The Performance Summary

At $199 and $285 the obvious comparison points are Intel’s Core i5 750 and Core i7 860. We’ll dive into the complete performance tests in a bit, but if you’re looking for some quick analysis here’s what we’ve got.

Single threaded performance is squarely a Lynnfield advantage. Intel’s quad-cores can turbo up more and Intel does have the advantage of higher IPC.

Phenom II X6 vs. Intel's Lynnfield Processors
  Cinebench R10 (Single Threaded) Cinebench R10 (Multithreaded) 3dsmax r9 x264 HD - 2nd Pass Left 4 Dead
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3951 18526 13.7 28.5 fps 127.2 fps
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 3547 16268 12.7 25.1 fps 111.5 fps
Intel Core i7 860 4490 16598 15.0 26.8 fps 131.0 fps
Intel Core i5 750 4238 14142 13.4 21.0 fps 130.0 fps

Highly threaded encoding and 3D rendering performance are obviously right at home on the Phenom II X6. The 6MB L3 cache and lower IPC does appear to hamper the Phenom II X6 in a couple of tests but for the most part if you need threads, the X6 is the way to go.

Applications in between generally favor Intel’s quad-cores over the Phenom II X6. This includes CPU-bound games.

None of this should be terribly surprising as it’s largely the same conclusion we came to with the Athlon II X3 and X4. If you run specific heavily threaded applications, you can’t beat the offer AMD is giving you. It’s the lighter or mixed use workloads that tend to favor Intel’s offerings at the same price points.

AMD’s Turbo: It Works AMD’s 890FX Chipset & The Test
POST A COMMENT

168 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    Other reviews that are worth to see.

    www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/4
    www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=24332&page=8

    Seems that only anand put Thubies as so so cpu.
    Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    From Bit-tech review:
    Conclusion
    Despite being an astonishing £600 cheaper than the exorbitantly-priced Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition, the X6 1090T BE still isn’t a very good buy
    Reply
  • sciwizam - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    TigerDirect seems to have $50 rebate on the 1055T.

    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...

    If Bing Cashback is applicable, there's another 12% off.
    Reply
  • sciwizam - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    Correction: Bing Cashback site says 8-10% for TigerDirect. Reply
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    There are two ways you can get cashback with Tiger direct

    1) If you look under cashback stores you get a lower cashback.
    2) If you use the search bar and type in a key term you will get a different cashback, with TD the key term is "Tigerdirect" with this trick you will get 12.3% cashback
    Reply
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    Tigerdirect now has a $50 dollar mail in rebate on the 1090T BE, making the total 249 After Rebate
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...

    If you do bing cashback and actually search for tigerdirect you get 12.3% bing cash back.
    $299.99-$36.89 (12.3% Bing Cash Back)-$50.00 (Mail in Rebate)=$213.10 after rebates and bing cash back
    Reply
  • max347 - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    Usually AT is my go to hw reviews, but I have to say the overclocking section doesnt even look like any effort was put into it. Its a BE part, and you dont review how well it tweaks? Other reviews on the net have this at 4ghz+, and do all the charts with the oc and non oc included.

    I think most people who by the BE part will not keep the stock cooler. I use a TRUE cu, though I realize mainstream might be something a little less. At least throw a zalman 9xxx on there and see what it can do with that. Benched at 4ghz, the 1090T is competitive right up to the 980x (stock), which I think gives people a little more info on how high they can "reach" with this cpu.

    I am in no way an AMD fanboy, but the $300 price tag for this performance seems like a leap for AMD. It has always been in my mind price/performance rather than work/clock cycle or the like.

    Anyway, Thanks for the review!
    Reply
  • pjconoso - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    In addition to the price, keeping the processor in the same socket is another plus to this processor. Reply
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    Are those other reviews using a 32bit OS or a 64bit OS? The last time I checked, the Phenom/Athlon II series was still poorly overclocking in 64bit mode. If it's still happening then any overclocking results would vary wildly depending on the OS used. Reply
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link

    I understand (and substantially agree with) the comments and conclusions regarding how the 6-cores Phenom compares against 2 and 4 core CPUs from Intel.
    I wonder though if these benchmarks are capturing the real benefits of 6 cores.
    In my 'daily' use I have several programs running in background: virus-scan, instant messaging, music players, email clients, browsers (that regularly update RSS feeds) and sometimes also torrent clients. These all consume some CPU cycles, obviously.
    With all these running in background, I wonder if the difference between a 2-core and a 6-core CPU will be more pronounced.
    In other words: does it make sense to compare two multi-core CPU by running a single application at the time (albeit, possibly, a multi-threaded one)?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now