Six New Phenom II And Athlon II CPUs From AMD

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just some minor corrections and questions:

On the second page, in the first table, the Phenom II X6 1055T and 1075T have a difference of 500 MHz from stock speed to Max Turbo. Is the 1090T Max Turbo speed correct (3.6 GHz) or should it be 3.7 GHz?

I know that you state "It's interesting that the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition processor offers a 200 MHz gain over the new Phenom II X6 1075T's base clock, but only a 100 MHz higher maximum turbo clock. This is likely due to the limitations of squeezing the processor within the same 125 W power envelope."

Also, on the third page, in the table, in the processor row, you say Phenom II X6 1075T 3.0 GHz (3.4 GHz Max Turbo), instead of 3.5 GHz Max Turbo, like the table on the second page.

I'm just asking to be sure 😉

Great article! Keep up the great articles! I give you 9.5/10 😉

Thanks!

Go AMD, go!

I'm still using:
CPU: Athlon XP 3200+
RAM: 2 x 1 GB G.Skill PC3200 DDR 400 MHz (CL2-3-2-5)
Motherboard: ASUS A7N8X-E DELUXE
Graphics Card: HIS Radeon HD4670 IceQ 1GB DDR3 128 bit, AGP, 2x DVI, TV-Out, HDMI (Adapter), CrossfireX, HD Audio, 750MHz GPU, 873 MHz Memory
HDDs: Western Digital Raptor 150 GB SATA, 10000 rpm, 16 MB Cache (System Drive)
Western Digital 1 TB USB2 (Green Power?) (Extra Storage)
 
"If the user is actively involved in selecting applications that take the best advantage of all six processor cores, the rewards are undeniable." -- Very true. Still it will take time to utilise the full potential of 6core.
 
[citation][nom]ThePeacemaker10[/nom]I should also mention I'm running on High with 1680x1050 resolution.[/citation]

ya but they use a custom benchmark suite that whey specifically designed to be as cpu intesive as possible. They described it in thier Starcraft II benchmark update article.
 
Thanks for the article. Good readings usual.

But I hope something can be done to make it easier for non experienced users to come to the right conclusion. For example...i don't think many users can understand what all the numbers for the charts means on the long run...Software changes all the time. And with some application superior hardware can come up short. Yes i know charts can complete one the other, but not every one can really understand that. Adding a test that can show maximum hardware potential can help experienced readers as well. I remember few years back you had such a test....multiple tasks over period on time. One more thing...CPU/GPU price not necessarily reflect the value...please include other variables to see how much will cost full build. Than it will be really easy to see the really value.
 
[citation][nom]ThePeacemaker10[/nom]How are the StarCraft 2 benchmarks possible? I NEVER drop below 55 fps and I'm using an Athlon II X3 445 with an HD 5750 and 4 GB of RAM. I don't get it.[/citation]

Agreed. I never drop below 50 fps with a core i5/gtx 460 on ultra settings 1920x1080.
 
[citation][nom]article[/nom] while TMPGEnc’s Xvid encoder performs faster on the Intel models.[/citation]

You mean Xvid is not multi-threaded.

[citation][nom]article[/nom]The Phenom IIs have a reputation for running cool, and these results will do nothing to change that status quo.[/citation]

Who said the Phenom IIs run cool? my 955BE was 61C under load and was also heating other components because the stock HSF blows air on the heat sink and doesn't draw air through it as Intel does.Only after I lowered the voltage using K-10stat and disabled C'n'Q that the maximum load temperatures became a resonable 52C.Even at this temperature, I'm 9C from the maximum operating temperature specified by AMD.Maybe you mean it runs cool using an after maket HSF.

 
[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]You mean Xvid is not multi-threaded.[/citation]

Nah, I meant what I said -- it seems to run faster on Intel. The i5-750 performed much better than the Phenom II 970, both of those are quad-core CPUs. The codec seems to run better on Intel architecture, despite the lower clock of the i5-750.


[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]Who said the Phenom IIs run cool?... Maybe you mean it runs cool using an after maket HSF.[/citation]

Pretty sure I meant what I said here, too. :)
I find that Phenom IIs run relatively cool under load compared to their Intel counterparts, especially when overclocked.
You're right thoguh, I did use an aftermarket cooler for this test to keep things on a level playing field between the AM3 and LGA 1156 platforms, the Cooler Master Hyper TX3.
 


Thanks. The mistake was the test system chart on the third page suggesting that the 1075T's max turbo is 3.4 GHz, it should be 3.5 GHz. Fixed! :)

The proper specs are as originally posted on the second page:

Phenom II X6 1075T: 3.0 GHz (3.5 GHz max turbo)
Phenom II X6 1090T: 3.2 GHz (3.6 GHz max turbo)

 
[citation][nom]Article[/nom]AMD has an upgrade path that Intel users can only dream about.[/citation]

And that's the second thing I like about them. Aside from almost beat intel when it comes to value
 
Weeeak! Can't even top a non-overclocked i7 920 (which as been replaced by the i7 930 for months now).

It's not that I hate AMD, they don't even put out anything that is worth the buy right now. The i7 950 just got a major price reduction, but the best bang for your buck is still the i7 920/930.
 
I am very pleased with this AMD Quad Phenom II X4, it is on this Desktop system w/ 8GB DDR3 RAM; pricing is much below the Intel Quad versions, too. heat is fine and with WIN 7 PRO motors virtual XP so 32-bit information is not lost forever. Looking forward to the cloud to be free from office based data and apps.
 
[citation][nom]zendax[/nom]AMD needs to hurry up with Bulldozer. A product refresh is all well and good but I'd like to see AMD competitive on more than just price/performance. Intel's on a 32nm process and early next year they'll be down to 22nm with Sandy Bridge. The speed crown has been Intel's without question since the i7 was first introduced.I'd love to put an AMD processor in my next computer, but I have the money for i7. Unless AMD can become competitive in the high end I'll be going with Intel again. I'm not interested in a hexa-core processors, either, as I do not use enough programs that would take advantage of that many threads[/citation]
The speed crown has been Intel's for a whole lot longer than Core i7. It has been since way back in the Conroe days. as long as Intel keeps outspending them on R&d that won't change, unless it's briefly after Bulldozer. If Intel wanted to bump up clock speeds, and unlock multipliers. They could give drastic performance increases, without even putting out any new technology. But they don't even need to do that, they have plenty of new tech coming. Because they have the money to spend, and they spend it.
 
If that argument is true, then GM and Chrysler should have never needed a bailout. They spent TONS of money on R&D. The problem was, they were trying to sell cars based on what they cost them to develop and build, not based on their consumer value.

Just because you spend doesn't mean you lead the way... Spending it wisely goes a long way, and having a valued product that people actually buy goes even farther.
 
[citation][nom]aznshinobi[/nom]Do I hear comeback from AMD? Hopefully the Bulldozer shows results with the AM3+/AM3r2 in benchs.[/citation]

amd's processors are ceaper but they still can't compete with intel when it comes to performance, especially the intel 6core cpu
 
[citation][nom]RazberyBandit[/nom]If that argument is true, then GM and Chrysler should have never needed a bailout. They spent TONS of money on R&D. The problem was, they were trying to sell cars based on what they cost them to develop and build, not based on their consumer value.Just because you spend doesn't mean you lead the way... Spending it wisely goes a long way, and having a valued product that people actually buy goes even farther.[/citation]

very true
 
I don't think the 1075 was a wise choice for a new processor... AMD should have just cut the price on existing 1090 and 1055 processors. The i5-760 which replaces the 750 in the tests is about $30 cheaper than it's predecessor, most likely with better performance to boot. Why would a consumer pay $60-$100 more for amd? Just to get a slightly cheaper m/b selection? Not entirely cost effective, IMO.
The only reason I can see going amd, is that it's quite possible AMD will hold the line on socket upgrades, while Intel might kill off 1156 prematurely... I hope not-- they have pole position in the market place and killing 1156 would shoot them in the foot if it's gone in 2 years.
 
Why don’t they do benchmarks in a VM scenario. I am constantly trying to get multiserver performance out of my desktop. Its confusing to extrapolate performance benchmarks that would be applicable to a box running 4 or 5 os's and a number of server application in each. (Database, terminal server, web site, etc)
 
>What I enjoyed in this article was watching the i5 750 thrash the Phenom II x4 970 in clock for clock performance. <
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom