So this X6 thing...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Phenom 1090T is what all the cool kids are wearing these days.

Really . So its cool to be cool . Really . Man Alot of people bought AMD stock I see. Its cool to oversell a product and say its = Intel cpus . When A 6 core AMD is getting its ass handed to it by = clocked Intel 4 core cpus . Funny thing here is so many that threw away their intels to buy AMD . Makes sense in this forum tho. IDC SB gets a new socket which is fine . Not alot of people buy a new feature packed cpu than use an old motherboard that doesn't take advantage of Cpus new features.

Its amazing also that so many believe that BD will use the same socket . If thats true BD has Zero chance of beating Intel . Whys that? BD is suppose to bring AVX and FMC and as I understand it 3or 4 channel memory controllers. NOw if all this is true NO chance in hell AMD will use same socket on BD. IF they can do this and do everthing they say with BD. I will be the first inline to say AMD has better tech than Intel . But like the PH l hype befor its release I lol at what AMD told people 50% faster than Conroe LOL.

In any event If you buy a new cpu without a matching M/B for it . Your just one of many who will come to forums seeking help.

I really think the 2 core sandy is all I will ever want . EXCEPT the 2011 socket for 6x SB sounds really good. I really like this lightspeed thing intel has going . its fantastic . I hope it makes it on to socket 2011. I personally will never pay for one but that doesn't mean much. Any one who thinks light speed is not a big deal really hasn't a clue.

I have an old 55 oldsmobile thats in great condition I just bought in New Mexico. I plan on putting a Crate corvette engine in it . Will it be COOL . Only if you like old cars , Will it be fast . Not really . Is it costing alot of money ? Yes . Is it worth it . Not really but Its a car I like and the orginal motor runs just fine . But I won't use that motor even tho I cheapen the car by installing the chevy motor . Its a simple deal . I will overhaul the orginal motor and install it if I or children decide to sell it. Taste is a matter for the individual .

SO if I still around in 2011 and BD has everthing AMD says it will. IF it comes on present socket I will become an AMD fanboy. IF not I will blast them to hell with all the lies of the past 4 years.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Really . So its cool to be cool . Really . Man Alot of people bought AMD stock I see. Its cool to oversell a product and say its = Intel cpus . When A 6 core AMD is getting its ass handed to it by = clocked Intel 4 core cpus . Funny thing here is so many that threw away their intels to buy AMD . Makes sense in this forum tho. IDC SB gets a new socket which is fine . Not alot of people buy a new feature packed cpu than use an old motherboard that doesn't take advantage of Cpus new features.

Its amazing also that so many believe that BD will use the same socket . If thats true BD has Zero chance of beating AMD . Whys that? BD is suppose to bring AVX and FMC and as I understand it 3or 4 channel memory controllers. NOw if all this is true NO chance in hell AMD will use same socket on BD. IF they can do this and do everthing they say with BD. I will be the first inline to say AMD has better tech than Intel . But like the PH l hype befor its release I lol at what AMD told people 50% faster than Conroe LOL.

In any event If you buy a new cpu without a matching M/B for it . Your just one of many who will come to forums seeking help.

I really think the 2 core sandy is all I will ever want . EXCEPT the 2011 socket for 6x SB sounds really good. I really like this lightspeed thing intel has going . its fantastic . I hope it makes it on to socket 2011. I personally will never pay for one but that doesn't mean much. Any one who thinks light speed is not a big deal really hasn't a clue.

I have an old 55 oldsmobile thats in great condition I just bought in New Mexico. I plan on putting a Crate corvette engine in it . Will it be COOL . Only if you like old cars , Will it be fast . Not really . Is it costing alot of money ? Yes . Is it worth it . Not really but Its a car I like and the orginal motor runs just fine . But I won't use that motor even tho I cheapen the car by installing the chevy motor . Its a simple deal . I will overhaul the orginal motor and install it if I or children decide to sell it. Taste is a matter for the individual .

SO if I still around in 2011 and BD has everthing AMD says it will. IF it comes on present socket I will become an AMD fanboy. IF not I will blast them to hell with all the lies of the past 4 years.

I find your Support of Intel disturbing. They ran over my Dog, why do hate my Dog. :(
 

Computer.Ed

Junior Member
Apr 28, 2010
3
0
0
Really . So its cool to be cool . Really . Man Alot of people bought AMD stock I see. Its cool to oversell a product and say its = Intel cpus . When A 6 core AMD is getting its ass handed to it by = clocked Intel 4 core cpus . .

That same Intel processor BTW costs north of $500 and the AMD one right at $300. Plus as more and more apps go forward into true multithreading the 6 cores will pass the 4 core plus 4 pretend cores.

So saving $200 and having more future potential. You are right they are not equal, AMD is the BETTER buy...
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Really. Distrubing LOL . I was banned for the same BS thats going on now . When AMD was Qween for aday. I backed intel and was banned for saying intel beat amd as often as not . When that at the time was infact a true statement. Funny part is Intel just shit stomps AMD right Now core for core . Yet everyone wants to put 6 cores against 4. Intel selling into better than 80% of the market. Yet all cry when Intel only offers the $1000 6 core . Intel is doing a matsterful job of Getting everthing inorder. Bring 1 high end chip than address the lowend market . The 2core at 4.8 ghz @ 1600 DDr3 is the best deal by far. the overpriced 6 core kills it but the 4 cores AMDs don't match up well. Against intels 2 core.

Bob is really upset about this and is making a doc. video for Utube . That Goes step by step how review sites basicly ignored the 32nm 2 core which if you look at the real world numbers soundly beats 4 core AMD . Yet the review sites are backing AMD side because they precieve that AMD is in trouble. Forever blessing that is heaped on AMDs 6 core dog . Its easy to see the hypocrisy involved here .
I never thought I would see the day that What happens in video card section would be dwarfed by the CPU section .
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,483
14,434
136
Really. Distrubing LOL . I was banned for the same BS thats going on now . When AMD was Qween for aday. I backed intel and was banned for saying intel beat amd as often as not . When that at the time was infact a true statement. Funny part is Intel just shit stomps AMD right Now core for core . Yet everyone wants to put 6 cores against 4. Intel selling into better than 80% of the market. Yet all cry when Intel only offers the $1000 6 core . Intel is doing a matsterful job of Getting everthing inorder. Bring 1 high end chip than address the lowend market . The 2core at 4.8 ghz @ 1600 DDr3 is the best deal by far. the overpriced 6 core kills it but the 4 cores AMDs don't match up well. Against intels 2 core.

Bob is really upset about this and is making a doc. video for Utube . That Goes step by step how review sites basicly ignored the 32nm 2 core which if you look at the real world numbers soundly beats 4 core AMD . Yet the review sites are backing AMD side because they precieve that AMD is in trouble. Forever blessing that is heaped on AMDs 6 core dog . Its easy to see the hypocrisy involved here .
I never thought I would see the day that What happens in video card section would be dwarfed by the CPU section .

I have not seen anybody here claiming that core for core, at the same clock, that AMD wins.

What I HAVE seen is that the $200 (can be had for $125 after rebates on a deal) 1055T AMD processor will beat any $200 Intel CPU in almost everything, and on a cheap existing platform.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I rescind my statement about nemesis being eerily quiet

I have a bit more of a life than just sitting infront of PC . I have no control over my health but every other aspect of my life I control. With a little help from My family.

I know I am coming off vary strong here . But the review sights had no numbers to support the claims I am hearing and reading. In a 2 horse race second place is last and thats a Fact.
 

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,259
172
106
That same Intel processor BTW costs north of $500 and the AMD one right at $300.
The comparable i7 860 and 930 are <$300.

Plus as more and more apps go forward into true multithreading the 6 cores will pass the 4 core plus 4 pretend cores.
Many applications will never be able to split their workloads into that many threads. And even for those that are heavily multi-threaded, it seems X6 are strongest for those that don't require much memory access while i7s with HT are better with those that access memory.
 

mbevolution

Member
Jun 16, 2006
155
0
0
Really . So its cool to be cool . Really . Man Alot of people bought AMD stock I see. Its cool to oversell a product and say its = Intel cpus . When A 6 core AMD is getting its ass handed to it by = clocked Intel 4 core cpus . Funny thing here is so many that threw away their intels to buy AMD .

I find this disturbing. No offense but I think your statement is very 1 sided. True, when you compare 1055T and i7 side by side at the same clock, i7 will win. But an 1156 i7 cost $100 over 1055T if you want to build a new system ($200 over if some ppl are using old am3 mbs, $300 if you are using an 1366 i7). If you want a fair comparison, I think 1055T vs i5 750 is a much better one. I have read every review that was out for 1055T and 90&#37; of them showed an overall 15% increase in performance for 1055T. And this is with applications that support less than 6 cores.

With new software coming out that will support more than 4 cores, I see a major advantage of upgrading to 1055T.

This is not a comparison between cores, but rather a comparison between which processor performs better and more future proof, when you can't spend more than $700 to build a system.
 
Last edited:

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,259
172
106
What I HAVE seen is that the $200 (can be had for $125 after rebates on a deal) 1055T AMD processor will beat any $200 Intel CPU in almost everything, and on a cheap existing platform.
The $200 X6 is especially strong in video encoding and 3D rendering (sounds like a reverse P4 Northwood versus A64 Clawhammer) but it won't beat a $200 i7-750 in everything:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=109
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Was waiting for ncix to have the right i5 - mb sale. Trigger finger is itchy, but after not caring, maybe I will relook amd.
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
OMG IDC is back :D I started reading and was like "wtf? is this an old thread or something with IDC posting" Welcome back!

@OP: The X6 is a great buy and reletively cheap for what it gets you. I'd make the investment now in the AM3 platform which is excellent and will also put you in good stead for the future (more multi-threaded apps). The Intel side of things is as you'd expect, top performance but the platform is being phased out in the next generation so no real future CPu upgrades. Take your pick.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,483
14,434
136
The $200 X6 is especially strong in video encoding and 3D rendering (sounds like a reverse P4 Northwood versus A64 Clawhammer) but it won't beat a $200 i7-750 in everything:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=109

What is the 750's stock speed ? I liked the "best OC for each chip" that someone did. In this case, a 4 ghz OC of both with benchmarks.

But the 1055 did win most benchmarks.
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,715
1,049
136
I find this disturbing. No offense but I think your statement is very 1 sided. True, when you compare 1055T and i7 side by side at the same clock, i7 will win. But an 1156 i7 cost $100 over 1055T if you want to build a new system ($200 over if some ppl are using old am3 mbs, $300 if you are using an 1366 i7). If you want a fair comparison, I think 1055T vs i5 750 is a much better one. I have read every review that was out for 1055T and 90&#37; of them showed an overall 15% increase in performance for 1055T. And this is with applications that support less than 6 cores.

With new software coming out that will support more than 4 cores, I see a major advantage of upgrading to 1055T.

This is not a comparison between cores, but rather a comparison between which processor performs better and more future proof, when you can't spend more than $700 to build a system.

I have to agree with you on this, but nemisis also has some valid points.

Nemisis does come off very strong and kinda bias, where I agree with him is his bias is justified the i7 wins more benchmarks than the x6 in general and its mostly on par or slightly better when it comes to encoding and rending. I will probably get flamed for this but you are still comparing 6 cores vs 4 therefore intel chips are much more efficient due to a higher IPC.

Now from the other side, anyone that has a AM2+/AM3 board would be stupid not to look at the X6 its a must buy!! And Nemisis you have to agree price/performance is in amd's favor always has been. However there are some people that just care about performance and if that is the case you would have to go intel.

When you get into a new build this is where things get abit tricky because with price/performance and what you are actually doing with the computer might go into the buying decision. And even to this day sadly there are still software programs that are more optimized for intel over AMD, maybe do to marketshare or whatever you tell me. This has bugged me for along time.

However everyone need to see is this is good for us we need AMD to bring it to intel for prices to drop. I would love to see AMD gain more market share and really give them a big fight but in due time.

"With new software coming out that will support more than 4 cores, I see a major advantage of upgrading to 1055T."

As for this people have been saying this from single to dual from dual to quad and now quad to hexacore.

And the majority of software is still only dual core aware, i'm not talking about the encoding and rending programs they obviously support alot of cores i'm talking general software. Won't even mention games because we all know where that is. So unless you are doing something right now that uses all these cores I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for software because by the time most applictions are requiring quads we will already have Bulldozer out or its successor.

Just my 2c
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I have not seen anybody here claiming that core for core, at the same clock, that AMD wins.

What I HAVE seen is that the $200 (can be had for $125 after rebates on a deal) 1055T AMD processor will beat any $200 Intel CPU in almost everything, and on a cheap existing platform.

True enough Mark but It is being said . Your missing the point. If you look at a review that include a 32nm 2 core and compare in &#37; you can see what I am saying . By percentage a 2 core 32nm is closer to the 6 core. Than AMD is to intels 6 core. NOW if you want to do 6 threaded apps only ya its not close. But Do all known apps and the 2 core intel kicks AMDs 6 core to the curb. I for one can wait to see all these highly thread apps to magicly appear . Its not as bad tho as the hype of AMD 64 . Its a good tho AMD seems to have fixed the AMD64 O/C problems. All I am saying is its OK to Buy AMD its good its cheap and at this time way over hyped. But if AMD can't stand on its own it should fall. Bending over backwards to hype AMD does piss me off .

Do understand that Intel isn't allowed to sell there products at = price of AMD . If they do its abuse of monopoly power. Intel has to play at a higher level than AMD or its abusive to AMD as a company . This makes sense to me when I look at how the people in power have this world running. Intel isn't allowed to play by same rules as AMD because they have 80% market share . I would love to see AMD get 30% market share . Than intel wouldn't be a monopoly any longer . Than Intel in one move could and will wipe amd out.

I haven't bothered to look what is considered monopoly share . I really don't care because it would just anger me about why NV gets away with it in the discret graphics market . TO many lying cheating brain dead people running the world at what end.

I will never ever forget How IBM a monopoly used intel to destroy Dec. You read the EU report about Intel screwing the consumers a lie . Intel actually brought pricies down . NOT AMD. How Intel was killing innovasion another lie.

Now look at Dec. A company that was destroyed by IBM threw Intel . Dec was a company that innovated and yet all stood by to watch IBM wipe them out in 1 short year.

Talk about monopoly powers. As long as IBM is IBM I lol at the lying cheating bastereds that call themselves governments in this world .
 
Last edited:

Computer.Ed

Junior Member
Apr 28, 2010
3
0
0
I know I am coming off vary strong here . But the review sights had no numbers to support the claims I am hearing and reading. In a 2 horse race second place is last and thats a Fact.

True but real life is not about numbers in clinical benchmarks. Put an i7 system with the same ram, video card ect, side by side with a Phenom II system and it is all but impossible to tell the difference in actual usage.

Everyday tasks are a dead heat as all that extra horsepower of the i7 is wasted on such mundane work. Games at resolutions from 1680 and up and more about the video card than the CPU. The overall feel of the system is more heavily impacted by an SSD than ANY CPU change.

Lets face it outside the clinical, in the real world the i7 just does not offer anything special. Oh sure there are a few specific expections to that rule but again note they are specific and not all that common.

So if in the real world the difference is to small in day to day use to notice does it matter? Even if it does why would you pay more money for the same experience?

Whats more the 6 core does show itself more capable than 4 cores with HT in ANYTHING near the same price point. Which means for the same money you have more future directed capability.

Sure if you spend your time running benchmarks or wanting to get your ewood up the i7 is great but for day to day use in a world where cost to real benefit matters the AMD line right not B#$%H Slaps Intel.
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,715
1,049
136
True but real life is not about numbers in clinical benchmarks. Put an i7 system with the same ram, video card ect, side by side with a Phenom II system and it is all but impossible to tell the difference in actual usage.

Everyday tasks are a dead heat as all that extra horsepower of the i7 is wasted on such mundane work. Games at resolutions from 1680 and up and more about the video card than the CPU. The overall feel of the system is more heavily impacted by an SSD than ANY CPU change.

Lets face it outside the clinical, in the real world the i7 just does not offer anything special. Oh sure there are a few specific expections to that rule but again note they are specific and not all that common.

So if in the real world the difference is to small in day to day use to notice does it matter? Even if it does why would you pay more money for the same experience?

Whats more the 6 core does show itself more capable than 4 cores with HT in ANYTHING near the same price point. Which means for the same money you have more future directed capability.

Sure if you spend your time running benchmarks or wanting to get your ewood up the i7 is great but for day to day use in a world where cost to real benefit matters the AMD line right not B#$&#37;H Slaps Intel.

i'm going to have to disagree with you here friend. Your statement is very generalized you don't know what other people are doing with there pcs.

Example I encode video like tv shows that I download and transfer them to my PSP on a regular basis. That encoding process files on my i7, and it sometimes means I can get a phone call encode a few clips throw them onto the PSP and be out the door in minutes.

And you don't know what other people cost to real benefits are!

You could be 19 and college student and buying an i7 rig or even a x980 would be out of your budget.

I could be 33 and making 80k a year and dropping $1000 on a cpu would be trivial to me.

I do agree with the first part of your statement, alot of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two systems if they didn't know, but then again there might be others that could.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,229
9,990
126
Intel selling into better than 80% of the market. Yet all cry when Intel only offers the $1000 6 core . Intel is doing a matsterful job of Getting everthing inorder. Bring 1 high end chip than address the lowend market . The 2core at 4.8 ghz @ 1600 DDr3 is the best deal by far. the overpriced 6 core kills it but the 4 cores AMDs don't match up well. Against intels 2 core.
First off, LGA1366 is only 1% of intel's shipments. Core i7 is NOT "80% of the market". And please tell me about this Intel dual-core shipping at 4.8Ghz. I haven't seen it. It sounds expensive.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I have to agree with you on this, but nemisis also has some valid points.

Nemisis does come off very strong and kinda bias, where I agree with him is his bias is justified the i7 wins more benchmarks than the x6 in general and its mostly on par or slightly better when it comes to encoding and rending. I will probably get flamed for this but you are still comparing 6 cores vs 4 therefore intel chips are much more efficient due to a higher IPC.

Now from the other side, anyone that has a AM2+/AM3 board would be stupid not to look at the X6 its a must buy!! And Nemisis you have to agree price/performance is in amd's favor always has been. However there are some people that just care about performance and if that is the case you would have to go intel.

When you get into a new build this is where things get abit tricky because with price/performance and what you are actually doing with the computer might go into the buying decision. And even to this day sadly there are still software programs that are more optimized for intel over AMD, maybe do to marketshare or whatever you tell me. This has bugged me for along time.

However everyone need to see is this is good for us we need AMD to bring it to intel for prices to drop. I would love to see AMD gain more market share and really give them a big fight but in due time.

"With new software coming out that will support more than 4 cores, I see a major advantage of upgrading to 1055T."

As for this people have been saying this from single to dual from dual to quad and now quad to hexacore.

And the majority of software is still only dual core aware, i'm not talking about the encoding and rending programs they obviously support alot of cores i'm talking general software. Won't even mention games because we all know where that is. So unless you are doing something right now that uses all these cores I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for software because by the time most applictions are requiring quads we will already have Bulldozer out or its successor.

Just my 2c

You really don't get it . We just went threw this in 06 . AMD had performance lead. There processors were Way overpriced. Intel brings out Conroe and at lower price than AMD had on its overpriced CPUs. Now pricies have lowered since that time alittle on Intels side. AMD has yet to match the price of their lowestend in 06. If AMD get lead back its pricies will go to moon yet Intel will stay the same . Intel sells to meet margins . Thats why Intel is Intel . Its all about margins AMD doesn't understand this .

If I was buying a new PC and was buying new and I didn't keep up with the tech . I could go into anystore ask to use AMDs Highend and than Ask to use intels = priced PC . I would do the same as 80% of the people in the world and buy the intel priced at same price because in most apps we use the intel is faster .
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
First off, LGA1366 is only 1% of intel's shipments. Core i7 is NOT "80% of the market". And please tell me about this Intel dual-core shipping at 4.8Ghz. I haven't seen it. It sounds expensive.

Grow up . I not a idiot consumer. 4.8 on 32nm 2 core is pretty easy if you go to the higher end with water . The secret is keeping memory at 1600mgz or lower. Intel has 80% market share . Did you not read the 1st qt fin, results for both companies AMD is actually selling at a loss. AMD has had 2 profitable qt since 06. One because they got money from Intel and this qt because they sold the fab . If Intel sold CPUs at a loss the EU would be all over them along with all others AMD has never ever stood on its own . NOT EVER. Proof look at its qt. results for its history. The numbers show the trueth.
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,715
1,049
136
I fail to see what I don't get according to you!

"If AMD get lead back its pricies will go to moon yet Intel will stay the same"

Obviously who ever had the performance lead there product prices will be higher, that is why intels current prices are higher.

lol and AMD doesn't sell to meet their own margins?

"AMDs Highend and than Ask to use intels = priced PC "

AMd's highest pc does not = intel highest there would be no equal price there.
For the same price you will get a higher performing AMD machine that is why they have the price/performance crown.


If you were not a member of this site and going into a store to buy a pc you buy what had the best price/performance and since you would know nothing about the performance you go with price and features.

80&#37; of the population is computer illertate and will buy what they see as a good deal or what there friends recommend. This same percentage of people will not know that 3dmark 2099 runs better on intel than on amd so it will not be a part of their decision!

The only person that doesn't get it is you!
 
Last edited:

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,715
1,049
136
Grow up . I not a idiot consumer. 4.8 on 32nm 2 core is pretty easy if you go to the higher end with water . The secret is keeping memory at 1600mgz or lower. Intel has 80% market share . Did you not read the 1st qt fin, results for both companies AMD is actually selling at a loss. AMD has had 2 profitable qt since 06. One because they got money from Intel and this qt because they sold the fab . If Intel sold CPUs at a loss the EU would be all over them along with all others AMD has never ever stood on its own . NOT EVER. Proof look at its qt. results for its history. The numbers show the trueth.

He said shipping therefore that is the default clock not overclocked with water cooling!