AMD's Six-Core Phenom II X6 1090T & 1055T Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 27, 2010 12:26 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Phenom II X6
Overclocking
The Phenom II X6 1090T is a Black Edition part, meaning it has a fully unlocked clock multiplier. With very little effort our 3.2GHz sample was up and running at 3.80GHz without any additional cooling beyond the stock heatsink/fan.
With a little extra effort, 3.9GHz should be possible, but the fact that we can even run at 3.8GHz with six 45nm cores is very impressive. Update: You asked, and we pushed harder. Our 1090T sample can hit 4GHz at 1.45V and even reach 4.1GHz but not with great stability. The even more important takeaway is that AMD's 64-bit/4GHz limits appear to be gone with Thuban.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
168 Comments
View All Comments
JGabriel - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Good point - and yes, it does. But revenue from the microprocessor unit also increased by 23%, according to Businessweek ( http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-04-15/amd-swi... )..
kenupcmac - Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - link
so now amd x6 is better for 3dmax compare to intel i7?Drazick - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Could you add some Matlab Benchmarks?Moreover, do you think most of the performances advantage of Intel processors comes from highly optimized code (Towards Intel Cores)?
It's something that should be investigated.
gruffi - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - link
Yes, absolutely. I wished more GCC builds would be benchmarked. Intel's architecture is not as good as many people believe. Most of Intel's advantages come from better software support.pjconoso - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Intel 6-core early adopters will feel like they were ripped-off. I have the Asus USB 3.0 (for review) for a few weeks now and I'm waiting for this processor to test it with - thanks for the review, I'm sure it'll help me a lot.Scali - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Ripped off? Why?The performance of this six-core is nowhere near the Intel 980X.
This six-core can barely keep up with Intel's faster quadcores.
pjconoso - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Well, in my opinion the difference in performance versus the price doesn't justify it. They look nice in a bar graph and all like the video encoding performance but in reality, its just a few seconds.fitten - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
It's all "just a few seconds". I'm going to wait for the Intel's consumer-priced hex-cores before I do anything. Right now, AMD needs 50% more cores to even match Intel's parts in heavily threaded code. Running out right now and buying all new kit might be leaving you feeling like "cores on the ground" if Intel comes out with the consumer-priced stuff. ;)Scali - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
Price/performance has always been on an exponential scale.AMD was no different when their Athlon FX were the fastest CPUs around.
Intel doesn't call them Extreme Edition for nothing.
I just get tired of people who go around on the internet telling everyone that Intel only has $1000 CPUs, and therefore Intel is overpriced.
The fastest PC on the market is just $1000, has been like that for decades, regardless of whether it was an AMD or Intel. Just seems to be how the market works.
pjconoso - Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - link
I just get tired of people who go around on the internet telling everyone that Intel only has $1000 CPUs, and therefore Intel is overpriced.Sorry man, but this isn't what I'm implying which is why there is a "in my opinion" on my explanation. It was really just a personal opinion, nothing else.