Impressed with my 1090t

[lavaheadache]

This processor has exceeded my expectations. I put together a cheap rig for a media pc to drive my t.v. What I didn't expect was to almost match my full blown gaming rig with the components


Anyways, here is why I'm impressed.

load temps running prime are in the low to mid 50's

This is using a push/pull corsair H50.

 

[BD231]

Yeah these x6's are damn fast, right up there with the i7's transcoding. Great for highly threaded games and definitely a bargin if you get one on the cheap. Let us pray it gets a die shrink and more work put into it.

 

[grimpr]

Thubans are still great chips.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I know, they really are. Better than the BDs by a long chalk. Astounding that AMD couldn't manage an incremental improvement over Thuban. At some point I might consider grabbing one with the best board for a a media storage/playback system.

 

[lavaheadache]

would I benefit with a higher HT speed? What would be a good goal and what voltages would I be looking at to adjust if need be?

 

[podspi]

The X6 is great, really perfect for an HTPC except that pesky TDP.

 

[ocre]

would I benefit with a higher HT speed? What would be a good goal and what voltages would I be looking at to adjust if need be?

No. HT will not do anything good for your performance at all. HT is useless to OC, focus on the NB after the CPU. Wit the NB get the tightest ram timings and crank it up.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

would I benefit with a higher HT speed? What would be a good goal and what voltages would I be looking at to adjust if need be?

No, but you WOULD benefit from a 2400-2600MHz CPU-NB. Going higher than that yields very minimal increase in most programs, though.

 

[BD231]

The X6 is great, really perfect for an HTPC except that pesky TDP.

Quick, go buy Intel labeled pasifier's for your unborn children, they're goin fast!

 

[lopri]

What is your board? A lot of boards overvolt CPU-NB. (AMD spec: 1.10V, but most boards I've seen have it at 1.30V)

 

[Gikaseixas]

About to replace my 940BE with a 1090 or 1100. Can't wait to install it and play around with it.

 

[jmarti445]

Its a game changer CPU. I noticed a huge difference when going from a Phenom 2 x4 940 to a 1090T. Even more then what I noticed when I went from a Phenom 9850 to the 940. It just seems to run everything smoother. Gaming Frames per second don't go up but they seem to just run better like it has four cores at its disposal and uses the other two to run background stuff.

 

[Vesku]

Definitely a good end cap to the Phenom II line. Just picked up the 1090T instead of FX-8120. Been running processes on 2-3 cores while gaming with the others, works a treat.

 

[LoneNinja]

My 1090T has a bum core that I can't get stable over 3.8Ghz, 4.0Ghz crashes even at 1.525V and 3.8Ghz is stable at 1.4V. I wanted to build a Bulldozer rig this winter to replace my aging 9850, but I'll probably just pick up another Thuban since I won't need to replace a board or ram that way.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Anyone running a 1090t with BF3?

Heard with high end gpu set ups it could sometimes fully load a 2500k and hear it scales well with 6 cores.

Dealing with this dual core and the game is painful so would love some 6 core goodness.

cpu usage in game from those who are would be much helpful

 

[jhansman]

Yep, I was on the fence between getting it or waiting for BD. Glad I jumped when I did.

 

[SlowSpyder]

My 1090T hits just over 4GHz. I can go higher on five of the six cores, but core five isn't happy beyond 4GHz. I run my NB/L3 at 2.6GHz, if you leave it at 2GHz you're missing out on a good amount of performance.

 

[toyota]

Anyone running a 1090t with BF3?

Heard with high end gpu set ups it could sometimes fully load a 2500k and hear it scales well with 6 cores.

Dealing with this dual core and the game is painful so would love some 6 core goodness.

cpu usage in game from those who are would be much helpful

maybe you should get Bulldozer since it has 8 cores then...

 

[skipsneeky2]

maybe you should get Bulldozer since it has 8 cores then...

Not sure if this is a serious post but nope not interested in bulldozer at all.

Was on a map last night and some guy claimed he had dual 6970 and on ultra his 2500k can hit 90-100% at times and since my e8200 has been fully loaded out i figured a cheaper 1090t would be a nice touch.

Would enable more multitasking in the background instead of shutting everything off you know?

 

[toyota]

Not sure if this is a serious post but nope not interested in bulldozer at all.

Was on a map last night and some guy claimed he had dual 6970 and on ultra his 2500k can hit 90-100% at times and since my e8200 has been fully loaded out i figured a cheaper 1090t would be a nice touch.

Would enable more multitasking in the background instead of shutting everything off you know?

yes I was joking. you seem to be under the impression that the Phenom X6 will be better because it has more cores. that is not true as the 2500k is easily the faster cpu overall when it comes to gaming. it also uses WAY less power especially if you plan to oc at all.

perhaps you need to see something like this. a Phenom 2 X6 at 4.0 is still slower than a stock 2500k in gaming. still the entire 2500k system is only using about 103 watts under cpu load while the Phenom 2 at 4.0 is using 305 watts. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect2

 

[skipsneeky2]

yes I was joking. you seem to be under the impression that the Phenom X6 will be better because it has more cores. that is not true as the 2500k is easily the faster cpu overall when it come to gaming. it also uses WAY less power especially if you plan to oc at all.

perhaps you need to see something like this. a Phenom 2 X6 at 4.0 is still slower than a stock 2500k in gaming. at the same time the 2500k is only using about 55 watts while the Phenom 2 at 4.0 is using 250 watts whicle still being slower in gaming. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-2600k-990x_9.html#sect2

I know for a fact the 2500k is the king of the hill but after playing BF3 this last week on a measily e8200 and watching it get raped...it just makes me want a x6 1090t:awe: Task manager showing off a maxed dual core scares me.

Add in the claims it could come close to maxing out a 2500k and i saw one forum member claiming he was going for a 2700k for this game...cause his 2500k is not enough apparently.

If you was encoding a video while running maybe a virus scan and playing this game would the x6 1090t still be a bad choice?

 

[toyota]

I know for a fact the 2500k is the king of the hill but after playing BF3 this last week on a measily e8200 and watching it get raped...it just makes me want a x6 1090t:awe: Task manager showing off a maxed dual core scares me.

Add in the claims it could come close to maxing out a 2500k and i saw one forum member claiming he was going for a 2700k for this game...cause his 2500k is not enough apparently.

If you was encoding a video while running maybe a virus scan and playing this game would the x6 1090t still be a bad choice?

are you really going to encode a video and run a virus scan while playing a competitive multi player game? lol, I swear people have to come with the craziest scenarios to try and make a slower more power hungry cpu look justifiable. just get a 2500k and you will be just fine. you will be basically 100% gpu limited with a 2500k and any single gpu anyway.

 

[skipsneeky2]

are you really going to encode a video and run a virus scan while playing a competitive multi player game? lol, I swear people have to come with the craziest scenarios to try and make a slower more power hungry cpu look justifiable. just get a 2500k and you will be just fine. you will be basically 100% gpu limited with a 2500k and any single gpu anyway.

LOL you are right but i remember so many people recommending a e8400 over a q6600...the q6600 was slower then but ended up later on being the best choice cause it had more cores and still stands true today.

Kick in the ass for any e8000 series owner now but since no game "now" takes advantage of a hexacore the 2500k is the better option.

 

[Vesku]

are you really going to encode a video and run a virus scan while playing a competitive multi player game? lol, I swear people have to come with the craziest scenarios to try and make a slower more power hungry cpu look justifiable. just get a 2500k and you will be just fine. you will be basically 100% gpu limited with a 2500k and any single gpu anyway.

Well, not encoding or virus scanning but I have been folding on a secondary GPU while I game. I have a third GPU to throw in, need to max out these PCI-E lanes.

 

[toyota]

LOL you are right but i remember so many people recommending a e8400 over a q6600...the q6600 was slower then but ended up later on being the best choice cause it had more cores and still stands true today.

Kick in the ass for any e8000 series owner now but since no game "now" takes advantage of a hexacore the 2500k is the better option.

the Q6600 was slower in 99.9% of games for years. it had to be oced just to match the E8400 for a long time. and the Q6600 overclocked ate up some serious power too. by the time the Q6600 started looking as good or better than the E8400, we already had the i5 and i7 cpus.

its already been shown that the more gpu power you throw and the i5/i7, especially Sandy Bridge, the bigger the gap over the Phenom X6 there is. and that's true even in games that use more than four cores. the X6 is only going to look worse next year not better. plus a 2500k platform has the Ivy Bridge option if you choose. considering how bad the 2500k kills the X6 on performance per watt, Ivy Bridge will make the X6 look downright silly.