Hardware AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition

You are quite correct, I missed that at the top of the page, of course putting it in each graph would have been more helpful but heck given the results why bother.

Their gaming results don't tie in with ANY other website. This brings into question the validity of the results and the ridiculous conclusion.

 

The resolutions and test settings are displayed at the top of the page and in EVERY game graph.

As for the conclusion - there's nothing ridiculous about it - it's actually very simple really:

The Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition is slower and more expensive than the i7-930 in all but the 3D rendering tests - therefore it gets a lower score and isn't recommended.

 

I'm running the 1090T on a Asus M4A89TD PRO as of early this afternoon. My only experience of OCing recent AMD's was with a modest Gigabyte 785 chispet mATX board and a BE 720, and then all I did was increase the multiplier to 17 to get 3.4.

So far, I have all six cores stable at 4GHz (at 1.45) and the CPC benchmark score is currently just shy of 2020. I am using an SSD, but tht usualy gives only 50-60 makes for me on my i7 setup. Just out of comparison, my i7 920 when it was at 4ghz with patriot torqx was getting about 2130-2160. (Not tried test with 4.2).

As for what I have tried it apart from the benchmarks, Photoshop large merge to make this pic :

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4529528338_52e3f65d94_b.jpg

But the original, not that crop....involves merging about 22 photos, of about 6mb each, and to free up all the disk grinding, I have my OS on a Patriot Torqx, Scratch on a 2 X 60Gb Vertex in Raid. The write speed is still lots better than normal HD's.

Anyway it takes 1 minute and 59 seconds on an i7 @ 4.2 with 12GB Patriot 1600 speed ram. It takes 1 minute 52 seconds on the 1090T setup with just 4GB ram.

What is alarming about this, is in the Photomerge, the delay is usually caused by all the ram being used up and it starting to write HUGE, (I mean like 15GB) temp files to the HDD's. The more ram the longer this is delayed and the faster the merge is completed.

So I am going to Aria tommorow (open Sundays) to buy double ram and hope the OC holds with all the sockets filled.

Anyway, at the moment, its a quicker Photoshop machine with just 4GB or ram vs 12GB and it is running at 4GHz vs previously 4.2.

My results concur with some of the more detailed tests appearing on the net.

 

I'd definately like to see a review of Direct X 11 games with this chip in. Unfortunately, I installed my 1090T and catalyst 10.4 and the crossfire application profiles on the same day. My screen resolution is 2048x1152 and Im running 2 saphire 5870 Vapour X's in crossfire. Just ran the Dirt 2 bench with everything maxed out in Direct X 11 "ultra mode" and my FPS are up- I've never hit 82 min fps before at these resolutions and settings...


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

-->
- <!-- date: 10:11:05 on 02/05/2010

-->
- <benchmark>
<average min_fps="81.849113" av_fps="99.669510" min_fps_ms="12.217604" av_fps_ms="10.033158" />
- <track>
- <settings name="battersea" route="route_1">
<car name="sti" />
<car name="bmw" />
<car name="e9r" />
<car name="cr4" />
<car name="sor" />
<car name="sti" />
<car name="350" />
<car name="mer" />
</settings>
<results samples="8579" min_fps="81.849113" av_fps="99.669510" min_fps_ms="12.217604" av_fps_ms="10.033158" />
</track>
</benchmark>

Im not saying that this chip is the reason as per catalyst install above, it would be interesting to read if the extra cores have an impact in DX11 games.. anyway me is smiling!

 

This is why it will be good when we get the promised comprehensive CPU based gaming feature, as i tend to look at the gaming performance figures first, whereas it seems like most of the tests are geared towards non-gaming apps or apps i don't use on a day-to-day basis.

My impression is, and it may be wrong, that most consumer level related sales of multi-core CPU's are bought for the gaming market (certainly at the middle and top end of the ranges), with the benefits in other apps a minor consideration for a lot of buyers?

I do a bit of video encoding now and then and some basic image editing, but i find that my core i3 laptop can do this to my satisfaction, as well as browse the web, send e-mails etc that any other modern PC is capable of. It seems to me it is getting harder and harder to see the tangible benefits of buying one type of mid/high end system over another, except for maybe a few fps more in a game (where all systems are capable of offering a decent gaming experience) or saving a few more seconds time in encoding a file. Maybe it is the lack of software that is available to really push modern multi-core CPU's? Or the lack of people using such software?

Certainly for a lot of people with Athlon 64, Core 2 Duo/Quad, or Phenom systems they are probably looking at a new graphics card, SSD/HDD or other component purchase before a CPU upgrade these days.

 

WOW I these new Phenom II X6 are really incredible. AMD has added two extra cores and the power consumption has not change at all.

Its a good thing the new AMD chips are very affordable, this will be my next build.

AMD is doing really well now with their new technology.

Currently the worlds fastest super computer is made using AMD Optron processors. And Cray just build a new super computer design (XE6) based on the new AMD 'Magny-Cours', each CPU has 12 cores!!

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Cray-Shows-Off-New-AMDPowered-XE6-Supercomputer-288259/

 

I would rather choose the AMD Phenom™ II X6 1055T Six-Core Processor over the AMD Phenom™ II X6 1090T Six-Core Processor as their is very little difference between them for what it is priced at.

 

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition value rate: 7/10. Price 300$ (30% slower, in mind)
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition value rate: 7/10 Price 999$
bit-tech.net value rating costs nothin

tom's hardware understood that sposored topics goes to dead end and I trust this source

bit-tech.net think about it

 

Let us clarify what VALUE means: It is NOT just about price.

Value is how much something gives you and how it relates to the rest of the market. If you took two minutes to check our score guide before throwing around baseless accusations you'll see that a 7 equates to a product that's worth considering. Both are worth considering in terms of their relative performance. The Intel 980X annihilates the Phenom in terms of threaded applications and when overclocked. It can handle 24GB of memory - great for high performance workstation applications that demand it, whereas the Phenom only does 16. Those are just a couple of examples, but basically there is nothing to compete against the 980X in the market. If the Phenom DID compete and it sold for its current price then obviously that would kill the value of the 980X, but this is not the case. Finally the 980X was released and the article published before the 1090T even existed on the market - we NEVER retroactively change scores for products.

If you took the time to actually read the articles and the reasons why, instead of just looking at numbers on the last page, you'd realise this.

 

Thanks for your reply. I always thought and, you confirmed, that value rate costs nothin relating with time; and confusing (as I was) random readers. So whats the point of the score, if today its value 7 and after 2 months is 6? Good luck

 

We never used to score anything many years ago and personally I hate scores because it means people don't bother to read the text.

It was a request from the readers and manufacturers because it's a standard function and metric that people use, despite the fact a 7 here doesn't equate to a 7 elsewhere - hence the score guide. Like us, every other review site has the same problem too. The fact is most of our readers come in day-to-day for new reviews though (as we publish 10+ a week, plus news) and we publish the "price as reviewed" as well as the date at the start of every article.

 

Because there's no point to it. By your logic, the staff should re-review every product when something else comes out. That is illogical!

"Well, the Intel 8080 was an absolute MARVEL of a chip at the time of release, and fully deserved any excellence accolades we could give it! Unfortunately, tech has moved on somewhat in the last 36 years, so we'll have to scale its mark back a little..."

If a new product is better than an old product this will be reflected in the new review, not the old one. Fine example is here:

 

Bindibadgi "We never used to score anything many years ago and personally I hate scores because it means people don't bother to read the text."

100% agree with you.

And what about scores/they usefull for month or two. My proposal is - remove scores when they don't match
the reality. As for me I like read topics and benchmarks retrospectively

What about advertising, as I mentioned. Why you write "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."
When it can be written "...is good choise for not rich (or starting) professional"? It sounds more neutral. Isn't?

There is no bad products made by Intel or AMD. Intel make good products with high performance and good performance per watt and AMD - performance per dollar. That you can't denie.

Good luck

 

mmmmm....I smell a rat. This review is skewed against the 1090T. I don't think the review is an authentic representation of what the 1090T is capable of. Every review i've read of this chip is positive and glowing - this is the first negative review i've come across. I wonder why......?