Hardware AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition

Any negative AMD review is going to descend into a flame war after the first few posts.

 

Shame was looking forward to some decent fps oh well gonna hold slack see what else is around the corner before investing

 

Fair enough dude!

May I open up to everyone the question. "Does AMD (CPU) truly offer the best bang for buck anymore?"

I find that in every part of the industry, they are being absolutely hammered. From low end to the very top.

Lets hear what you think?

 

I'd say that for the midrange multi-core area AMD still takes a bit of the cake. I'll admit that the 1090T isn't the best, but the 1055 is pretty decent, and I would've killed for a X4 955 if I wasn't so cheap myself, for $170 you get a Quad Core that performs quite well.

 

but the if the 1090T is nearly matched by an i3-530, how can the lower less performing 1055 be better?

 

Just fully read the review and it seems fare to me so I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
I would definately get the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T/1055T or one of the X4 Thubans soon to be released over the Intel 930 due to cheaper platform cost and Intels 2011 cpu's are going to require a brand new platform (AGAIN, fingers crossed they stick to one socket this time).

Bit-tech/Members: Do you know if AMD's next generation of CPU's will scrap backwards compatibility for AM3/AM2+? Any idea on there release? Thanks.

 

6 cores vs 2? depends on what your doing with the PC I suppose.

 

still using crysis as a benchmark this is a very poor test of a cpu

 

I'll tell you why its because any self respecting gamer uninstalled it long ago as it is a single player game that is linear and easy to complete so if no one has it installed anymore what is the point of using it to review, how many times do i have to say chris taylors memory leaky supreme commander is a cpu killer use that!!!!

 

@ xaser04 the resolutions are in the heading of each chart. Also the graphics card might have something to do with the small gap between the 980x and the 930.

 

We benchmark CPUs using Crysis for the same reasons we use it to test other hardware:

1. It scales very well across different hardware (CPUs and GPUs).
2. Lots of readers ask us to benchmark using Crysis (plus the Crysis benchmark pages are always some of the most visited on the whole site, so clearly lots of readers are interested in the results).
3. The particular benchmark we use provides accurate repeatable frame rates.

 

Best review out here comparing not just the stock, but also the overclocking differences. Too many people don't understand... the cost per performance ratio, the i7 930 wins.

MicroCenter - i7 930 $205, Newegg x58 $160 - $200
MicroCenter - x6 1090T $305, AM2+/AM3 with $50 off $65 - $105

Memory costs are the same unless you're using DDR2. You can run dual channel DDR3 in x58 boards.

Anyways, kudos for the review, James.

 

I was only quoting that based on perforamce benchtests on this site which showed that the i3-530 was not that far behind the 1090T, I think it was just 70 marks on the overall media test. The other tests the 1090T didn't look that fantastic. So the 1055T which is clocked lower wouldn't fair any better than the 1090T therefore would be par or even lower than the 2 core from Intel. Yes I know we have plenty of software that doesn't utilise the full 6 cores but for half the price and nearly the same performance, wouldn't it be a better bet to go with the i3? However, I've only gone off performance figures on this site and I am only speculating the performace of the 1055T since the guys here haven't given us a review yet. (Hint, Hint! get the lead out boys!)

 

This review pretty much falls in line with what I've seen on other websites. But many other reviews said that while the cpu isn't good for gaming, it matches the core i7 in performance when it comes to content creation. So as a workstation cpu this may be an extremely good value.

 

The problem with that claim though is that you're comparing it via an application that's 2 threaded optimized, try some programs that use more than 2 cores.

The thing is you can't really say that the i3 is a better bet since once you hit applications that run better with +2 cores, you'd have shot yourself in the foot.

 

New tech is always slightly higher on release ans as far as Im aware CPC have been looking at their benchmerk suit (or at least something has given me the impression they are)

You have to remember that intels do more per clock, the i3 while being a dual core, also get a small boost in multi threaded apps from hyperthreading. Overall its a phenominal chip for the cost. When comparing processors price, you need to compare motherboard and ram too. The biggest advantage is the fact that the hex can be used as an upgrade for some AM2+ boards. Different upgrade paths get different value.

For example
AM2+ this is a great chip to upgrade to.
AM3 another upgrade option
LGA775 Comes down to needs and budget but pick up an AM2+ board and reuse ram saves a bit. Tho Quad users may want to hold off till prices drop for i5/i7 quads before upgrading again
LGA1156 chances are your using an i3 already or better
LGA1366 Backward move
new build depends on how its used really.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is for the last 4 years, fans of AMD have been claiming the best "Bang for your Buck" everytime Intel brought out a new processor that performed really well.

As things stand today, I really don't see how that holds water anymore. Using either i3, i5 or i7 will get you better bang for buck than anything AMD has to offer today.

I was also using the same benchtests Bit-Tech use quoting my figures and my point on that was the new 6 Core wasn't blowing anything away really. It was mediocre at best. I appreciate it's early days and with bios changes and driver updates there is room for improvement but it needs a huge leap for it to be cost effective or labelled as the best bang for your buck

 

Why is a LGA1366 a backwards move?

 

I was just thinking the very same thing .All I can think of is that 1156 is newish and 1366 is about 18 months old, therefore making it retro.I've seen i7 920's going for under £150 and although I'm on an AMD platform and I'm probably going to buy the 1090T I'm seriously tempted to go 1366......And put it in a nice 20's stlye wooden case.(gota keep the retro thing going)

 

Yet another AMD chip not worth buying.