Official Thuban Reviews

[jimmysmitty]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,2613.html

Well THG finally posted thier review and the results are:

Its really a toss up. Even in Mead/Audio encoding only some programs push it above Core i7 quads and others its about the same as a Core i7 920. In most things its faster than a Phenom II X4 but in games it seems its slower than its quad core cousin, even in Left 4 Dead 2 which is a pretty multi core happy game.

The only game it seems to excell in is CoD MW2, which is only by 1FPS so not enough to actually pronounce it king. its possible that the low L3 cache might hinder it. It is 50% core increase but it only has 30% more transistors so maybe AMD cut a bit of fat off to be able to fit it in the 125w TDP?

They didn't do a overclocking on it yet so nothing there. I will say its power consumption bump from Phenom II X4 is quite impressively low but is just a bit more than Gulftown which has about 200 million more transistors (Thuban is estimated at 904 Million by THG, Gulftown is 1.17 billion) so its not that impressive.

Overall, if you game its best to get a nice overclockable quad like the Phenom II X4 945 or Core i7 820/Core i5 750 and spend a bit more on the GPU. For production its a toss up depending on what apps you use.

Can't wait to see a overclocking comparision between Thuban, Phneom II X4, Core i7 and Gulftown.

Thoughts?


*Edit*

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/1

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3251/amd_phenom_ii_x6_1090t_black_edition_3_2ghz_six_core_cpu/index.html

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_1090t_six_core_review/1

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x6-1090t.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/31407-amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-six-core-processors-review.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/1

http://hwbot.org/article/news/hwbot_research_lab_amd_thuban_voltage_and_temperature_scaling

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=508&Itemid=63

Added all the current benchmarks found for Thuban as well as changed the name to "Official Thuban Reviews".

 

[jennyh]

I'd take the six cores anyday, simple fact is you'll be gaming at close to maximum settings with at least 1680x1050 resolution not some silly medium settings 1280x1024.

Gulftown draws 50% more power for 'only' a couple hundred million more transistors btw.

 

[mi1ez]

Looks amazing value for anyone working in graphics, encoding, video editing etc, if not the gaming chip some were hoping for.

 

[randomizer]

I don't know which charts you're looking at but they all look like they're within 3-5% of each other across the board to me. I'd take a quad at most if I was just gaming, or a dual if I was on a budget and didn't plan on playing anything that was CPU bound.

I'm disappointed in the productivity performance. I would like to see 3DS Max done with Mental Ray instead of the scanline renderer though, it scales better. POV-Ray would be nice to see as well as it has extremely good scaling.

 

[jennyh]

 

[randomizer]

The 980X is a tough sell if you use POV-Ray unless you're doing it in a production environment (who uses POV-Ray in a production environment?) where the 44% improvement outweighs the initial cost.

 

[jennyh]

Anything that uses 6 real cores is going to swing hugely in favour of the Thubans basically. Even the 1055T beats the i7 870 in that one.

If you want any rendering the smart choice would be the 1055T and overclock it to 4ghz, saving a fortune. It won't catch the 980X but on price/performance it is miles ahead.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I'd take the six cores anyday, simple fact is you'll be gaming at close to maximum settings with at least 1680x1050 resolution not some silly medium settings 1280x1024.

Gulftown draws 50% more power for 'only' a couple hundred million more transistors btw.

These beg to differ:

Every last game is at a super high res (past 1680x1050) and max settings and with or without AA/AF, the Phenom II X6 performs just as well if not under everything else.

According to the review, Gulftown has a draw of 226W at load while Thuban has a draw of 229W at load. So not sure how Gulftown is drawing more, considering that Gulftown does have about 200 million more transistors and double the L3 cache.

Unless you can show something else that shows Thuban is better for high res gaming, its no better right now than a quad and until we see how far it can be overclocked, its not worth getting at this point for gaming.

For media, it depends on what program you use. Some programs favor Intel, other favor AMD. If you use the ones that prefer AMD then get the Thuban for that purpose. If not as I have stated, Thuban is not worth upgrading to IF you plan to game mostly and have a quad, just like Gulftown is useless for anything beyond server/media apps.

 

[randomizer]

As far as price/performance goes if you need CPU power for a highly scalable program like this you're either going to go for a 1055T or blow some cash on the 980X. Paying for anything else wouldn't be worth it.

 

[jennyh]

Jimmy there is like 1 fps between those gaming results, I wouldn't use anything except price as an indication of which is the best for that, and I certainly wouldn't justifty say an i5 750 over a 1055 because of it either.

With both at similar prices, the 1055 beats the i5 silly in everything non-gaming, has a better upgrade path due to 1156 being dead and is obviously going to be a much more future proof cpu. Nobody is going to buy an i5 750 now unless it drops in price quite dramatically.

As for power draw, we both know that cpu's spend much more time at idle, and the gulftown idles 50% higher.

 

[jennyh]

It's not earth shattering but is there any good reason to buy an i5 750 instead of a 1055T?

Is there any good reason to buy an i7 instead of a 1090T? AMD is back, this is good for all of us.

 

[randomizer]

Spare a thought for those of us on the old 920s. We idle almost as much with only 2/3 the cores 😛

 

[jennyh]

Spare a thought for those of us on the old 920s. We idle almost as much with only 2/3 the cores 😛

It speaks volumes actually.

The best intel can do on their much more mature 45nm is a single speed bin increase at the same TDP. The 920 and 930 are still great chips, but I really would have expected a bit more than a simple 133mhz speed bump in 18 months.

AMD add 2 cores and 3mb cache while increasing overclocking ability at the same TDP in the same timeframe (without HKMG).

 

[randomizer]

Well the 8x0 do alot better with Turbo than the 9x0, as indicated by the (marginally) higher scores for highly threaded apps, and much higher scores in single/dual-threaded apps.

 

[andy5174]

The review shows that basically 6-core PII-X6 performs just about the same as 4-core i7 if they are OCed to the same frequency... Not impressed at all performance-wise! How sad that AMD CPUs need 50% more cores to match Intel CPUs at any given frequency. Given that the PII-X6 1090T costs approximately the same as i7-930/i7-860, I will definitely choose i7 between the two considering i7 OCs higher and more efficient.

1055T which costs a little more than i5-750 seems to be the only hope for AMD now. It would be a huge success for AMD if the 1055T can at least reach 4GHz, because consumers would get an i7 equivalence for the price of i5-750. Otherwise, although PII-X6 is definitely not a fail, it would not be impressive/attractive too.

Stop the craps now and get a life, AMD fanboys.

@ randomizer: Nice to see you again. Haven't seen you much these days. I really miss you.... ahhhhhh I am not gay, so don't be scared.

 

[jennyh]

Lol where did you drag up that nonsense andy.

The benchmarks don't lie.

While some of the more expensive Intels quadcore processors can keep up with AMDs sixcore cpus, the future and more threaded applications will shift the bias more toward AMDs offerings, making them even more attractive. AMDs Phenom II X6 10xxT is really putting Intel under pressure.

 

[andy5174]

Lol where did you drag up that nonsense andy.

The benchmarks don't lie.

While some of the more expensive Intels quadcore processors can keep up with AMDs sixcore cpus, the future and more threaded applications will shift the bias more toward AMDs offerings, making them even more attractive. AMDs Phenom II X6 10xxT is really putting Intel under pressure.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2010/04/Phenom-II-X6-Truecrypt.png

More correctly, RELIABLE benchmarks from REPUTABLE sites like TOM and Anadtech don't lie.

Read TOM's review jimmysmitty showed you. Or you can move to sites showing AMD being superior no matter what the truth is.

 

[jennyh]

andy...WOW. 😀

from THG -

As a result, it’s easy to recommend the Phenom II X6 1090T for folks able to employ its six cores. Video work, threaded Photoshop filters, rendering—in those workloads, AMD’s new flagship is, in many cases, able to keep up with the quad-core Core i7-975.

You see that in the conclusion? the i7-975, intel's only true production cpu costing what, $900 or so, is losing to the 1090T as often as it wins.

AMD is back. 😀 😀

 

[randomizer]

@ randomizer: Nice to see you again. Haven't seen you much these days. I really miss you.... ahhhhhh I am not gay, so don't be scared.

I'm still around a bit, just been busy lately so I have spent less time posting and more time doing other things I don't get paid for.

 

[andy5174]

andy...WOW. 😀

from THG -

As a result, it’s easy to recommend the Phenom II X6 1090T for folks able to employ its six cores. Video work, threaded Photoshop filters, rendering—in those workloads, AMD’s new flagship is, in many cases, able to keep up with the quad-core Core i7-975.

You see that in the conclusion? the i7-975, intel's only true production cpu costing what, $900 or so, is losing to the 1090T as often as it wins.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/E/245462/original/MainConcept.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/9/245457/original/HandBrake.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/S/245476/original/TMPGEnc.png

AMD is back. 😀 😀

You are such a clever boy who only pick the VERY VERY little benchs showing that AMD is better.

OMG that you said "AMD is back"! Didn't you always state that AMD is better?

 

[andy5174]

keep ignoring i7-930 which costs the same and performs as good at the same frequency as other AMD fanboys do.

1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.

AMD win? I don't see it anywhere!

 

[jennyh]

Lol andy don't cry too much.

Look your i5 750 is holding up well vs the Athlons there. 😀 😀

 

[andy5174]

Furthermore, do notice that PII-X6 is 600MHz higher than i7-930 in TOM's review.

1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.

Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.

 

[earl45]

Well jennyh made a promise to all of us in this forum and it was that AMD's
6cores will be the fastest cpu when they arrive.
Needless to say but i will jennyh you are completely WRONGE

 

[jennyh]

Furthermore, do notice that PII-X6 is 600MHz higher than i7-930 in TOM's review.

1) PII-X6 performs the same as any QUAD i7 at the SAME frequency including the i7-930 which costs the same.

2) i7-930 can be OCed to significantly higher level.

Hence, expect PII-X6 get beaten up by i7-930 when they both OCed to their maximum stable frequency.

LOL. :lol: