AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Review: The New Six-Core Flagship

[Avro Arrow]

[citation][nom]tony singh[/nom]I am tired of waiting for AMD to bring another 'athlon64' to lock horns with intel ,If it can match & defeat nvidia , why not intel ? I know what a giant intel is BUT it is not out of this world..[/citation]
You really can't compare nVidia with Intel. Don't you know that nVidia is tiny even compared to AMD? AMD is actually winning this war because for 95% of users, the CPUs that Intel produces that are above AMD's range are for the most part, useless because the software that the average user will employ will not even come close to using all that power. As we all know in the computer game, never buy more power than you need because it will cost too much. If you wait until you actually NEED that kind of power, it will be cheaper when you actually purchase it. Personally, I think that anyone who buys an i7 for gaming is one of three things: 1)Insecure and needs an i7 to make them feel good about themselves. 2)Uses the i7 to compensate for a lack of physical endowment.
3)Is an Intel fanboi with more money than brains.
Now of course, there are the odd 2 or 3 that actually need that kind of power for machine virtualization and other heavy-duty jobs but seriously, who does things like that at home? As sure as I am that they're out there, there are more people using macbooks than the people I just described.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I want to see AMD release their Opteron x12 as a desktop CPU!

 

[Avro Arrow]

thats more like it, increase those stock speeds and the we will have more chance to to get even more performance by overclocking

I seem to remember reading in another review that the 1100T could sadly only overclock to the same level as the 1090T.

 

[Avro Arrow]

the 790 chipsets don't know how to implement all of the power states for the thubans. You must use the 890's. Silly little Tom's. check out Anand's review. Its a 100 watt difference

Pabst must be embarrassed at what you have become

Ah, rhinox the troll who pretends to have a clue. The three 790 series chipsets are not necessarily the same. Sure, the 790GX is just a 790X with integrated graphics but the 790FX is a different animal altogether. The 790FX is chock full of PCI-Express lanes that allow it the Quad-CrossfireX capability. Unlike the 790X and 790GX that are x16(x1) or x8(x2), the 790FX is x16(x1), x16(x2), x8(x3) or x8(x4). The 790FX is a high-powered enthusiast gaming chipset that even today crushes many new offerings like the P55. It still rivals (and in many ways) defeats the mighty X58 because only the ridiculously expensive X58 motherboards support 4 vidcads while almost ALL 790FX (and now 890FX) motherboards support 4 cards. It's not really 790 series as much as X series, GX series and FX series. Time to do some comparo reading and you just might find that the "old" 790FX from the spider platform crushes every dragon and leo chipset except the 890FX. I should know, I have the K9A2 Platinum which is an early 790FX motherboard from MSI and its performance is amazing. I sometimes fantasize about the 790FX-GD70 and now 890FX-GD70.

The 890 performs no better than a 780g. Testing has proved this, and AMD's own list of suggested boards for testing the 1100T includes a variety of chipsets. It makes no difference.
If this hadn't been proven otherwise, I might agree with your argument. But we know from experience that this is simply not the case, and if AMD is suggesting non-800 series chipsets to test the new CPU you can be pretty sure there's no hidden performance to unlock with the 890 chipset.

You're absolutely right, having an 890 prefix in the northbridge name doesn't win any awards with me. I'm far more concerned with the suffix of X, GX or FX (FX being the only one I generally buy.)

 

[Guest]

If AMD presumably dies all Intel Fans (and all other consumers) will have to pay twice or 3 times more for their beloved intel cpus (that's monopoly kids, technology will move slower because there's no longer pressure from the competition.

 

[Avro Arrow]

[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]Sorry AMD fanboys...not good enough. Took AMD 2 years to be almost where Intel was 2 years ago with the i7 920 (which is still top dawg and the best bang for your buck). The AMD chips still can't compete with an over clocked i7 920/930. I'm rooting for AMD to step their game. Can't wait to see what they have in bulldozer. If it's anything worthwhile, I might just switch back to AMD. These high end chips are for enthusiasts only, not even gamers. If you want to show off how much money you have then go for the best. It's just like a Toyota Corolla vs a Supra. They both get you from point A to point B, but you look good doing it in a Supra (chicks also dig you) and have higher risks (way higher insurance too) of getting pulled over or injury like Hulk Hogan's son, Nick.I'm a Supra guy...Always buy the best stuff. I have $1,000 golf clubs, but suck at it. I don't care, just wanna look good and show off my money. The point is, if AMD comes out with better stuff, I'll buy AMD.[/citation]
That is usually the case when a man is trying to compensate for other SHORTcomings.

 

[Avro Arrow]

[citation][nom]luke904[/nom]you idiot...it makes intel look better because when you lower the resolution, the graphics bottleneck is removed (mostly) and the higher performing cpu shows through.if you tested it at a higher resolution then the results would be closer together because the higher end cpus would be held back more.accept it.the i7 920 is a great cpu and is more powerful than alot of what AMD has.btw- i run a amd 955[/citation]
Oh really, then why does the 1100T OVERTAKE the i7-920 if it's all just GPU-related?

 

[mihaitzateo]

I am not Intel or Amd suporter,but I am a suporter of good cpus at low prices.
And for good cpus at low prices we need competition between AMD and Intel.
Amd had survived in times worst that things are at the moment for AMD - example when core 2 duo was launched and it was much better than AMD cpus.

 

[kanaric]

should of showed the I7 920 OCed effortlessly to 4ghz compared to these.

Its funny that this old processor that I buoght new for $180 on sale more than 2 years ago still outshines the newest AMD processor.

 

[eddieroolz]

My faith in AMD is stronger than ever. I will do my part to convince people from going Intel in a build - that's a waste of money anyway.

 

[nebun]

top of the line AMD still can't keep up with Intel's i7 920, it's a shame!!!

 

[Avro Arrow]

top of the line AMD still can't keep up with Intel's i7 920, it's a shame!!!

You know, it's amazing but people don't realise that the Phenom II X4 series was never designed to compete with the i7. It was made to compete with the Core2Quad. The Phenom II was hurriedly designed because the Phenom I proved to be non-competitive with even the Core2Duo. Why don't you try comparing the Core2Quad with the i7 and then you can say that it's a shame that the Core2Quad can't keep up with the i7? Remember that the i7 is a triple-channel memory platform so you're comparing apples and oranges. The Phenom II Deneb/Thuban architecture was never really supposed to be what it is. It wasn't supposed to be a 45nm die process but because the Phenom I performed so poorly, AMD had to come up with something fast in order to compete with the Core2Quad. I think that Phenom II was never even supposed to exist. They were going to use some other name for their 32nm process to compete with the i7 but had to put that on hold. It's AMD's fault but the fact remains that the Phenom II and the i7 shouldn't even be comparable and yet, somehow, they are.

 

[nebun]

You know, it's amazing but people don't realise that the Phenom II X4 series was never designed to compete with the i7. It was made to compete with the Core2Quad. The Phenom II was hurriedly designed because the Phenom I proved to be non-competitive with even the Core2Duo. Why don't you try comparing the Core2Quad with the i7 and then you can say that it's a shame that the Core2Quad can't keep up with the i7? Remember that the i7 is a triple-channel memory platform so you're comparing apples and oranges. The Phenom II Deneb/Thuban architecture was never really supposed to be what it is. It wasn't supposed to be a 45nm die process but because the Phenom I performed so poorly, AMD had to come up with something fast in order to compete with the Core2Quad. I think that Phenom II was never even supposed to exist. They were going to use some other name for their 32nm process to compete with the i7 but had to put that on hold. It's AMD's fault but the fact remains that the Phenom II and the i7 shouldn't even be comparable and yet, somehow, they are.

agreed, still, AMD needs to spend more money on R&D and come up with something more like the i7 series

 

[Avro Arrow]

agreed, still, AMD needs to spend more money on R&D and come up with something more like the i7 series

Well, the reason they haven't been able to is because they're still recovering from the crap that Intel pulled which got them fined. They were bleeding money like crazy and their CPUs suffered. This all goes back to the Athlon x2. See, Intel started their crap because the Athlon 64 was kicking the Pentium 4's butt all over the place. Intel succeeded in stifling AMD and it caused AMD to hemorrhage money. The OEMs wouldn't touch AMD because they'd be penalized by Intel if they did. As a result, AMD's funding was dramatically reduced and they couldn't afford proper R&D. This is why Intel managed to get ahead. They had money and AMD did not. I'm just thankful that AMD managed to survive that fiasco. Intel knew that AMD had to exist in order for them to not be considered a monopoly or trust but while they wanted AMD to continue to exist, they didn't want AMD to actually be competitive at the high end. They somewhat succeeded in this and there's plenty of morons who will buy an i7 for gaming just so that they can crow about their i7 manhood extensions even though they're screwing themselves in the process. Intel didn't fully succeed however and instead of relegating AMD to a position similar to VIA's, they only managed to knock AMD back 1 generation. AMD's Deneb architecture (Phenom II) saved their butts but they still were strapped for cash and couldn't afford R&D on both the i7 and Sandy Bridge levels. As a result, AMD decided to forgo the i7 level and jump straight to Sandy Bridge with their Bulldozer architecture. This was a smart move by them because they saw that hardware had advanced far past software requirements and were able to keep the Phenom II line interesting with speed bumps and the Thuban 6-core architecture. AMD's holding a grudge for what they suffered through because of Intel's criminal activity and I have a feeling that their bulldozer is going to do some serious damage to Intel because AMD has been developing bulldozer for far longer than Intel has been developing Sandy Bridge. Development of Bulldozer began as soon as Phenom II was released while Intel had its head sunk into the socket 1156 and 1155 lines. I expect bulldozer to be a polished product and I expect it to rock Intel's world. The $1.28 billion settlement they got from Intel and the recent success of ATi doesn't hurt either. Expect Intel's nose to be bloodied by Bulldozer and remember that the Phenom II is a throwaway line. It was not meant to do anything except keep AMD relevant and also to keep their head above water. It has succeeded, AMD is still relevant, still viable and it has increased its exposure. More AMD-based OEM desktops and notebooks have been released in the last year than in the previous 5 combined. An AMD laptop used to be somewhat of a novelty, now they're all over the place. I like that, it shows that AMD is getting stronger and more recognised. AMD did not and will not fall so Intel's gambit didn't pay off. In fact, taking into account the fines that Intel has had to pay in addition to the settlement with AMD, I'd say it backfired. We'll know for sure when Bulldozer is out. I expect it to Bulldoze everything that Intel has on the market.

 

[Guest]

AMD still welcomes Nvidia, VIA, SIS to develop common products for their processors, which really keeps the market afloat. Seriously an unselfish act.

LGA 1156 & LGA1136, Intel is monopolizing again. Yes, NVIDIA and VIA can still produce capable boards, just that Intel refused competitors. Intel i3 and i5 is priced against AMD's Phenom, but INTEL profits back from their monopolized motherboard market.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101130-711024.html

VIA may have made deals with the devil(Intel) and exchanged technologies. Without sufficient chipset demand, I would reckon they will be the next to go, even with their Dual-Core Via NANO.

Time to dip your noses into this hole.

 

[Avro Arrow]

VIA should seriously think about making chipsets for AMD-based motherboards. They could probably do it at a very good price and lots of people would buy it. To date, they are the only ones innovative enough to make a chipset that could handle AGP or PCI-Express as well as DDR or DDR2 all on the same board. That was the VIA PT880 northbridge. It was very impressive. Maybe they could make one that would allow AM2+ CPUs to use DDR3 RAM by having a converter on board.

 

[doron]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3877/asrock-890fx-deluxe-full-review-and-an-investigation-of-thuban-performance-scaling/7

You can see that in many of the performance analysis, NB overclock matters in a big way.
I recall some of us presented this issue at one of Thomas Soderstorm's SBM articles with the thuban overclocking, and asked him to also oc the nb to see what effects it'll have, and he said he'll keep it in mind the next chance he's got.. Well here's your chance.

 

[woshitudou]

[citation][nom]tony singh[/nom]I am tired of waiting for AMD to bring another 'athlon64' to lock horns with intel ,If it can match & defeat nvidia , why not intel ?[/citation]

Intel at the enthusiast level isn't about value. When you go there you're on your own against Intel. AMD supplies to the rest of the market where you want bang for your buck. I don't have fun buying Intel cpus because they're often overpriced for what you get but I have a lot of fun buying AMD cpus because I'm getting awesome deals. Each to their own.

 

[anamika]

computer hardware:
http://grepler.com/threads/index/alive.computers.hardware.systems

 

[Guest]

The performance I get from my phenom II 965 is enough for work and gaming. An intel cpu won't give me any noticeable increase in performance, why switch for a couple more fps??? I get a whole lot more from a SSD drive!

Anyways, I'm skipping the 1090t and waiting for bulldozer. Without AMD, intel would do what ever they wanted with prices and quality.

 

[asheesh1_2000]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Could this be any more unremarkable or unnecessary a product? Might as well grab an i5, or one of the existing X6s, or wait for SB, or Bulldozer... this is just pointless.[/citation]
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]AMD is most certainly not doing great if they have to rerelease all their chips. Here's what happens: They make a batch of chips and sell them all as 4 core processors at X speed. The ones they don't sell or are returned go into stress testing. Those batches are divided in to x2 or x3 piles depending on how stable they are with which cores enabled. The winners of the tests get promoted and branded as new, faster chips with x+100 MHz. The process then repeats.Now if you'll look, their third iteration of this process still doesn't match intel's entry-level i7 processors. It's just embarrassing is what that is.[/citation]

Try comparing the prices and then you will know who is doing good and who is doing excellent. At a price of a diamond it is easy to give a cutting edge technology however when you try to give almost the same performance at less then a quarter of that prize then we are interested.

 

[kronos_cornelius]

Now, should I wait for Bulldozer ?

How long will it be ?

I was thinking it may be a shorter wait if I get a AM3+ Mobo first and use my old phenom on it while bulldozer arrives.

 

[Guest]

To all the Intel fan boys. AMD is a huge benefit, even thought you don't realize it. If AMD ever goes belly-up, Intel could charge whatever they want and they'll make you pay $$$. Despite AMD's lack of market share, revenue, and benchmarks, they have great engineers. Consider this:

1. AMD came out with the first 1 GHz processor.
2. AMD sticks to a socket design longer than Intel -great for builders.
3. AMD came out with the first x64 bit processor.
4. AMD supports USB 3.0 with their new chipsets -what's Intel doing?
5. AMD does all this with less money and resources.

With all their resources, Intel should be able to trump AMD on everything. IMO, Intel looks like a bunch of profiteering fat cats smoking Cuban cigars. I see AMD as the leader here with Intel doing just enough to create the image that they're ahead.

 

[Guest]

Anyway, Amd fans should be happier than Intel. We enjoy cheaper mobo with native SATA3 and USB3 and no need to change mobo to get 1100T. And Intel...bye bye 1156, welcome 1155. I pity 1156, just out 6 month ago and obsolete now, and X58 may obsolete soon ...

 

[Guest]

Yeah, it's anonymous, because I don't feel like registering with every site I don't frequent.

Is this another CPU argument thread? No doubt. Am I bias against INTEL? By far not. You can discuss which is better all you want, but I will not argue Intel's superiority, because technically it is a superior CPU.

But here is the kicker.

The majority of desktop users will never use the many enhancements and advanced features of Intel's CPU's. The majority of those features are there for applications that aren't used for games, web, or most people's daily use. For the professional that does daily CAD, Photoshop, 3DMax, Lightwave, Video Production, ect, they will benefit from the extra instructions for the extra cash. So of the many biased opinions I've seen against AMD cpu's, many of them are just materialistic and will spend any $X,XXX.00 amount of money just so they can say they have THE BEST. And they do have the best, even though they don't use the extra power. It is the business world that keeps Intel on top, not the average home, or performance enthusiast. AMD brings a class of power, that can "compare" to the high end business systems, at a more affordable price for the average home user. I applaud them for this. A raw DVD rip re-authored for a standard dvd5 takes only a few 3-4 minutes compared to a few years ago for single core of 40min. Intel does this faster, but if it's not critical (as in making money doing it), then a few minutes longer is a small price to pay for occasional compression. Unless you have a true need for the extra power/instructions, then AMD will save you some $$.