The New AMD Building Thread

About time we get back to what this thread is supposed to be for! LOL!! I've been looking for a really comprehensive review on the new AMD Phenom IIx6 CPUs, and found a good one from "The Guru of 3D"! They managed to overclock their 1090T to 4.1GHz, quite easily, and included the results in a lot of the testing, just to prove stability.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/

For the Nay Sayers who want to point out that the Intel socket 1366 17 970 3.2GHz and the i7 980X Extreme Edition 3.33GHz are faster, you are absolutely right! They are much faster! But that speed literally comes at a price, a large chunk of your hard earned cash! I can buy 3 1090Ts for the price of one i7 970, and 4 1055Ts for the price of one i7 980X. For me, the best bang for the buck, is obvious!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I wouldn't ever compare an X6 1090T to Intel's hex-cores, they're twice the price, if not more than that. What I would compare the X6 to is Intel's quad cores.
At its stock 3.2Ghz, it compares to a would-be Intel hex-core at about 2.4Ghz, just under. Therefore, if an Intel Quad (we're talking i5/i7 here) was clocked at 3.6Ghz, it would be equal to it, using only four cores.
Thus, since it's easy to clock an i5/i7 to about 4.1Ghz, the X6 CPUs are only direct competition as far as (4.1/3.6)*3.2 = 3.65Ghz.
Once you've clocked an X6 beyond that, it's likely to be faster than any Quad core CPU you can buy, if you can use all 6 cores, often.
There's a use for an AMD 6-core CPU, but first you have to need 6 cores, and secondly you have to be willing to overclock, as otherwise, the faster of Intel's offerings (bearing in mind the i7 950 has been pricedropped considerably) is within a pinch as powerful using only four cores, which makes it much faster for everything that can't use 6 cores.

 

I'd have to agree with Sam there. The Phenom II X6s are tremendous bang for buck but are simply outclassed by Intel in every way. For applications that can use 6 cores they are incredibly fast but for everything else Intel wins hands-down. For a gamer like myself an Intel is the obvious choice. Luckily I have yet to find a game that is limited by my AMD quad, though I expect that to change in the future.

Once they start releasing games that not only need, but use all four cores I will need to upgrade. But I would guess that the simple fact that most games simply don't use a full quad yet gives me some breathing room for a while. For now duals are actually just as fast for most games so theoretically I have 2 whole cores worth of power untapped until technology catches up.

Not a very good example I know but games are one of the leading needs for overclocking and quads.

 

Worked my way through a rough performance/price comparison

X2 245 £43
X2 250 £47 - 5% gain on 245
X2 255 £51 - 3-4% gain on 250
X2 260 £54 - 3-4% gain on 255
X2 555 £70 - 11% gain on 260 - Higher TDP (80W vs 65W)
X3 415e £79 - 5% gain on 555 in multi-core. 13% slower than 245 per-core. Low TDP (45W)
X3 425 £59 - 7.5% gain on 415e. 6.5% slower than 245 per-core. High TDP (95W)
i3 530 £82 - 6% gain on 425, 20% gain on 555. Lower TDP (73W)
i3 540 £84 - 4.5% gain on 530
X3 445 £60 - 3.5% gain on 540 in multi-core. Equivalent to X2 255 per-core. High TDP (95W)
i3 550 £113 - 1.5% gain on 445, 5% gain on 540. Standard i3 TDP (73W)
i5 650 £141 - 2.5% gain on 550, plus cache benefits. Standard i3/i5 Dual core TDP (73W)
i5 660 £161 - 4% gain on 650.
i5 661 £162 - Better IGP, higher TDP (87W)
i5 655K £164 - Equivalent to i5 650. Unlimited multiplier version. Standard i3/i5 Dual core TDP (73W)
i5 680 £232 - 9% gain on i5 660.

X4 610e £110 - 1.5% slower than i5 650 in multi-core. 18% slower than 245 per-core. Very low TDP (45W)
X4 610 £81 - 10% faster than i5 680 in multi-core. 26% faster than 610e. Standard Athlon II Quad TDP (95W)
X4 945 £105 - 10% faster than 610 plus Phenom benefits. Same 95W TDP.
X4 955 £113 - 6.5% faster than 945. High TDP (125W)
i5 750S £212 - 4.5% faster than 955. Much lower TDP (82W)
X4 965 £129 - 1.5% faster than 750S, 6% faster than 955. High TDP (125W)
i7 870S £273 - 6.5% faster than 965, 8.5% faster than 750S. Same low TDP (82W) plus i7 benefits.
i7 860 £211 - 5.5% faster than 870S, 12.5% faster than 965. Standard i5 TDP (95W)
i7 930 £208 - Equivalent to i7 860, plus full i7 benefits. Much higher TDP (130W)
i5 760 £148 - 2% faster than 930, minus i7 benefits, 17% faster than 750S. Standard i5 TDP (95W)
i7 875K £263 - 1% faster than 760 plus i7 benefits, 3.5% faster than 860. Unlimited multiplier version.
i7 870 £228 - 1% faster than 875K, but with fixed multiplier.
i7 950 £228 - 4% faster than 870, plus full i7 benefits. Much higher TDP (130W)
i7 880 £440 - Equivalent to 950, minus full i7 benefits. Lower TDP (95W)
i7 960 £446 - 5% faster than 950/880, plus full i7 benefits. High TDP (130W)

X6 1055T £160 - 1% faster than i7 950/880 in multi-core. Equivalent to X2 255 per-core. 125W TDP
X6 1090T £211 - 10% faster than i7 960 in multi-core. Equivalent to X4 955 in quad-core. Roughly equivalent to X2 555 per-core. 125W TDP
i7 970 £681 - 36% faster than 1090T. Equivalent to i7 960 in quad-core. Equivalent to i5 650 per-core. 130W TDP
i7 980X £763 - 4% faster than 970. Equivalent to i5 660 per-core. 130W TDP


Despite the specifics of these numbers, this is only approximation. It does not consider specific benchmark suites, only accepted standards.

 

Lets face it, the Socket 1366 CPUs are for the most part, window dressing. Intel's version of "King of the Hill"! The only one selling in any kind of numbers at all is the 17 930. That in itself is puzzling, because the i7 950 is selling for only $15 more, here in the US. Both are "Loss Leaders", as Intel loses money on every one they sell. Compare the 950 to the 960, and the only difference is + .14GHz, yet the 960 is selling for a whopping $270 more.

Let's face facts here, the top 4 i7s are not affordable for the average guy. $1040, $1000, $900 and $570 are all out of most peoples price range here in the US, especially in it's most populous State, California! Unemployment in Southern Cal is almost 14%. You can't blame the Illegals either, because almost none of them are eligible for unemployment.

AMD only has one Sempron and 3 Brisbanes left in socket AM2, and two AM2+ CPUs, the 7850 Kuma 2.8 GHz Dual core and the 9850 phenom 2.5GHz Quad core. All the rest are new, modern 45nm CPUs. It seems that the days of 512MB l2 cache per core are over, and the days of socket AM2 and AM2+, are almost over too! The remaining 24 CPUs in AMD's lineup are all modern Socket AM3 CPUs. Virtually every AMD motherboard available today is either socket AM3, or is AM3 ready. Even the lowly $44 Foxconn I put in Oxi can run my 955BE, not that I would leave it in there for very long because the motherboard can only handle 95w CPUs, but I was able to confirm that my 955BE was OK with it, without any harm done. AMD was roundly criticized for not coming up with a brand new socket for the Phenom IIs, but now it's easy to see that AMD did the right thing in keeping the backwards compatibility. It was a compromise move that hurt the DDR3 memory and cache performance with socket AM3, but shortly when all the non AM3 CPUs are a thing of the past, AMD can finally do something about that problem, and greatly improve DDR3 performance for all the AM3 chips, and finally put their not so good past, behind them. I very much like their prospects for the future!

Russ

 

They obviously think ahead. I had some thoughts about why they chose to buy Ati, and then drop their name entirely! "AMD" is basically making themselves known, to even the non enthusiast Intel is very widely known. AMD is not as known by the new-b. I've had people say HUH? I laughed at them...

 

The i7 950 has only just been pricedropped from more than double its current price Russ. That's why it hasn't sold yet. It'll sell in much bigger numbers now it's been dropped.

As I've always said, AMD are price-competitive, they just aren't tech-competitive, yet.
Their performance/TDP is largely sub-par, and their top end performers are midrange at best amongst Intel's offerings, but because they are priced right, they are worth buying.
Frankly though, the hex-cores are mediocre, since the equivalently priced quad cores can almost keep up, even in fully multi-threaded applications. £211 and 125W TDP is a heavy price to pay for a CPU in terms of power and currency, and for pretty much the same cost in both terms you can get an i7 950, which will do 85%+ of the work the 1090T does. Then what about everything that isn't capable of taking six threads? (i.e. most applications) - the i7s steamroll the Phenom II X6 CPUs. The 3.2Ghz cores are truly the limit of the current architecture before bulldozer, thus low prices are what AMD are relying on.

 

Oman7,

AMD was so shell shocked by some of it's former operating Officers, starting with a brief stint by Steve Jobs (the Ultimate Control Freak), that until the timely purchase of Ati, most of the people there had no idea what they were doing, and were actually afraid to make any suggestions. It took Ati, and their prior record of doing business to finally get AMD organized. Before that, "Free Thinkers" were frowned on. I'm not saying that Ati and AMD didn't make mistakes, because they did, but mistakes were taken in hand and dealt with, rather that just sweeping them under the carpet. Ati taught AMD how to run a successful business! The biggest problem they faced, was how to keep the company going until the development of competitive products. Their market share fell all the way to 17.8% before they recovered. Socket AM2, with Brisbane and later Phenom did little to help either. The Brisbanes weren't as good as the 64x2 socket 939 chips they replaced, and the Phenom was a total bust, with problems that weren't fully cured until after the release of the Phenom II. Since that time, AMD has pretty much made every promised delivery date, with very minimal problems, and each generation has seen improvements in speed and overclocking ability.

AMD has made some wildly successful Buisness moves since then, like selling the Fabs, while still maintaining control over them. Even Intel hepled them along, and I don't mean just the 1.5 Billion Intel had to pay AMD in their Court settlement. Nehalem was supposed to be the Platform that would put the final nail in AMD's coffin, according to some of the Execs at Intel, but it didn't quite turn out that way. I think the collapse of the US economy and the affect it has had on the Global economy, with Intel bringing out the i7/1366 just before it hit, was a huge mistake. I said so back then, and I stand by that statement today! It was an even bigger mistake to bring out the hugely expensive 6 core when they did. A technological Tour De Force, for sure, but a complete waste of time and an even more foolish waste of Intel's money! I think it was quite a shock to Intel, when AMD brought out the Thuban 6 cores about 6 months earlier than expected.

I haven't had a single customer ask for an Intel build in over 2 years! My most recent builds were two 2.8GHz Athlon x2 7850 Dual cores, and a 640 Propus, 3.0GHz Quad, all on my favorite GigaByte MA785GM-US2H motherboard. I make sure my customers know and understand that they can upgrade the processor any time in the future to a Phenom IIx4, or a Phenom II x6, with nothing more than a simple bios flash. I take good care of my customers needs!

AMD has recovered to the point that they now have 33.5% of the current CPU market. Sales are very good, considering the economy. They make money on every single CPU they sell, and have shown a profit for every quarter, since Intel paid off the settlement. All their indebtedness has been paid off, and they are making money! There are no Loss Leaders from AMD, as they don't need them!

Russ

 

I wanna work for AMD. There's obviously stability there

By the way, it's pretty sad that I have to run peerblock to block Afterdawns nasty Ads. It scares me when the audio ones sound off. My stereo is generally always running. I realize that Afterdawn has to get its money from somewhere though

 

Sam,
I don't pretend that the 1090T can run with the i7 6 cores, they can't! Given the price difference, I wouldn't expect it to. The 1090T is 1/3 the price of the i7 970, and you could buy 4 1055Ts for the cost of the i7 980X.

You said a couple of magic words there, the first was "overclocking". The Guru of 3D managed quite easily to overclock the 1090T to 4.1 GHz @1.425v. Since I'm perfectly willing to overclock, I see no problem with that. The other magic words were. "but first you have to need 6 cores"! As it happens, I do need 6 cores, and since most of what I do with my computer is Encoding with CCE, and Transcoding H264 video, an additional 50% of cores will be quite useful to me. I'm drooling over the prospect!

As far as the price reduction of the i7 950 goes, how long will Intel be able to sell it at a price that's well below cost. Not only that but the huge price cut, cuts into the saleability of the 3 vastly more expensive models, because who is going to buy a 980X or a 970 when they can get the 950 for 1/3 the price of the 970? Even then you are still looking at another $300 for a decent X58A motherboard, and 3x2GB of Triple Chanel memory, so you are looking at spending about $600 for the i7 950, motherboard and memory alone.

For me and my needs, the choice is fairly simple, the 1090T is a bios flash and a drop-in, so it's a 1090T all the way!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I use an app called FlashBlock. Every flash object has a little play button in place of where the ad or video would be so you simply have to click it to view the content. It keeps them from loading unless you want them to so youtube and the like are still usable. Recently had complaints about the ads myself and FlashBlock was my magic fix ;P

 

Thanks jeff! That sounds interesting

 

People don't typically ask for Intel PCs, they ask for PCs. Typically people want low cost PCs. That means AMD, and has done for the last year or so. Prior to that, when the £40 Pentium Dual cores were around, I would have specified Intels over AMDs, but frankly Intel have lost sight of the low-end market, with the i series chips.
Still, at least they made up for the rather enthusiast-only LGA1366 by introducing LGA1156. Bang for buck the Core i5 quad cores on 1156 are fabulous CPUs, among the best there has ever been.
You can't really argue board prices for 1366 vs AM3, as the cheapest LGA1366 boards have just as good a specification as the high end AM3 boards that can take hex cores. There's minimal difference there at best, the only cost difference really is triple channel memory, which for memory-hungry programs, is a boon.

As for the audio ads, a real pain in the backside. They didn't make me install Adblock, but I'm very glad I have.

 

What it really meens is : DUDE YOUR GETTING A DELL

 

Um, Rick?

 

un rick what

 

itt means could you explain the random oytburst lol.

 

Put more eloquently, what does

Have to do with this thread? :S

 

Sam,
People here used to ask for specific CPUs, a couple of years ago. When the Conroes first came out everyone was asking for the E4300 (which was really an Allendale!) Then it was the E6750. The last time that I was asked about an Intel was back when the E8400 was the hot ticket. Part of that may have been that before I moved here, a lot of fly-by-night companies built dirt cheap obsolete P4 socket 478, absolute crap systems, and sold them for outrageous prices, on payment plans. Usually to the people who could least afford them.

My next door neighbor showed me one of their fliers. What junk. 1.8GHz P4 in a junk case, 256MB of SD Ram, 1024x768 monitor, and the cheapest keyboard and ball mouse you could ever imagine. $1395! It's amazing what a lack of knowledge can cost you!

As far as the inexpensive 1366 boards go, I wouldn't touch a Jetway for $129. Everything else is $165 or more, and the lowest price X58A I could find was a Gigabyte for $209. The AM3 890FX, is a bit cheaper, but a decent one is still about $40 less than an X58A. With a decent motherboard and decent triple channel memory, the difference is about $100 less for the 980FX. Like I said, all I need is a bios flash and drop a 1090T in mine! $300 does it for me!

Russ

 

Yes indeed russ. My mother paid an outrageous price for her system in 2001. It was a P4 system. One of the slowest intels I've seen. My 1.4 athlon smoked it. Poor thing ran hot in its case though. HP really should have designed that pavilion case better.