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
DivX 6.8.5 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled.
Thanks to AMD's Turbo Core the Phenom II X6 is pretty close here, but still not able to topple Intel's Core i5 and i7.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses x264 to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
And we finally see the Phenom II X6 flex its muscle, even the 1055T is faster than the Core i7 860:
In the actual encoding pass the 1055T falls behind the 860 but it's still a good 19% faster than the Core i5 750.
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.