Thuban conclusions over a variety of websites - AMD fans enjoy!

[Haserath]

I was wondering if there were any benchmarks that showed clock for clock how fast each one is. Then see how they match each other in multi-threaded tests(which is what the X6 and core I7s are built for). If you don't plan on using too many multi-threaded apps now or down the road, then don't buy either of those . Of course, you could just have the money to spend and decide to anyway 😛 .
It's true, if you match the core i7 with X6 in apps that use 4 cores then the X6 isn't really worth the price as the i7 would win. This is where you have to make the choice of which cpu will give best price for performance on the apps you use.

Please, put that flamethrower down before anyone gets hurt. 😱

 

[jimmysmitty]

Is the i7 980X a wonderful gaming chip or did I miss that ksampanna?

The X6's are just as good as what the X4's are in most games. Here have a benchmark of BC2 to satisfy yourself on how much better the X6 is and will be in true multi core gaming.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Dat...Sexa-Core-CPU2c-We-take-it-for-a-spin/BC2.png

No offense jenny, but this is cherry picking to the max.

And I still don't get why you are super excited about this chip. Its pretty much usless unless you are in production, bulding a new rig based on production or are just a die hard AMD fanboy. ANyone who upgrade to Thuban and mainly games from a quad would be wasting their money.

 

[jennyh]

Jimmy ask yourself what cpu you would buy right now. In fact, just make it the whole pc with your intention to buy a $200+ cpu. It's not a difficult choice is it?

In terms of rendering and multimedia, the X6 is so far ahead of the i7 it's almost a no-contest. The i7 still does well in what it does well, especially synthetics. Notice how the i5 750 still 'beats' the 1090T in sysmark? Pathetic that Anand would still use that benchmark as if it means anything. If he didn't still use the single core cinebench benchmark I'd maybe be willing to accept that as an oversight...but he does.

I'm a gamer first and foremost and I wouldn't upgrade my 940 to any of these. Not *yet*, however if more games start going the way of BC2 I wouldn't hesitate. For $150? I paid £150 for my 940 BE a year ago Jimmy, that's GBP not USD. In value terms, the 1055T is simply unbeatable.

Why would anybody buy anything else at the 'enthusiast' level? The 1055T is just unmatchable - we all know these will hit 4ghz on air cooling, giving us a cpu that is what...15% slower than an i7 980X at 1/5th the cost? AMD needs to be applauded for bringing exceptional performance to the masses - every single one of us can afford amazing pc's now at the cost intel would like us to pay for a single cpu.

Sooner or later you'll all have to grow up and admit that intel stopped making sense a while ago. You can't even use the performance excuse any more - unless you desperately need an i7 980X, there is no reason for anybody to buy ANY intel cpu right now - and that's all thanks to AMD.

 

[MU_Engineer]

No offense jenny, but this is cherry picking to the max.

And I still don't get why you are super excited about this chip. Its pretty much usless unless you are in production, bulding a new rig based on production or are just a die hard AMD fanboy. ANyone who upgrade to Thuban and mainly games from a quad would be wasting their money.

Upgrading to this chip from a quad-core would be a pretty big improvement for somebody who does a lot of compiling, scientific apps, or video editing/encoding as those are tasks that use a lot of CPU cores and run those cores hard. However, the people doing those applications are probably going to looking at dual-socket workstation parts like the Magny-Cours Opterons rather than a single-socket CPU.

I think the biggest deal with this chip is that AMD is selling a six-core chip for $200 while Intel doesn't sell any for less than ~$980. The 1090T also competes well with all but the thousand-dollar Core i7 Extreme Editions in the vast majority of benchmarks, which is something the Phenom II X4s generally could not. If you are a real tech follower, the 1055T priced at $200 and the 3.2 GHz 1090T fitting in a 125 W TDP envelope says that AMD's 45 nm production process is absolutely stellar.

 

[FALC0N]

No offense jenny, but this is cherry picking to the max.

And I still don't get why you are super excited about this chip. Its pretty much usless unless you are in production, bulding a new rig based on production or are just a die hard AMD fanboy. ANyone who upgrade to Thuban and mainly games from a quad would be wasting their money.

Oh come on Jimmysmitty. I have said it a million times and its true. People make their own multithreaded environments without even realizing it. Few people run app at a time these days. A fact which is difficult to benchmark accurately. My security software alone gobbles up a full core.

The X6 is a great chip. Its not a huge upgrade for gamers. But not everyone is a gamer. If I had not just recently purchased an X4, I would grab an X6.

 

[AMW1011]

Your guesses are very, very poor

Really? So you would throw $80 at theoretical, insignificant, and unnoticeable performance? Perhaps it is not I that needs to step back for a moment.

Wake up and read the below.

It was all there in the Anandtech review, how the hell did YOU not pick this up.



................................1055T.......860........%Faster

Adobe Photoshop..........20.1......16.4.........1.225609756
DivX............................43.7.......35.9.........1.217270195
x264....1st Pass............79.........76............0.962025316
...........2nd Pass...........25.1.......26.8.........1.067729084
3dsmax 9.....................12.7........15..........1.181102362
Cinebench...Multi.........16268......16598......1.020285223
Pov Ray.......................3296.......3517.......1.067050971
WinRar.........................95..........79.6........1.193467337
7-Zip 32mb.................15339....18008.6....1.174039.....* i7-870 used in review and adjusted for here
..........300mb..............3084.......3885........1.259727626
FO3............................80.4........90.2.........1.121890547
L4D...........................111.5.......131..........1.174887892
Crysis.........................72.4........83.3.........1.150552486
Batman.......................180........180.43......1.0002387.....* i7-870 used in review and adjusted for here
Dragon Age.................102.........149.11.....1.461863....* i7-870 used in review and adjusted for here
Dawn of War 2.............52.8.......69.3..........1.3125.....* i7-870 used in review and adjusted for here

Average speed advantage for the i7-860 over the 1055T = 16.2%



Please note the following, where the Anandtech review had an i7-870 and no i7-860 in the review, I adjusted the i7-870's score downwards by 4.75% which is the full clock speed difference between and i7-870 and i7-860, and thus very generous to the Thuban.

In the above benchmarks I wasn't able to take into account SYSMark as Anandtech didn't bench the 1055T.

Also excluded from the above benchmarks is the Cinebench Single Thread result in which the i7-860 dominated over the 1055T.

NO WAIT, 16.2%?!

You realize this means nothing. You can quantify the advantage of GPUs based on FPS because that is a standard. You cannot do the same with CPUs, you have to look at the big picture.

So you would pay $80 more for 15 seconds of your life back in WinRAR? You are taking into account that the i7 860 is clocked about 200 MHz higher in apps than the 1055T thanks to turbo boost? In games the i7 860 will be between 3.0-3.3 GHz as compared to the 1055T at about 3.0 GHz on average, did you take that into account? You adjusted for the i7 870, but in 7-zip it would be a whole 400 MHz higher, a 15% clock speed difference, than the 1055T, and in gaming it would be between 3.2-3.5 GHz. Did you take into account that Anandtech might not have all the possible apps and games to test. Where is GTA4, BFBC2, Metro 2033, or Flight SimX? How do they compare when overclocked?

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_1090t/

It would seem that when overclocked the line REALLY blurs, just like before with the X4s.

It is a good try though, and you did bring up some good points. With Turbo and the rest of the variables added, I would say the difference is between 5-10% on average, a bit higher than I had originally thought. Still not worth another $80 though. But hey if you want to spend $300, then the 1090T will show you what to look for I suppose. For the record, if you compare the 1055T and the i7 920 in apps, you will get the same clock speeds, 2.8 GHz, if that helps.

 

[sseyler]

Jenny,
I don't know how to break it to you, but many apps are not highly multithreaded nor will they become so in the next few years.

Thus a person's computing experience is almost certainly going to depend on a combination of highly multithreaded apps and not so highly multithreaded apps.

Chad,

I don't know how to break it to you, but most of the apps for which people need a high performance processor tend to well-multithreaded. The X6 trades blows with the 860/870/920/930 in many of these processor-intensive applications (the differences obviously are highly dependent upon the app). The applications that I use (Sony Vegas, 7-Zip, Photoshop, Handbrake) all seem to fair very well on the price/performance front against competing Intel setups. For others, their mileage may vary greatly. For me, it'd be a reasonable buy compared with Intel's offerings. It very much depends on the user's needs. In the long run, we can guess the X6's will fair increasingly better as more multithreaded apps are introduced.

Thus, a person's computing experience is almost certainly not going to depend on how fast a processor can run their browser, media player or VOIP program. If anything, many power users will be running many of these programs simultaneously, further enhancing the X6's multithreading advantages. I see both X6's as competitive offerings. We'll see what happens in the following weeks as prices settle on both sides.


Note: If we're talking about gaming, that looks like the X6's weak point, but I can tell you that I wouldn't be bothered by an X6 - I run all of my games such that they are GPU-bound and don't mind losing 2-5 FPS over a highly overclocked Intel setup.

 

[BadTrip]

My security software alone gobbles up a full core.

Thats what happens when you use Norton. 😀

 

[Chad Boga]

NO WAIT, 16.2%?!

You realize this means nothing. You can quantify the advantage of GPUs based on FPS because that is a standard. You cannot do the same with CPUs, you have to look at the big picture.

So you would pay $80 more for 15 seconds of your life back in WinRAR?

If I paid it for the i7-860 over the i5-750, why would I not do it in this comparison?

And 16.2% is a handy margin by most people's reckoning. It is close to the difference in performance between an i7-920 and a i7-975, and we all know the price difference that occurs there.

You are taking into account that the i7 860 is clocked about 200 MHz higher in apps than the 1055T thanks to turbo boost? In games the i7 860 will be between 3.0-3.3 GHz as compared to the 1055T at about 3.0 GHz on average, did you take that into account?

In doing a comparison between each processor, why would I?

I was seeking to compare their out of the box performance.

You adjusted for the i7 870, but in 7-zip it would be a whole 400 MHz higher, a 15% clock speed difference, than the 1055T, and in gaming it would be between 3.2-3.5 GHz.

What are you talking about here?

I adjusted for the i7's score because I wanted to normalise its performance to a i7-860, only.

I did this because of Jenny's ludicrous claims about the state of play between an i7-860 and the Thubans.

If a i7-860 has a 400Mhz advantage over the 1055T in 7-Zip(which I doubt, why wouldn't the 1055T's turbo function be working?), then that is the out of the box experience you have with each processor.

Did you take into account that Anandtech might not have all the possible apps and games to test. Where is GTA4, BFBC2, Metro 2033, or Flight SimX?

I will be looking into this further as the week progresses.

How do they compare when overclocked?

Overclocking is a valid concern for some people, but I have been very consistent on forums for more than 18months now, that I am overwhelming interested in performance within a processors spec.

But hey if you want to spend $300, then the 1090T will show you what to look for I suppose.

Is the 1090T worth the $100 premium over the 1055T?

You will see from that Anandtech review that the i7-860 nudges it out as well.

 

[jennyh]

Note: If we're talking about gaming, that looks like the X6's weak point, but I can tell you that I wouldn't be bothered by an X6 - I run all of my games such that they are GPU-bound and don't mind losing 2-5 FPS over a highly overclocked Intel setup.

You wouldn't lose 2-5 fps anyway because once again, when the gpu is the bottleneck (like with most enthusiast gamers play at), Thuban beats the i7's by a frame or two again.

Just look at the benchmarks, sure the X6 loses at low/medium resolution with no AA, but as soon as you turn up the eye candy, the Phenoms 'win' by 1 or 2 fps, just like before.



@Chad - keep clinging to that Anandtech review...I've already shown how far from reality his is compared to the rest.

 

[AMW1011]

Chad, I'm sorry but you are on an enthusiast site. Most of us here overclock. Most won't have any qualms about setting the clocks up on stock or near stock voltages.

Sure stock for stock things are different, but you are comparing processors with 200-600 MHz advantage. For most of us here, it means little. Set both to 3.6 GHz+ and then lets see what happens. That isn't an extreme overclock for either, and in a day and age where overclocking is so simple, if you can build the damn computer you can overclock it mildly. The arguments about longevity and efficiency are BS, because with a mild overclock we are talking about the processor lasting for 10 years instead of 12 and an extra $10 a year on your electric bill.

If you want to compare them stock V. stock without any interest in IPC, or overclocking then that is good for you. Do not try to make a generalization based on that on a forum where most people scoff at stock clock speeds just on principle.

I don't go on Sports Car forums and compare them based on gas mileage.

And yes if you absolutely do not overclock the i7 860 is a good chip because it gives the best clocks for the price with Turbo Boost, but that does not mean that it is better than the X6s, especially in our eyes.

 

[AMW1011]

Now I am NOT an AMD fanboy conspiracy theory junky, but I can't help but notice that almost all the reviews out there only show games that don't benefit from quadcores or are already run well over 100 FPS. Perhaps this is because they don't want to rerun tests, but shouldn't they do that instead of just adding data into a predetermined table of data, that would seem very unprofessional.

 

[notty22]

Strange as it might seem, but a quad-core CPU on Intel Nehalem microarchitecture with Hyper-Threading technology overclocked to 4.0 GHz almost always outperforms six-core CPU from AMD. At the same time I can’t say that Thuban’s frequency potential is higher that of Core i7 CPUs on Lynnfield and Bloomfield cores. Therefore, there is only one possible conclusion here: microarchitecture of contemporary Intel processors makes them faster than AMD processors working at the same clock frequency. And even a 1.5 times increase in the number of computational cores can’t make up for that. That is why we again arrive to the same conclusion that AMD’s only weapon in the battle for consumers is their pricing policy.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x6-1090t_10.html#sect0

 

[someguy7]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/phenom-ii-x6-1090t/table-3.png

Strange as it might seem, but a quad-core CPU on Intel Nehalem microarchitecture with Hyper-Threading technology overclocked to 4.0 GHz almost always outperforms six-core CPU from AMD. At the same time I can’t say that Thuban’s frequency potential is higher that of Core i7 CPUs on Lynnfield and Bloomfield cores. Therefore, there is only one possible conclusion here: microarchitecture of contemporary Intel processors makes them faster than AMD processors working at the same clock frequency. And even a 1.5 times increase in the number of computational cores can’t make up for that. That is why we again arrive to the same conclusion that AMD’s only weapon in the battle for consumers is their pricing policy.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x6-1090t_10.html#sect0

And look at the BS test in there that nobody cares about. The ones that matter are the x264 and the cinebench. Bunch of worthless synthetic crap for the rest minus the games.

 

[Chad Boga]

@Chad - keep clinging to that Anandtech review...I've already shown how far from reality his is compared to the rest.

You have done nothing of the sort, you have only shown how far from reality you are, but then everybody already knew that.

 

[jimmysmitty]

This was not well thought out. It is unlikely that dual cores will even exist in 3 years. They are in danger of going the way of the Dodo core.

Dual cores will become the Sepmprons and Celerons in 3 years. 8+ cores will be high end, 6 cores will be mid/enthusiast end and quads will become the low end like Pentium Dual Cores or Athlons.

Jimmy ask yourself what cpu you would buy right now. In fact, just make it the whole pc with your intention to buy a $200+ cpu. It's not a difficult choice is it?

In terms of rendering and multimedia, the X6 is so far ahead of the i7 it's almost a no-contest. The i7 still does well in what it does well, especially synthetics. Notice how the i5 750 still 'beats' the 1090T in sysmark? Pathetic that Anand would still use that benchmark as if it means anything. If he didn't still use the single core cinebench benchmark I'd maybe be willing to accept that as an oversight...but he does.

I'm a gamer first and foremost and I wouldn't upgrade my 940 to any of these. Not *yet*, however if more games start going the way of BC2 I wouldn't hesitate. For $150? I paid £150 for my 940 BE a year ago Jimmy, that's GBP not USD. In value terms, the 1055T is simply unbeatable.

Why would anybody buy anything else at the 'enthusiast' level? The 1055T is just unmatchable - we all know these will hit 4ghz on air cooling, giving us a cpu that is what...15% slower than an i7 980X at 1/5th the cost? AMD needs to be applauded for bringing exceptional performance to the masses - every single one of us can afford amazing pc's now at the cost intel would like us to pay for a single cpu.

Sooner or later you'll all have to grow up and admit that intel stopped making sense a while ago. You can't even use the performance excuse any more - unless you desperately need an i7 980X, there is no reason for anybody to buy ANY intel cpu right now - and that's all thanks to AMD.

Problem is that if AMD beat Intel in overall performance, it wouldn't be that cheap. If I built a PC right now, I would probably go for a Core i7 920 and then dual HD5870s. 6 cores for me would be a tad redundant.

Upgrading to this chip from a quad-core would be a pretty big improvement for somebody who does a lot of compiling, scientific apps, or video editing/encoding as those are tasks that use a lot of CPU cores and run those cores hard. However, the people doing those applications are probably going to looking at dual-socket workstation parts like the Magny-Cours Opterons rather than a single-socket CPU.

I think the biggest deal with this chip is that AMD is selling a six-core chip for $200 while Intel doesn't sell any for less than ~$980. The 1090T also competes well with all but the thousand-dollar Core i7 Extreme Editions in the vast majority of benchmarks, which is something the Phenom II X4s generally could not. If you are a real tech follower, the 1055T priced at $200 and the 3.2 GHz 1090T fitting in a 125 W TDP envelope says that AMD's 45 nm production process is absolutely stellar.

Oh come on Jimmysmitty. I have said it a million times and its true. People make their own multithreaded environments without even realizing it. Few people run app at a time these days. A fact which is difficult to benchmark accurately. My security software alone gobbles up a full core.

The X6 is a great chip. Its not a huge upgrade for gamers. But not everyone is a gamer. If I had not just recently purchased an X4, I would grab an X6.

Thats what I have said. It would be great for that and if the programs use it well, especially AMD. But if you have a quad and do not do any of that its useless.

 

[ellric46]

k i am going to jump in here been readding this and it really funny u have your amd guys and intel guys punching it out when really there is not that much differnts in the real world for peps like me that game some do some side programming play music i dont see any differnts in eather, i have 2 gameing mods one has intel i7 930 the other amd 965be both have 5870 in crossfire ones my wifes and the others mine i have played on both and when i run around in the game i dont stop and say hay i think i was 3 fps faster runnning in the woods then i was with my other computer not trying to be funny but when it comes to gameing u r not going to see or feel any differnt running amd or intel and as for average peps just runnning programs and checking emails just doing your everyday thing on the computer u r not going to notice it eather my god who times how fast it took to us winrar or mediaplayer u just run it close it and forget about it u peps just crack me up about this and yes for me i think if i can get a cpu for 300$ that i myself in the REAL WORLD cant tell the differnts from a 600$ to a 1000$ dollar cpu then i am getting the 300$ one.It is not all about the numbers all the time its what u see with your on eyes.O and just one more thing just to make a satment i just wanted to see witch of my cpus shut down the computer faster the amd was 3 sec faster but does that mean i am going to make all my computers out of amd chips no lol. ps just being funny on the last stament lol

 

[MU_Engineer]

Dual cores will become the Sepmprons and Celerons in 3 years. 8+ cores will be high end, 6 cores will be mid/enthusiast end and quads will become the low end like Pentium Dual Cores or Athlons.

There are already dual-core Celerons (the E1000 series) and Semprons (Sempron X2 2200+.) That's not surprising since most current Semprons and Celerons are all dual-core dies anyway; the single-core units just have one die disabled. The Sempron 140 for example is an Athlon II X2 Regor with one core disabled. Yields are getting to be good enough that the second core is frequently disabled just to create the lower-priced SKU, as evidenced by a lot of people with Sempron 140s unlocking them into fully-functional Athlon IIs with ACC. I won't expect the CPU makers to artificially disable a dual core into a single-core CPU much longer. I'd bet we see them largely disappear in a year or so.

As far as the other CPUs, it depends. AMD will certainly push higher and higher core counts since that's been their game plan for a couple of years now. They are set to debut 8-core Bulldozer-based CPUs in 2011, so I'd bet in three years they'd be pushing CPUs with at least double that core number. This is a pretty safe way to go as this lets AMD stay behind the thermal wall that occurs when trying to push clock speeds higher. They pay a bit of a penalty with applications that aren't that heavily threaded, but their take-a-page-out-of-Intel's-book Turbo Core helps somewhat.

Intel will likely hold back a bit and try to push a smaller number of more-complex cores at a higher clock rate to get performance since that's been their game plan for the past few years. AMD has pretty much relegated anything less than quad-core to the bargain bin, but Intel is trying to push high-clocked dual-core CPUs in the same price range as AMD's six-core CPUs (i5 661 and 670.) They also aren't offering any CPUs with more than eight cores (AMD has 12-core units), and any of the ones with six cores cost at least $980 compared to AMD's $200 X6 1055T. So I think your assessment is probably right for Intel, but AMD will likely have far more cores than what you predicted.

Problem is that if AMD beat Intel in overall performance, it wouldn't be that cheap. If I built a PC right now, I would probably go for a Core i7 920 and then dual HD5870s. 6 cores for me would be a tad redundant.

Then we'd buy Intel CPUs instead of AMD's. You always pay a premium for the utmost in performance, which is why the i7 980X sell for a thousand bucks. No single-socket desktop CPU can touch it, and Intel prices it accordingly. AMD did the same thing with the FX series when they were faster than the Pentium 4s and Ds. IIRC the FX-60 cost something like $1200-1300 when it was new.

 

[jimmysmitty]

^Yep. True.

As for dual cores, I mean as in only Celerons and Semprons willbe dual cores. Right now there are dual core Core i3/i5s and Phenoms/Athlons. In three years there wont be.

 

[impaledmango]

Honestly No one should have been surprised with the performance. They perform similarily to the i7/i5 (though most benchmarks show the i7 slightly ahead especially in games) for similar price. Honestly someone looking for a CPU at $300ish I would get an i7. For $200 you can go either or AMD or Intel and at the end either choice would be fine for almost anything we do. I think we should stop holding onto this generation, the real *** is bulldozer vs sandy bridge.

 

[AMW1011]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/phenom-ii-x6-1090t/table-3.png

Strange as it might seem, but a quad-core CPU on Intel Nehalem microarchitecture with Hyper-Threading technology overclocked to 4.0 GHz almost always outperforms six-core CPU from AMD. At the same time I can’t say that Thuban’s frequency potential is higher that of Core i7 CPUs on Lynnfield and Bloomfield cores. Therefore, there is only one possible conclusion here: microarchitecture of contemporary Intel processors makes them faster than AMD processors working at the same clock frequency. And even a 1.5 times increase in the number of computational cores can’t make up for that. That is why we again arrive to the same conclusion that AMD’s only weapon in the battle for consumers is their pricing policy.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x6-1090t_10.html#sect0

Wow its all synthetic and games that do not use quadcores well or at all.

Put an E8500 in there too, I get the games will run the same.