• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What would you choose 1090T or Bulldozer?

D

Deanodarlo

Senior member
If you were building an AMD rig?

Honestly, all this wait and I would choose a cheap Phenom II x6 1090T and overclock it to 4.2Ghz over a Bulldozer. It would use much less power (even though it's 45nm) and have the performance of a 4.8Ghz Bulldozer in general use and games.

You'd get six full cores.

Just wish there was a 32nm Phenom II x8 then I might be tempted to save some money on an Intel build as their motherboards and x4 CPU's are relatively expensive.
 
Last edited:
I too would spend the extra on Intel, but if I had to save cash and go with AMD it would be the 1090T.

How bad is that? The tech is three years old or something!
 
dear god. now we're going to see 50 of these threads a week!

don't bother with either. go with intel like others have suggested.
 
Hard choice. I'd definitely get an AM3+ board so I would have the option to upgrade if faster BD's became available down the road. But the hexcore Phenoms seem to get to 4-4.2GHz these days, the early BD's appear to get to 4.6GHz. I think the Phenom would probably be a better choice, it's cheaper and would probably perform very near the same in most cases, if not slightly faster.
 
I wouldn't even consider neither of them to be honest.

Don't buy processor because "you want 6 or 8 cores", that number is meaningless. Performance speaks for itself.
 
About a week ago I was at microcenter and got the following for $210. An AMD 1090t , with a decent gigabyte motherboard for free and 2x4 gigs of corsair 1333 ram. Got home slapped a spare h50 on it that I had kicking around from when best buy was selling it for $35 bucks and bumped the multi to 20x on stock voltage. I was pleasantly surprised with a rock solid 4.0 ghz. Can't beat the price for that kind of performance.

This is a secondary rig. I can hardly tell a difference against my i7 930 setup.
 
Last edited:
lavaheadache said:
About a week ago I was at microcenter and got the following for $210. An AMD 1090t , with a decent gigabyte motherboard for free and 2x4 gigs of corsair 1333 ram. Got home slapped a spare h50 on it that I had kicking around from when best buy was selling it for $35 bucks and bumped the multi to 20x on stock voltage. I was pleasantly surprised with a rock solid 4.0 ghz. Can't beat the price for the
at kind of performance.

This is a secondary rig. I can hardly tell a difference against my i7 930 setup.
Click to expand...

i buy a lot of my work PCs from microcenter because of their AMD deals. they have the buy an AMD CPU, get mobo free. phenom x2 + mobo + 4GB ddr3 = $110.
 
I got a 8120.

I was in the tough situation of having a BD system prebuilt and waiting.


Figure may as well go with new tech, its not any worse anyways
 
Last edited:
1090T, because as it is an older product, I think it has better software updates and perhaps even slightly enhanced manufacturing compared to the new spitten out buldozer which possibly has defects in its architecture that will show up only in a few months/years. I'd rather actually go with intels B840 or amds llano.
 
I've got a 1090T that won't do 4.0Ghz, 1.525V and it'll still crash several hours into prime95 with temps remaining under 55C, but I would still take it over Bulldozer.

I'm really worried about Trinity now, I think it was anandtechs review which estimated BD to be 7% slower than Phenom II, so I doubt Trinity will see much improvement over Llano.
 
I did choose the 1090T instead of waiting and (gasp!) have no regrets. I know, I know. I'm supposed to whine and bitch and moan and wish I'd gone with a 2600k, or a Mac, or something. Not happening...
 
1090T's are still strong PC's.


People worry way too much about paper stats. Real world performance folks?

Gaming at 1080p... CPU is less important as we all know.


I built a 1090T system a while back for a buddy that I also could not hit 4.0GHz with excellent cooling. Had to settle for 3.9
 
smakme7757 said:
They are so cheap you might as well get a 1090T.
Click to expand...

Why exactly? All you're paying for is for the unlocked multiplier which doesn't matter if you're gonna tweak the CPU-NB frequency, and RAM frequency and timings, anyway.

It doesn't OC any better, so it's just a waste of $20.
 
DaveSimmons said:
At $170 for a 1090t, for general use and games, the correct answer is: intel i5-2400.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=363

Much faster, and 50 watts lower power use under load.

Edit: I built a bunch of AMD systems in the socket 939 days and they worked great, but it's not 2006 any longer. SB is just a much better CPU line.
Click to expand...

Agreed, 939 days were great.

Since Core2, I'm surprised AMD sold ANY chips BUT I also realize that I'm happy people are supporting AMD cause without competition Intel would be charging us $500 for 2500k....hehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top