Core i7 wake up call: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE overclocked to 6.29GHz!!

[DrMrLordX]

Since you specified D0 why not make the clocks the same? Heck even go for 4.4GHz - many D0s will hit that with air. Can the AMD?

Okay, make it 4 ghz on each one. No big deal. I don't know what the top clocks will be for Thuban, but they look like they are 4-4.2 ghz capable. I only specified 4 ghz for the d0 since that seems to be the "expected" clockspeed people want to hit, even if some of them require more voltage to get there than others. I don't see anything wrong with putting Thuban at 4 ghz for such a comparison.

What about encoding? I don't care about gaming or even general computing as a C2D is plenty for that especially if (gaming) at 2560x1600 which I've been doing since 2006.

This is probably going to be the #1 area where we should be looking to see how Thuban will fare. Video encoding tasks should take up every core (physical or logical) that you can throw at it, and this also represents a fairly common task for desktop users. In fact, I would say that this is one of the few heavily-threaded tasks that mean anything to any significant number of desktop users out there, enthusiast or otherwise. I mean, 3d rendering? Cinebench is awesome and all, but how many of us use Maxon's software?

My main gripe with AMD is chipsets. Nfarce? LOL

Outside of funky SATA2/3 performance on 790/890 chipsets and AMD's bizarre insistence that their integrated NICs interface with Broadcom PHYceivers (which is why mobo manufacturers include their own NICs instead of using the integrated one . . . well, one reason anyway), there's nothing wrong with current AMD chipsets. Nobody in their right mind uses nVidia chipsets for AMD chips anymore.

Until they have a board that can provide decent compatibility with music editing/creation

I'm not aware of anything that would prevent 790FX/890GX(or FX) platforms from being compatible with music editing or creation software, unless you're pointing a finger at the integrated audio solutions that typically appear on AMD boards.

Honestly I miss the days with a unified socket (ex socket 7) where you could buy the board YOU wanted and choose a CPU - could have been Intel, AMD, NeXGen, Cyrix, WinChip, etc. (AMD and Intel were the only "real" ones IME)

Blame Intel and Slot 1 for that. Socket 7 4 life yo.

I regularly flip back and forth between ATi and NV and would do so if AMD was suitable for my needs. I still have two FX60 based systems that are running but useless for their intended duties due to lousy chipsets. (NF4) Those chips cost $1000 each too IIRC. That was about four years ago. Later in the fall of 2006 I tried an E6600 on a 975 board and never looked back at AMD except video (ATi). Most of my video cards have been NV though.

If you have the time, give a 790FX, 890GX, or 890FX (when it comes out) rig a try. I know you're knee-deep in monstrous hardware, but in my experience, 790FX is a very solid platform with some good features, and 890GX is good too (though really not a great leap forward). About the only thing you might find wanting is the SATA performance, and you are one of the few people out there that would probably notice that, too.

You might also dislike the realtek nics since that's what the mobo manufacturers use in lieu of the integrated AMD solutions.

 

[Rubycon]

My last AMD system was NF4 (socket 939) and had horrible issues. Onboard sound? Nope that gets disabled and I wish we could get boards without it! Everything is 1394 connected to professional recording i/o interfaces.

Latency is everything! Yes i/o is extremely important too. I cannot figure out why EVGA's Classified boards have about 15% poorer i/o performance than ASUS X58 boards (P6T6 WS Pro, P6T6 Revolution, P6T7 SC, etc.)

Yes Realtek nics are the pits. I wish they used better hardware. At least the 4X Classified has Marvell NICs. Intel Pro 1000MT would be ideal. You would think a $400 mobo would have 'em but no...

AMD loathed in the days of Intel's P4 "netbust" architecture. Conroe changed that around nearly four years ago. Hard to say if AMD will be able to push ahead. One thing's for sure when there is distance between the two the prices don't move much in the desired direction!

Okay, make it 4 ghz on each one. No big deal. I don't know what the top clocks will be for Thuban, but they look like they are 4-4.2 ghz capable. I only specified 4 ghz for the d0 since that seems to be the "expected" clockspeed people want to hit, even if some of them require more voltage to get there than others. I don't see anything wrong with putting Thuban at 4 ghz for such a comparison.



This is probably going to be the #1 area where we should be looking to see how Thuban will fare. Video encoding tasks should take up every core (physical or logical) that you can throw at it, and this also represents a fairly common task for desktop users. In fact, I would say that this is one of the few heavily-threaded tasks that mean anything to any significant number of desktop users out there, enthusiast or otherwise. I mean, 3d rendering? Cinebench is awesome and all, but how many of us use Maxon's software?



Outside of funky SATA2/3 performance on 790/890 chipsets and AMD's bizarre insistence that their integrated NICs interface with Broadcom PHYceivers (which is why mobo manufacturers include their own NICs instead of using the integrated one . . . well, one reason anyway), there's nothing wrong with current AMD chipsets. Nobody in their right mind uses nVidia chipsets for AMD chips anymore.



I'm not aware of anything that would prevent 790FX/890GX(or FX) platforms from being compatible with music editing or creation software, unless you're pointing a finger at the integrated audio solutions that typically appear on AMD boards.



Blame Intel and Slot 1 for that. Socket 7 4 life yo.



If you have the time, give a 790FX, 890GX, or 890FX (when it comes out) rig a try. I know you're knee-deep in monstrous hardware, but in my experience, 790FX is a very solid platform with some good features, and 890GX is good too (though really not a great leap forward). About the only thing you might find wanting is the SATA performance, and you are one of the few people out there that would probably notice that, too.

You might also dislike the realtek nics since that's what the mobo manufacturers use in lieu of the integrated AMD solutions.

 

[Apocalypse23]

I really want to see gaming benchmarks with this processor, when comparing to an i7 930. Clock for clock gaming benchmarks at 4.0ghz for the 1055T and the 1090T. I also would like to see a general CPU performance comparison between the two.

 

[BenchZowner]

Real-life gaming with any modern processor with 2 cores or more at 3.6GHz - 3.8GHz won't be any different, because it's VGA limited and the CPUs are already capable of feeding the cards with more data than they can process and output at those frequencies.

As for the "wake up call", it isn't even close.

They've been up and awake for several months now:

 

[richierich1212]

Es 980x

 

[BenchZowner]

Best 980X retail 3D Mark06 so far

 

[AzN]

Thread is silly. :thumbsdown:

Liquid Nitrogen overclocking whoopy :hmm:

Clock for clock, Core vs core Intel > anything AMD has to offer

Gaming performance 2 Intel core > 4 AMD cores :whiste:

 

[Apocalypse23]

Yeah I also read Semi Accurate's thoughts on the upcoming 1090T chip here:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/04/12/amds-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-tested-early/

Basically, in terms of performance no head turning is expected, and at most I expect a slightly higher clocked AMD to equal a slightly lower clocked Intel. Anyhow I just ordered an i7 930 for $267.77 CAD here.

I also ordered better quality RAM for $182 CAD : Crucial Ballistix 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)

This was due to my shipment of the i7920 + OCZ ram being extremely delayed and held up, I'll just have to sell those when they arrive. The i7 930's deal was irresistible and so I have decided to stick with Intel and x58 for a good while. I also don't see any real world requirement for a 6 core chip anyhow for myself so I am satisfied. The best feature of my setup is the X58 board (multi-gpu efficiency), triple channel memory, and also the SLI/CF capability. The con that I am looking at is the discontinuation of the LGA1366 board which really is a downer for me, I hope that in the future intel will continue to release chips for my board.

 

[richierich1212]

Thread is silly. :thumbsdown:

Liquid Nitrogen overclocking whoopy :hmm:

Clock for clock, Core vs core Intel > anything AMD has to offer

Have you even taken a look at the benchmarks I've posted? I guess not.

 

[Apocalypse23]

Yes you did. You should have upgraded to an i7 980X. Comparing Six cores to Four is comparing Apples to Oranges which a lot of people seem to do lately.

If you want to compare Apples to Apples do everything on the same denominator! Here is the competition:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249587

Well, the i7980x was really out of my $270 CPU price range , anyhow I settled for a $267.77 CAD i7 930

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't know whether this link was posted in this thread yet, but if you scroll down, you will see someone claiming that their X6 Thuban at 3.2Ghz is faster than an i7-920 at 3.2Ghz at Cinebench R11.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249763

 

[BenchZowner]

I doubt it, there are no signs of a performance enhancement from AMD with the Thubans.
I'm 98% sure that a Bloomfield ( Core i7 920/930/940/950/960/965/975 ) is faster clock per clock in every single ( might be a tad slower in just a few tests ) than a Phenom II x6.
Unfortunately I no longer own a Bloomfield processor to check it out.

 

[dguy6789]

Thread is silly. :thumbsdown:

Liquid Nitrogen overclocking whoopy :hmm:

Clock for clock, Core vs core Intel > anything AMD has to offer

Gaming performance 2 Intel core > 4 AMD cores :whiste:

Clock for clock, i7 is faster than a core from AMD, but core for core is not a valid comparison. AMD will be selling six core processors for the same or lower price than Intel sells 4 core processors. Intel's 4 core processors have to be able to compete with AMD's 6 cores.

Of course, 2 higher performing cores will outperform 4 lower performing cores in an application that only uses 2 cores. Run anything that uses all 4 cores and the 4 core AMD would completely trash the 2 core Intel. Same situation with a 6 core AMD vs a 4 core Intel. Intel is faster clock for clock, but not 50% faster clock for clock, which is what they would have to be for the quad core Intel to beat it in a thread intensive test.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it yet, but one of the main attractions to this processor is the new level of multitasking that it allows.

 

[BenchZowner]

@dguy6789

My educated guess is ( we'll see if I'm right or wrong soon ) that a Core i7 920 for example at 3.5GHz will be at least as fast if not faster than a 1055T @ 3.5GHz in single & multi-threaded applications.

 

[Gikaseixas]

There isn't real controversy here . Just alot of hype. Amd is OK for the price . But to say it competes against intels upper cores isn't being honest.

let me get things clear here. I said Thuban might challenge lower end i7. What is wrong with that????

If that pisses people off than you're a FANBOY period, because i only said that AMD could challenge (never said it would beat i7)

Question: How the hell do you know it won't challenge a i7 920, are you benching both now?

 

[AzN]

Clock for clock, i7 is faster than a core from AMD, but core for core is not a valid comparison. AMD will be selling six core processors for the same or lower price than Intel sells 4 core processors. Intel's 4 core processors have to be able to compete with AMD's 6 cores.

Of course, 2 higher performing cores will outperform 4 lower performing cores in an application that only uses 2 cores. Run anything that uses all 4 cores and the 4 core AMD would completely trash the 2 core Intel. Same situation with a 6 core AMD vs a 4 core Intel. Intel is faster clock for clock, but not 50% faster clock for clock, which is what they would have to be for the quad core Intel to beat it in a thread intensive test.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it yet, but one of the main attractions to this processor is the new level of multitasking that it allows.

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ssfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,14.html

Take a look here. Phenom 2 x4 is slightly weaker for games than an i3 with 2 cores with 4 threads.

What makes you think a 6 core phenom 2 beat an i7 with 4 cores with 8 threads?

Sure there should be some apps a 6 core would be better than 4 but don't count hyperthreading out and those apps would be very close.

 

[Rubycon]

I don't know whether this link was posted in this thread yet, but if you scroll down, you will see someone claiming that their X6 Thuban at 3.2Ghz is faster than an i7-920 at 3.2Ghz at Cinebench R11.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249763

Well gee I should hope so! Cinebench is one thing that WILL use those extra physical cores.

In any case this is good news when comparing dollars to flops. This will entice Intel to put out the "D0" equivalent of a Gulftown - six cores at 2.6-2.8 for $299. Bump up BCLK to 200MHz and you've got a system that will slap anything around. Sound familiar?

I do enjoy unlocked multipliers enough to buy EE chips. I was NOT thrilled that a $300 W3520 beat all of my 975EEs in top speed, however. But that's just the nature of playing the silicon lottery. Some people blow $10k a month in lottery tickets/going to the racetrack/casino etc. I like to buy chips. Maybe one day I will take the old ones and paint rings on them and make a poker set. Heck why even paint them at all? Any real geek knows the denomination! :biggrin:

 

[AzN]

Have you even taken a look at the benchmarks I've posted? I guess not.

Yes I did but those are synthetics that favor actual cores to logical ones. It's pointless to point out 1 or 2 synthetic benches by individuals and think it's faster. I rather wait for proper benches. I think Intel i series already has it in the bags when an i3 is just as good as phenom 2 x4 in games.

The way I see it. 4 core i7 w/hyperthreading would be just as good in multithreaded apps and smack phenom x6 in games.

 

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ssfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,14.html

Take a look here. Phenom 2 x4 is slightly weaker for games than an i3 with 2 cores with 4 threads.

What makes you think a 6 core phenom 2 beat an i7 with 4 cores with 8 threads?

Sure there should be some apps a 6 core would be better than 4 but don't count hyperthreading out and those apps would be very close.

Are you talking gaming, or something like video encoding or cinebench, heavily multithreaded programs? For heavily multithreaded programs, the six core should come out ahead.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes I did but those are synthetics that favor actual cores to logical ones.

And what makes you think that real apps don't prefer real cores to fake ones?

The way I see it. 4 core i7 w/hyperthreading would be just as good in multithreaded apps and smack phenom x6 in games.

Almost as good in multithreaded apps, due to the fake cores versus real cores thing, and possibly superior in games, yes. Games rarely use more than two cores.

 

[Baasha]

Damn, a lot of arguing going on here!

Anyway, anyone want to help me overclock my i7 950?

 

[grimpr]

This will entice Intel to put out the "D0" equivalent of a Gulftown - six cores at 2.6-2.8 for $299.

Well, you cant be serious into making us believe that Intel will do such a thing,are you? or is that wishful thinking, selling a piece of blue sky?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Well, you cant be serious into making us believe that Intel will do such a thing,are you? or is that wishful thinking, selling a piece of blue sky?

i wish they do it, that would be one heck of a deal

 

[DrMrLordX]

http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...ssfire_cpu_scaling_performance_part_2,14.html

Take a look here. Phenom 2 x4 is slightly weaker for games than an i3 with 2 cores with 4 threads.

Take a look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/13

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/12

According to Anandtech, the x4 965BE beats every Clarkdale in all but two gaming benchmarks (Dawn of War II, World of Warcraft), and that's at stock. Given how much i3s thrash past around 4-4.5ghz due to poor scaling, I'd take the OCed 965 any day of the week for games.

You can't really extrapolate any performance numbers for a 920 from Clarkdale anyway . . . different memory controllers, different QPI implementation, etc.

 

[AzN]

And what makes you think that real apps don't prefer real cores to fake ones?

Almost as good in multithreaded apps, due to the fake cores versus real cores thing, and possibly superior in games, yes. Games rarely use more than two cores.

We don't but there are plenty of benches out there that compare the i3 vs x4 and phenom x4. i3 does lose but not much even in these apps. That's 100% more core though. x6 is only 50% more core over i7. It would be very close.

As for games even in 4 threaded games i3 very competitive to phenom x4. It's not that hard to find benches. :hmm: