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
Final Words
Today's conclusion is no different than what we've been saying about AMD's CPU lineup for several months now. If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.
Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.
You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.
The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.
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.