough how they compare. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can unlock my uber-enthusiast Sempy 140 - LOL




--

 

[richierich1212]

lol @ sempy 140.

 

[Gikaseixas]

awesome correction.
Would be better statement because the 920 is not 200 dollars outside of Microcenter.



No because none of u guys will pull a fair comparison.
Its a hexcore.. so you battle it against a hexcore..
But even then the i7's will still beat it.

You guys are giving remorse to current 920 owners by making them think this is a better cpu.
When its not... This is what I am getting sick and tired of.
So when i see this, i will stomp it.

If you think its a better cpu.. SHOW ME.... u guys are all shouting.. "oh boy the 920 is in trouble.." From WHAT FACTS?




When you lay out competition and its all pointed to one side, the result is called a rape no?

Does my benchmarks not represent a rape?

U guys wanted to see a comparison against a i7.. i gave u guys a hard awakening on one...

Superior vs an i7? no
Competition to an i7? no
Equal to an i7? Only at stock when comparing the low floor model i7's.

Wanna debate with me? lets show numbers...


However instead of trying to shove numbers on a i7 vs 1090... i prefer to see a 1090 vs a 965 BE, at least this way we can see if the hexcores have a clock per clock advantage over the old PH2.

And i can give my friend a good excuse to upgrade her 965 BE.

Aigo you're the one shouting RAPE, RAPED, KILLED in both threads we have here about this contest. Since estimated price is $300 it should be compared to a $300 Intel product right?

You get all emotional and $hit when someone says it might give i7 920's a run for their money, why?

Since you asked for FACTS, from what facts are you basing your i7 920 RAPES Thuban from? Show us please

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's simple. You know those symbols down the left side of the high-end i7 retail boxes?

They spell R.A.P.E.

 

[Rhoxed]

It's simple. You know those symbols down the left side of the high-end i7 retail boxes?

They spell R.A.P.E.

This

 

[RussianSensation]

Thanks Russian Sensation for proving that an equivalently priced i7 needs to be overclocked heavily to compete with a Thuban at stock speeds.

Umm no. The way I read the benchmarks is that it takes an additional 2 Phenom cores clocked at 3.2ghz to compete with a stock Core i7 860 in the benches linked. In other words, 6-core Phenom II 3.2ghz is about as fast as a 4-core Core i7 2.8ghz.

Fritz Chess Benchmark
1055T = 9037 kilo nodes per second
860 2.8ghz = 10,641 kilo nodes per second (18&#37; faster)

SuperPi 1.5 XS 1 million
1090T 3.2ghz = 21.435 s
860 2.8ghz = 12.402s (42% faster)

3dMark 06 CPU Score
1090T = 5,673 (11% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 5,089

Nuclearus MultiCore V 2.0
1090T = 5,872 ALU (2% faster) / 6,325 FPU Speed
860 2.8ghz = 5,740 ALU / 8,685 FPU Speed (37% faster)

WinRAR Multi-threaded
1090T = 3,015
860 2.8ghz = 3,309 (10% faster)

Cinebench 11.5 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 5.29 (12% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 4.71

Cinebench R10 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 2,920 Single / 14,381 Multiple CPU (4% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 3,643 Single (25% faster) / 13,786 Multiple

This only proves that AMD is so far behind in performance/clock per watt that even a 1ghz overclock on a Core i7 architecture is enough to overcome additional 2 cores running at 3.2ghz for Phenom II. You have to realize how uncompetitive AMD has become >$300. You now need a 6-core processor clocked at 3.2ghz w/ 3.6ghz Turbo to match a 4-core Intel processor clocked at 2.8ghz/2.9ghz with Turbo. AMD better bring major performance improvements with their new architecture. At least Phenom II X4 955/965 made some sense < $150-175 since they offered great bang for the buck.

With Thuban you pay double of PII 965 to get 2 extra cores. So unless all you do is encode video 24/7, Thuban will do just about 0 for gaming performance over PII 955/965. Problem is though, PII 965 are not competitive in gaming anyway since they cannot provide decent minimum framerates. Whether you have 4 Phenom 2 or 6 Phenom 2 cores, won't make any difference:
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,5.html

 

[Makaveli]

This thread is jokes!

I don't think anyone on a current i7 build has anything to worry about. Even if you they are equal at stock speed.

lol while virtual larry is just interested in causing a fight with his comments, intel still has the superior platform and there is no doubt about that. On the majority of benchmarks I still see the i7 being faster and the 6 core AMD chip will only give equal performance on applications that use alot of cores and we know how many desktop applications take use of all cores!

And getting beyond this he said she said nonsense. It is great for AMD to be releasing this processor at this price point and I see why amd fans are happy... There is finally something to be happy about after the last few years of disappointments!

But this is by no means a clear cut victory AMD is still a Generation behind the Blue Giant!

 

[frostedflakes]

Performance per clock sure, K10 is far behind Core in this metric, but performance per watt doesn't look bad with the new six cores. I was completely expecting them to come out with something that was clocked low and still used a ridiculous amount of power, but the 3.2GHz 1090T has a pretty reasonable 125w TDP. Not bad at all compared to the 130w TDP for the i7 930.

I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with the six core vs four core thing. As long as the extra cores allow them to compete with the Core i7 while keeping power consumption in check, who cares?

And whether it makes a difference depends on what you do. For people who encode a lot of video or do other tasks that are highly threaded, a $200 X6 should be a pretty potent CPU. For people who do a lot of single or lightly threaded tasks, though, Core i7 is going to give them a lot more performance.

 

[Martimus]

Umm no. The way I read the benchmarks is that it takes an additional 2 Phenom cores clocked at 3.2ghz to compete with a stock Core i7 860 in the benches linked. In other words, 6-core Phenom II 3.2ghz is about as fast as a 4-core Core i7 2.8ghz.

Fritz Chess Benchmark
1055T = 9037 kilo nodes per second
860 2.8ghz = 10,641 kilo nodes per second (18% faster)

SuperPi 1.5 XS 1 million
1090T 3.2ghz = 21.435 s
860 2.8ghz = 12.402s (42% faster)

3dMark 06 CPU Score
1090T = 5,673 (11% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 5,089

Nuclearus MultiCore V 2.0
1090T = 5,872 ALU (2% faster) / 6,325 FPU Speed
860 2.8ghz = 5,740 ALU / 8,685 FPU Speed (37% faster)

WinRAR Multi-threaded
1090T = 3,015
860 2.8ghz = 3,309 (10% faster)

Cinebench 11.5 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 5.29 (12% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 4.71

Cinebench R10 (ran in 32-bit mode)
1090T = 2,920 Single / 14,381 Multiple CPU (4% faster)
860 2.8ghz = 3,643 Single (25% faster) / 13,786 Multiple

This only proves that AMD is so far behind in performance/clock per watt that even a 1ghz overclock on a Core i7 architecture is enough to overcome additional 2 cores running at 3.2ghz for Phenom II. You have to realize how uncompetitive AMD has become >$300. You now need a 6-core processor clocked at 3.2ghz w/ 3.6ghz Turbo to match a 4-core Intel processor clocked at 2.8ghz/2.9ghz with Turbo. AMD better bring major performance improvements with their new architecture. At least Phenom II X4 955/965 made some sense < $150-175 since they offered great bang for the buck.

With Thuban you pay double of PII 965 to get 2 extra cores. So unless all you do is encode video 24/7, Thuban will do just about 0 for gaming performance over PII 955/965. Problem is though, PII 965 are not competitive in gaming anyway since they cannot provide decent minimum framerates. Whether you have 4 Phenom 2 or 6 Phenom 2 cores, won't make any difference:
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ossfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,5.html

Wow. Where does this strawman come from anyway? I finally got you to do a real comparison of stock vs. stock, and you come out with a conclusion that again has no merit when related to the information you give. All the benches we have seen show is that the Ph2x6 is approximately equal in performance to an equivalently priced Intel i7 processor in those benches. What it does in other benches, we don't know. We don't even know if these benches are accurate.

I truly don't understand your illogical arguments here, unless you are trying to justify your recent purchase. I doubt that the i7 you have is going to suddenly suck because a new processor came out that may be close in performance. Chill out.

 

[Gikaseixas]

This thread is jokes!

I don't think anyone on a current i7 build has anything to worry about. Even if you they are equal at stock speed.


There is finally something to be happy about after the last few years of disappointments!

But this is by no means a clear cut victory AMD is still a Generation behind the Blue Giant!

Owners will not care, i mean why would they? Are you worried that AMD might release something faster than what you have now?? It only shows how much of a FANBOY you are. Maybe Intel will but no one knows what's going to happen, it might be one hell of a chip or not.

Now go hide behing your great Blue Giant... u r the joke

 

[RussianSensation]

I truly don't understand your illogical arguments here, unless you are trying to justify your recent purchase.

What's wrong with posting benchmarks of a $300 Core i7 processor vs. a $300 new AMD offering? Or are you saying that no one cares to see performance of a $300 Core i7 vs. $300 1090T?

1. I purchased my system September 8, 2009...I am not trying to justify anything. I think it's pretty relevant to compare benchmarks of a $300 Intel CPU in stock vs. overclocked performance vs. a Thuban vs. Thuban overclocked. I wish they did overclock the Thuban and ran those benchmarks too, as I would included them.

2. You first stated that to compete with Thuban, we needed a Core i7 OCed. I proved that statement wrong by showing you stock for stock benches in which the Thuban can't beat a stock Core i7 in its price range.

3. I provided overclocked performance to see how far ahead Core i7 is compared to Thuban, which still highlights the deficiencies in per clock performance relative to Core i7 of the PII tech (since you are comparing 4 vs. 6 cores).

4. We know most programs will NOT take advantage of a 6-core processor. Those people who really need a fast 6-core processor will buy a Core i7 980X. Otherwise, you are going to get faster performance from a Core i7 for $300. However, a $200 6-core 1055 processor, overclocked, is sure a much better competitor to a Core i5 750 and makes higher end Core i3's pretty irrelevant.

I agree that we need to see more benchmarks, but I still stand by my original point that 1055T is an amazing value. However, the 1090T model does not appear to be as much of a value proposition.