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

[richierich1212]

1090T BE: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249427

1055T: 1. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249434

2. http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=235972&page=3

Not bad for ~$200-$300ish? I'll get either the 1055T or 1090T BE at launch.

 

[Arkaign]

Hmm.

I think it makes great sense for those with AM3 mobos like myself, probably more so when prices come down a little bit.

Compared to i7 though, particularly if you get a mobo+920 for $290 (fry's), or a i7 9xx series at MC for $200, i7 is still the default choice for a new build, unless Thuban can magically OC to 4ghz on air like almost all i7s can.

Nice to see AMD keeping in the same performance neighborhood though.

 

[4ucker]

I'm wondering will performances of those new AMD CPU's be in the same rank like some i7 processors (read: i7 920). I say this because I'l buy a new PC soon and I'm doubting (sorry on my bad English) between i5 750 and 1055T/1090T.

What do you think?

P.S Where is the place in this forum where I can ask is my configuration good?

Well, here is it:

Coolermaster 690 Advanced II
Intel i5 750
Gigabyte P55A-UD3
Corsair 1333MHz Twin 2x2 GB DDR3
Sapphire Radeon HD 5850 TOXIC
WD Caviar Blac 500 GB 32MB cachea (aready bought)
Corsair VX 550 (already bought)

 

[Hyperlite]

I'm wondering will performances of those new AMD CPU's be in the same rank like some i7 processors (read: i7 920). I say this because I'l buy a new PC soon and I'm doubting (sorry on my bad English) between i5 750 and 1055T/1090T.

What do you think?

P.S Where is the place in this forum where I can ask is my configuration good?

Well, here is it:

Coolermaster 690 Advanced II
Intel i5 750
Gigabyte P55A-UD3
Corsair 1333MHz Twin 2x2 GB DDR3
Sapphire Radeon HD 5850 TOXIC
WD Caviar Blac 500 GB 32MB cachea (aready bought)
Corsair VX 550 (already bought)

Well i5 vs Thuban is 4 core vs 6 core...we'll have to see how clocks and prices fall out, but i'm not sure why you'd buy an i5 when you can get what is shaping up to be a similarly clocked hex core for the same price.

 

[formulav8]

Not to shabby

 

[jtisgeek]

Am really liking these 6 core cpu's. If it gets around 250ish I will be building a new amd system.

 

[Arkaign]

Well i5 vs Thuban is 4 core vs 6 core...we'll have to see how clocks and prices fall out, but i'm not sure why you'd buy an i5 when you can get what is shaping up to be a similarly clocked hex core for the same price.

Stock v Stock, I 1000% agree, besides AMD boards are more feature rich and less expensive for comparable quality (eg; Gigabyte solid-cap boards with good chipset cooling, ESATA, etc).

But, and this is a huge butt ...

OC? I could see a ~4ghz i5/i7 cleaning up on Thuban a lot of times if it can't OC very high, particularly in games. Encoding will probably be pretty balanced though, I imagine a 3.2ghz Thuban would be about as good if not a little better than a 4ghz i5.

 

[alyarb]

the 4 GHz i5 would be faster per thread, so overclockers will still prefer their high-freq nehalems because the majority of them are also gamers. For business users and people who don't overclock, the story is different because of the introduction of turbo modes, even if they aren't as good as intel's. Now they have a drop-in upgrade for AM2+ that will put them right near i7 performance in both well threaded and single-threaded apps (especially those that can do 3.5 and 3.6 GHz. that is MUCH better than leaving the blind consumer or thoughtless OEM with no OC at all). This is a 45nm six core, though. It's bigger than Deneb, not smaller. If nothing else, gulftown is smaller than bloomfield, from a more refined high-k process and is giving great overclocks. I don't really see Thuban overclocking like C3 denebs but I could be wrong.

 

[richierich1212]

updated 1st link with 1055T testing. How's the 7-zip test?

 

[VirtualLarry]

If you click on the link to the original thread ( http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=235891&page=3 ), you can see that they overclocked it to 4.2Ghz, on 1.408v. Not bad at all! (Although there was a comment in the XS thread about why are they benchmarking on a 32-bit OS, and that may be why. It remains to be seen how high these things overclock with a 64-bit OS.

 

[richierich1212]

But that was only with 4 cores, Larry. Though, that does seem really good because my 555 with 4 cores can only hit 4.0GHz with 1.408v.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's wierd, why would he shut off two cores to do that? Suicide run?

 

[richierich1212]

Not sure, maybe seeing what a potential 960T can do?

 

[maniac5999]

That's wierd, why would he shut off two cores to do that? Suicide run?

It could be heat related. Remember, AMD introduced High K metal into these chips for this model, that's why they can hit the same speeds as the old Phenom 2s on the same thermal buget and same process. That means less voltage stock--and the CPU-Z shot shows 1.175v at stock speed. Bumping that up to 1.4v probably produces a monsterous amount of heat on a 45nm Hex-Core.

 

[soccerballtux]

It could be heat related. Remember, AMD introduced High K metal into these chips for this model, that's why they can hit the same speeds as the old Phenom 2s on the same thermal buget and same process. That means less voltage stock--and the CPU-Z shot shows 1.175v at stock speed. Bumping that up to 1.4v probably produces a monsterous amount of heat on a 45nm Hex-Core.

my guess as well. Did not know about the Hi-k though.

 

[veri745]

It could be heat related. Remember, AMD introduced High K metal into these chips for this model, that's why they can hit the same speeds as the old Phenom 2s on the same thermal buget and same process. That means less voltage stock--and the CPU-Z shot shows 1.175v at stock speed. Bumping that up to 1.4v probably produces a monsterous amount of heat on a 45nm Hex-Core.

You mean Low-K

 

[Arkaign]

If you click on the link to the original thread ( http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=235891&page=3 ), you can see that they overclocked it to 4.2Ghz, on 1.408v. Not bad at all! (Although there was a comment in the XS thread about why are they benchmarking on a 32-bit OS, and that may be why. It remains to be seen how high these things overclock with a 64-bit OS.

Awesome. If the ~$200 model can hit 3.8ghz on air with 6 cores reliably, then this could be an absolutely serious contender for #1 choice, as 6 core Intel is $$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[formulav8]

It could be heat related. Remember, AMD introduced High K metal into these chips for this model, that's why they can hit the same speeds as the old Phenom 2s on the same thermal buget and same process. That means less voltage stock--and the CPU-Z shot shows 1.175v at stock speed. Bumping that up to 1.4v probably produces a monsterous amount of heat on a 45nm Hex-Core.

AMD has said more than once that High-K will Not be in any 45nm chips. High-K will start with their 32nm chips.

Unless something has completely changed??


Jason

 

[EnzoLT]

its a low-k dielectric

" For this chip, GlobalFoundries has added a low-k dielectric to its
high-performance 45-nm SOI fabrication process, which should reduce leakage power."
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18731

 

[formulav8]

argg double post


Jason

 

[RussianSensation]

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 )

 

[EnzoLT]

well the phenom x6 wasnt made to go against the i7 though. more of a "six core for the masses" type of thing. it is supposed to go against the i5. there was no doubt that most i7's will beat the new thubans in the first place. its like comparing the hd5770 against the gtx480. its not in the segment.

 

[RussianSensation]

well the phenom x6 wasnt made to go against the i7 though. more of a "six core for the masses" type of thing. it is supposed to go against the i5. there was no doubt that most i7's will beat the new thubans in the first place. its like comparing the hd5770 against the gtx480. its not in the segment.

But isn't 1090T supposed to debut at $300 in Q2? Wouldn't you compare them based on price? I think the Core i5 750 4.0ghz vs. 1055T OCed would be a better comparison since the i5 without HT is worse off for multi-threaded benches. But the 1090T seems a bit out of place imo.

The problem is Core i7 920 was around since November 17, 2008 and its release price was $284 USD. So now consider that 1.5 years later, AMD is releasing a 6-core processor for $300 that still won't outperform a 4.0ghz i7 920. That's not so rozy. Bulldozer has a massive burden on its shoulders. I do think AMD needs to be congratulated for having such a long lived socket, and their motherboards only require bios updates for future processors. Intel needs to take a lesson from their book here (i.e. rumour is Sandy may still run in S1156 but needs 6 series chipset )

 

[EnzoLT]

But then why is it priced at $300 for 1090T? Wouldn't you compare them based on price? I think the Core i5 750 4.0ghz vs. 1055T OCed would be a better comparison. But the 1090T seems a bit out of place imo.

thats true.. 1090t WOULD be out of place at $300 since according to those benches..........:hmm:

 

[busydude]

That super Pi scores seem rather off. Is that program even multi threaded??

My X2 @ 3.8 completes it in about 18 sec.

Was it because the person was using 32-bit OS ??