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

[Cogman]

I think its rather simple how Bloomfield vs Thuban will end up.

Look at Xeon 5500 vs Opteron 24xx: http://anandtech.com/show/2774/5

There's no situation where the 6 core Opteron can beat the 4 core Xeon 5500. Since the apps tested are more multi-threaded, that'll be representative of how it'll perform with the Thuban vs. Bloomfield in heavily multi-threaded apps: i7 will have slight advantage

All other minus games: Core i7 way faster

Games: Probably i7 will retain similar lead as it did with the 4 core Phenom IIs. Games do run faster on 4 cores than on 2 but its not a big change because of the way games distribute threads to the CPU. They do what I'd call it a "dumb" way, because 1 core is still utilized heavily while others aren't.

1 core: AI+Drivers+Physics+Misc

2 core(big improvement):
Core 0 - Drivers and Physics
Core 1 - AI + Misc

4 core(small improvement):
Core 0 - Drivers
Core 1 - Physics
Core 2 - AI
Core 3 - Misc

What can they do with 6 cores? There's not much they can do above 4, easily.

About the "dumb" way games do multi-threading. What you underestimate is how much processing time each of those items takes. The dumb way to do things is the way you just advocated. AI doesn't take a significantly large portion of processing time (unless you throw pathfinding into the mix, in which case it might.) I don't know what you mean by drivers.

A large portion of game time is wasted in the game loop itself, a significant portion of that is dedicated to rendering, something that is pretty hard to break up into different threads (the rendering order needs to be sent to the gpu in order so that it knows how to handle things like transparency, or what to exclude in rendering.)

Good threading isn't saying "Ill put this portion of the game on this CPU, and this portion of the game on that CPU". It is saying "OK, where are we spending the most time in this application, and can it be somehow processed concurrently instead serially". It doesn't even take into account the number of CPUs available, just if the task can be broken up into concurrently running chucks. A good parallel piece of software will use a threadpool to get the job done rather then worry about how it is going to divide up each cpu.


Back on topic. It has been a while since the multicore paradigm shift. For me, I pretty much always try to think of "How can this task be split up into multiple threads" when doing something. It will be interesting to see if more applications start to really take advantage of the ever increasing core count.

 

[Rubycon]

How is it being silly? They already have a 12 core opteron out right now.

Where can you buy it? Motherboard support? Price? Since everyone is so concerned comparing six cores vs. four etc.

 

[tvdang7]

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

id say its a fair apples to apples if price were involved instead of # of cores.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Yes, I'm not fully aware of what tasks are used in which ways for multi-threaded games, but I can guess a bit and it seems that simplified explanation can go a long way. By "Drivers" I mean when the CPU is handling GPU drivers and communicating and such. Pathfinding is important but when talking about multi-player fps games, well...

I don't know too much, but from what I've seen I haven't seen a single game that utilizes even 2 cores to 90-95% on both of the cores, let alone 4. On the 4 cores its more like 100/65/35/20.
Then there are games which have issues(say like stuttering) with dual cores, it'll only get worse.

I'm not sure how long this multi-core paradigm will last, but I'd reckon not too long. I guess there will always be infinitely parallel applications but pure "more cores is better" will end soon.

The day that Larrabee-like GPUs get integrated into CPUs and being fully integrated into the pipeline and we'll no longer have to choose between latency-sensitive and throughput/bandwidth-sensitive applications.

 

[Rubycon]

id say its a fair apples to apples if price were involved instead of # of cores.

Perhaps but a majority of the enthusiast group could not care less about expense.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248830

 

[Gillbot]

id say its a fair apples to apples if price were involved instead of # of cores.

but that's always the argument the "underdog" tries to use

 

[Chiropteran]

Where can you buy it? Motherboard support? Price? Since everyone is so concerned comparing six cores vs. four etc.

Is newegg mainstream enough?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105267

 

[Gillbot]

Is newegg mainstream enough?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105267

certainly not a $300 part though

 

[Chiropteran]

certainly not a $300 part though

For $300 you can get 8 cores...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105266

How much does Intel charge for it's 6 core CPU?

 

[Rubycon]

LOL @2GHz.

Great for a server I suppose. Also the more cores you have the more challenging "wring every last MHz out of the doll" overclocking comes. Amazing that six cores is so easy then again O/C since Conroe has been like taking candy from a baby...

For $300 you can get 8 cores...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819105266

How much does Intel charge for it's 6 core CPU?

Since we're still on the apples to oranges bandwagon let's compare both stock. Heck o/c the AMD part to 3.3GHz if you can.

 

[Chiropteran]

Since we're still on the apples to oranges bandwagon let's compare both stock. Heck o/c the AMD part to 3.3GHz if you can.

Stop moving the goalposts.

You were asking, in a way that implied they were not, if AMD's 12 core CPUs were available. They are available. That is all.

 

[Rubycon]

I think the original purpose? of this thread has been achieved and it's time to move on. Can we lock it now?

 

[Ertaz]

I think the original purpose? of this thread has been achieved and it's time to move on. Can we lock it now?

I vote yes. let it die.

 

[Gillbot]

I think the original purpose? of this thread has been achieved and it's time to move on. Can we lock it now?

I vote yes. let it die.

Stop posting in it and it'll die on it's own?

 

[Apocalypse23]

I think its rather simple how Bloomfield vs Thuban will end up.

Look at Xeon 5500 vs Opteron 24xx: http://anandtech.com/show/2774/5

There's no situation where the 6 core Opteron can beat the 4 core Xeon 5500. Since the apps tested are more multi-threaded, that'll be representative of how it'll perform with the Thuban vs. Bloomfield in heavily multi-threaded apps: i7 will have slight advantage

All other minus games: Core i7 way faster

Games: Probably i7 will retain similar lead as it did with the 4 core Phenom IIs. Games do run faster on 4 cores than on 2 but its not a big change because of the way games distribute threads to the CPU. They do what I'd call it a "dumb" way, because 1 core is still utilized heavily while others aren't.

1 core: AI+Drivers+Physics+Misc

2 core(big improvement):
Core 0 - Drivers and Physics
Core 1 - AI + Misc

4 core(small improvement):
Core 0 - Drivers
Core 1 - Physics
Core 2 - AI
Core 3 - Misc

What can they do with 6 cores? There's not much they can do above 4, easily.

The one thing you did not notice though is the impact of the additional Turbo Core technology incorporated into the Thubans. Wouldn't this easily boost gaming performance let's say when the processor is running a dual core optimized game since the extra MHZ boost will be applied, and this will be relatively higher depending on the overclock, so that's how I expect the i7s/i5s to lose the performance race?

I noticed that the Turbo Core kicks in when 3 cores are under load, so I'm not sure how exactly this will apply to games, we'd have to wait and see.

 

[busydude]

I might be wrong, but I doubt it ( since ACC isn't supported by the 890FX chipset ).
If they can make it right again, that will be nice because some chips can have a bad core while the other one is fine, you get my point

I am pretty sure 890FX will have the core unlocker feature as 890GX/FX share the same SB 850.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I noticed that the Turbo Core kicks in when 3 cores are under load, so I'm not sure how exactly this will apply to games, we'd have to wait and see.

The boost isn't drastic(3.2 to 3.6GHz is little over 10%). It'll also be interesting to see how the middle ground between 2 and 4 cores(3 cores here) will turn out. And even then, the i7 is already a bit ahead. Maybe it'll put it on parity though.

The i7's also have nice boost on lightly threaded workloads, for example like the 8xx series.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The boost isn't drastic(3.2 to 3.6GHz is little over 10&#37. It'll also be interesting to see how the middle ground between 2 and 4 cores(3 cores here) will turn out. And even then, the i7 is already a bit ahead. Maybe it'll put it on parity though.

The i7's also have nice boost on lightly threaded workloads, for example like the 8xx series.

Please try to keep up.

AMD turbocore on the 1055T adds 2.5 to the CPU-multi (up to 4 cores) so 14x270MHz becomes a 16.5x270MHz quad (with 2 cores clocked 4x270MHz).

That would be a 'turbo' of 675MHz.

Educate thyself.




--

 

[busydude]

Please try to keep up.

AMD turbocore on the 1055T adds 2.5 to the CPU-multi (up to 4 cores) so 14x270MHz becomes a 16.5x270MHz quad (with 2 cores clocked 4x270MHz).

That would be a 'turbo' of 675MHz.

Educate thyself.

--

You got it wrong man!. 1055T has a default clock speed of 2.8GHz= 14X200MHz when turbo core is activated(+2.5 multi) 16.5X200=3.3Ghz

For 1090T Default 16X200=3.2GHz, turbo core(+2) 18X200=3.6GHz

What you were looking at were overclocked numbers(The greater the bus speed the higher the turbo core frequency).

Also The naming convention for Thubans are:

For chips with model numbers ending with 5 like (1055T) multiplier is added by 2.5(500 MHz boost at default speed)

For chips with model numbers ending with 0 like (1090T) multiplier is added by 2(400 MHz boost at default speed)

 

[BenchZowner]

I am pretty sure 890FX will have the core unlocker feature as 890GX/FX share the same SB 850.

Never said the opposite.
The "Core Unlocker" function is present on the 890FX boards from AsRock, Asus, MSI & Gigabyte I've seen, but ACC isn't "officially" or at all supported.

 

[Apocalypse23]

Just imagine the bragging rights you can have with a penta core,

What kind of processor do you have man??
(Straight face) I have a quad core Thuban which I just unlocked to a penta core.
WOW, how did you do that man!! Thats awesome and soooo rad!!!

heh, 6 more days till the reviews are out .

 

[VirtualLarry]

I was saving money for Thuban, but I couldn't resist Microcenter's current deal, buy a 630, 555BE, 720BE, or 965 and get a MSI micro-ATX 785G DDR2 mobo for free.

I thought it was such a good deal, since those mobos have core unlocking, but come to find out, according to newegg reviews, the vcore adjust is locked out in the BIOS (but is controllable by AMD Overdrive). Wierd, eh?

 

[Apocalypse23]

I was saving money for Thuban, but I couldn't resist Microcenter's current deal, buy a 630, 555BE, 720BE, or 965 and get a MSI micro-ATX 785G DDR2 mobo for free.

I thought it was such a good deal, since those mobos have core unlocking, but come to find out, according to newegg reviews, the vcore adjust is locked out in the BIOS (but is controllable by AMD Overdrive). Wierd, eh?

So what did you do then? Are you still waiting for Thuban?

 

[Apocalypse23]

Unlocking a quad to a hexa for <$200 would be spectacular! :thumbsup:

While under $200 and being uncrackable to 6 cores, the 960T will still be a quad chip because the quality of those 2 locked cores is debatable and is also limited when compared to the standard hexacores such as the 1055T and the 1090T BE. Imo, the locked core idea may just be a marketing gimmick to lure more buyers, but the real deal is in the full blown advertised hexas.

 

[sciwizam]

While under $200 and being uncrackable to 6 cores, the 960T will still be a quad chip because the quality of those 2 locked cores is debatable and is also limited when compared to the standard hexacores such as the 1055T and the 1090T BE. Imo, the locked core idea may just be a marketing gimmick to lure more buyers, but the real deal is in the full blown advertised hexas.

Looks like this guy got lucky with a Biostar TA890GXE. XS Link

I might be wrong, but the unlocked OC voltage seems a bit iffy to me. Or is this within the realm of OC possibilities?

4 Cores @ 3.00 Ghz @ 1.428V

6 Cores @ 4.35 Ghz @ 1.5V (also no mention of if this is the turbo speed or not)