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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sn00ze87

Sn00ze87

Junior Member
Sep 8, 2007
1
0
0
Just wondering when can we except a review from Anand? I'm patiently waiting for one...
 
busydude

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
MCrowley said:
I just received a 1055T, and want to get started. I will have to purchase a motherboard and RAM to go with this chip Any Recommendations?
Click to expand...

Congrats!!. I guess you are the first one in this forum to have one.

Since you prefer gigabyte the latest board available for thuban is 890GX. 890FX will be released next week, hopefully, but may cost ~$180 or so.
This is the best deal you can get right now.
 
T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,876
2,079
126
Damnit Gigabyte tech support said they are waiting for validation from AMD to update the BIOS on my DS4H. So many super low end boards get BIOS updates for Thuban and I have to wait!!! :(
 
busydude

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
thilanliyan said:
Damnit Gigabyte tech support said they are waiting for validation from AMD to update the BIOS on my DS4H. So many super low end boards get BIOS updates for Thuban and I have to wait!!! :(
Click to expand...

Hey, did you receive your new chip??
 
Dadofamunky

Dadofamunky

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2005
2,184
0
0
MCrowley said:
I just received a 1055T, and want to get started. I will have to purchase a motherboard and RAM to go with this chip

Any Recommendations?

I am personally a fan of Gigabyte motherboards (using a P45 board from them now)

As to the heated discussion going on this thread) about comparisons between Core i7 and Thuban processors, IMHO, it does not matter how many cores you have, just the price that you paid for the product.

I am certain that there are people who get a lot out of overclocking processors at home, but as always, your mileage may vary (I was never able to get my C2Q 6600 past 2.9GHz or so COMPLETELY STABLE 24x7). I would be more interested in comparisons price for price without overclocking. I would guess that the 1055t that I have would be best compared to the Core i5 750.

I am anticipating that a mainstream motherboard based on the 890fx chipset should be in the $150 ballpark, so will directly compare price/feature-wise to Intel P55 boards, except for one problem: Since intel decided in it's infinite wisdom to cripple the P55 chipset in the I/O department (1/2 speed PCIe 2.0 lanes ?!?!?!). there are serious issues with USB3 and SATA 6 and multiple GFX cards (I intend to install dual 5850s in this rig), so the boards will never match in the capbility department. That means that I would have to go out for a X58/Core i7 920 combination (Expect to pay at least $200 more for this rig).

In my case, I received the processor for free, so I am definitely going to go down this road. I look forward to a solid platform that will seriously outperform my Q6600.
Click to expand...

How freakin' sweet! Six cores and dual 5850's - sounds like a blast of an upgrade! I would say that an i7 might feed those video cards a little better, but with six cores, assuming all of em are used, should be mostly a wash esp. for gaming.
 
V

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Dadofamunky said:
How freakin' sweet! Six cores and dual 5850's - sounds like a blast of an upgrade! I would say that an i7 might feed those video cards a little better, but with six cores, assuming all of em are used, should be mostly a wash esp. for gaming.
Click to expand...

I think all of the lower i7s might be outdone...remember that when it's 4 cores or less, the x6 goes into Turbo mode and downclocks at least 2 of the cores while kicking the others up by as much as 500 Mhz (much more if you're overclocking).
 
Dadofamunky

Dadofamunky

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2005
2,184
0
0
We'll have to see. Intel's tough to beat even on the i7 low end. And OCed? Nah. I doubt it. Also, throttling two or three cores sounds like a good way to LOSE aggregate performance. I'd turn that feature off in the BIOS and just OC the chip, if I could. But heh... I just posted a thread about that stupid Intel i5 680 dualie chip and this x6 business is a complete slam-dunk compared to that crap... and substantially cheaper. Giving me the choice, ten out of ten times I'd take the AMD x6.
 
3

386DX

Member
Feb 11, 2010
197
0
0
Viditor said:
I think all of the lower i7s might be outdone...remember that when it's 4 cores or less, the x6 goes into Turbo mode and downclocks at least 2 of the cores while kicking the others up by as much as 500 Mhz (much more if you're overclocking).
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense saying all the lower i7's will be outdoned. Even the slowest i7 (the 860) beats the Phenom II 965 in virtually all benchmarks, whether single threaded or multi threaded. The high end Thuban (1090T) turbos to 3.6GHz when half the cores are not needed, thats the same speed as the Phenom II 965, which the i7 beats. Unless Thuban has some serious increase in IPC over Phenom II its still gonna lose to i7 on single threaded applications.

My take on Thuban is AMD is trying to win back half the benchmarks from the i7. They know the current architecture can't increase more in GHz without the TDP and Voltage skyrocketing so trying to beat the i7 in single threaded apps is futile. The only benchmarks they can win back are the multithreaded ones which they currently lose to Intel as well. In the end I predict the benchmarks will end up being the i7 having a larger lead in single threaded apps over thuban (1090T excluded) compared to the PII 965, but Thuban will win back some of the multithreaded benchmarks like encoding.
 
V

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Dadofamunky said:
We'll have to see. Intel's tough to beat even on the i7 low end. And OCed? Nah. I doubt it. Also, throttling two or three cores sounds like a good way to LOSE aggregate performance. I'd turn that feature off in the BIOS and just OC the chip, if I could. But heh... I just posted a thread about that stupid Intel i5 680 dualie chip and this x6 business is a complete slam-dunk compared to that crap... and substantially cheaper. Giving me the choice, ten out of ten times I'd take the AMD x6.
Click to expand...

The cores are throttled dynamically (according to AMD), so the performance matches what you are asking of the CPU. Remember that when those cores are throttled, the aggregate heat of the chip reduces dramatically...allowing for a much better turbo OC.

As to improvement with an OC, you have to understand how the Turbo works (it's not the same as Intel's).

Turbo mode increases the multiplier...so if you are at the stock bus speed of 200 MHz with a multiplier of 14 (14x200=2.8 Ghz) on the 1055T, the multiplier is increased to 16.5 automatically on the active cores...so it becomes 3.3 GHz on those cores. However, if you are overclocking as well and have increased the bus speed to something like 270 MHz, then that same chip Turbos at 4.455 GHz (16.5x270 MHz = 4.455 GHz).
Mind you this is theoretical...I haven't got an x6. :(
Also, that number drops again if the temp gets too high or you need more than 4 threads.
However, the word is that what makes it so fast is that the latency on speed switching is next to nothing, giving you a very potent optimization for almost zero penalty.

I understand your point on just OC and to hell with it, but an OC can become unstable if all 6 cores are at high usage. This allows you to remain stable at all times yet still have a nice OC...in other words, an OC with much less risk.
 
Last edited:
V

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
386DX said:
That doesn't make much sense saying all the lower i7's will be outdoned. Even the slowest i7 (the 860) beats the Phenom II 965 in virtually all benchmarks, whether single threaded or multi threaded. The high end Thuban (1090T) turbos to 3.6GHz when half the cores are not needed, thats the same speed as the Phenom II 965, which the i7 beats. Unless Thuban has some serious increase in IPC over Phenom II its still gonna lose to i7 on single threaded applications.

My take on Thuban is AMD is trying to win back half the benchmarks from the i7. They know the current architecture can't increase more in GHz without the TDP and Voltage skyrocketing so trying to beat the i7 in single threaded apps is futile. The only benchmarks they can win back are the multithreaded ones which they currently lose to Intel as well. In the end I predict the benchmarks will end up being the i7 having a larger lead in single threaded apps over thuban (1090T excluded) compared to the PII 965, but Thuban will win back some of the multithreaded benchmarks like encoding.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting that the 1090T has 50% more cache and pretty much negates any HT advantage Intel might have had.
 
A

Athadeus

Senior member
Feb 29, 2004
587
0
71
Yeah, I'll be doing a new build soon, so I just read this whole thread through a worsening headache, but now I can go sleep on it. Maybe I should have just stuck to the gaming and conclusion pages when the official Anand article is up.
 
formulav8

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
Thuban is going to have more than 6MB level3 cache or you just meant the 512KB cache that is dedicated to each core?


Jason
 
guskline

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
The total L2-L3 cache is 9 for the thuban and 8 for the Denab. The L3 Cache remains at 6. It's just that the L2 cache of 512KB per core is 4 x 512 for the Denab and 6 x 512 for the Thuban.
 
Makaveli

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,724
1,061
136
Viditor said:
I think you're forgetting that the 1090T has 50% more cache and pretty much negates any HT advantage Intel might have had.
Click to expand...

Were going to have to wait for the benchmarks to see if this makes a big difference.
 
3

386DX

Member
Feb 11, 2010
197
0
0
Viditor said:
I think you're forgetting that the 1090T has 50% more cache and pretty much negates any HT advantage Intel might have had.
Click to expand...

Like others have said Thuban doesn't have 50% more cache, it has the same amount of L3 cache (6MB) as Deneb. If you take into account the # of cores to total Cache Ratio Thuban actually has less cache per core then Deneb (1.5MB vs 2MB). Thuban has 6 cores with 9MB total cache (3MB L2 + 6MB L3) compared to Denebs 8MB total (2MB L3 + 6MB L3) for 4 cores. So you cache argument makes no sense neither does negating any HT advantage. I never mentioned anything about HT, I actually said the i7 will lose in multi-threaded to thuban and in single threaded apps HT won't matter.

I see the CPU charts looking like this:
Single threaded application: i7 > Deneb >= Thuban (only 1090T will be equal)
Multi-threaded application: Thuban > i7 > Deneb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom