Hardware AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition

No thermals bit-tech? I guess you get the general idea from power consumption but its not like running prime and having a look at temps is all that hard to report.

 

It's a fair review to me, they're not slagging the chip, but they're not praising it, and as reviewers they did admit that as a multi-tasker it was excellent, just not for gaming.

 

Okay they need to find a new guy for Overclocking, they seem to never be able to hit the typical number seen by the majority of other reviewers out there. I have to agree the review feels like its written by an Intel fan but again thats why there are other review sites, so you can get a wide idea of the CPU versus just one. I hope no one is actually making a decision off of just the one Bit-Tech review instead of reading up on others as well.

 

I think that the overclocking while dissapointing is a decent representation of what can get IRL.

I mean even for their i7 reviews, they never really hit the optimum and maximum clock speed.

 

not BE edition though, i'm liking the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and will def pick one up when its sub 200quid

 

Pixmania have the 965 BE for a decent price this week £134 and aria uk have knocked £20 off the price of a 1090T so it's £227... not bad

 

Every other review says it's as good as the 930 or better, and bit-tech says it needs a 3.8 overclock to even come close to a 930 at stock.

Now i genuinely don't know who to believe. You guys or the rest of the world?

Ah well even if it's as good as the 930 or slightly better it's still considerably more expensive.

 

Might as well fix this: "Asus P6TD Deluxe motherboard with 6GB (2 x 2GB) of Corsair". I think you meant 3 x 2GB.

I was really hoping for a neck to neck battle between the six core but I was let down. Although I don't know much, maybe BT has a point saying that the K10 architecture is quite old - after all is a reved up K8 - and when the new AMD's architecture is out then we will see some real battle with the outcome being neck to neck or AMD reclaiming the crown as it did before. I would be prone to buy one now and when a good am3 mobo was out change everything, seeing this, I'll stick with my AM2+ config and wait for the new X6 Bulldozers to arrive. I'm a AMD supporter, not a fun but I would hate to give my money to Intel in case AMD doesn't provide enough.

 

Why?

 

whats the deal with some computer manurfacturers offering 4 gig on the x58 platform... does it matter?

 

Because if AMD goes under (unlikely at the moment) the x86 computing is left at the mercy of one company. In economics, this is called a monopoly and it's typically very, very bad.

 

you've taken my question in the wrong context and it was to Farfalho personnally why does he "Hate" to give Intel money.

I may as well add, why would you give AMD money for clearly substandard products? Just to keep them afloat? That's pathetic!

 

Quotes exist to avoid such mis-communications.

Personally, I would not. I like getting the most bang for my buck. I was merely stating that I could see the reason why someone would like to support AMD. Folks like the underdog. And others like to plan way in advance.

 

While I can emotionally understand your point, intellectually it's complete claptrap.

AMD is not an underdog - it's a multi-billion dollar multinational company that has failed to produce as good a product as one of its competitors.

Similarly, Nvidia deserves no sympathy for failing to produce such a good range of DX11 GPUs as AMD.

None of these companies care about you (us) - they care about meeting targets and pleasing shareholders.

As such no company in such a situation deserves sympathy - that would be the antithesis of capitalism.

 

Do you like Ayn Rand?

I completely agree with you, by the way. All I'm saying is that I know why some people say and do the things they do. Some folks think with their heart - never bought anything but AMD (or Intel) and never will. Another word for it is 'fanboy-ism'.

 

I'll take that as a complement and am glad you didn't take my point as the start of a flame war. I suppose it just still frustrates/disappoints me that there are still people out there who make the decision on what to spend thousands of pounds/dollars/your currency based on sympathy for a corporation.

 

AMD have identified that their products offer less performance than Intel, and have priced (in most intances) accordingly. The Motherboards also seem to be cheaper, suggesting their board partners understand this also.

It is true, that if they could not produce CPU's any more, Intel would have more opportunity to price more unreaslistically, (Monopolies commissions granted) which it appears they already may do on some products.

If we see a price drop on the 980 from Intel, then that is not them saying, ok AMD have a six core that is as good as ours, its them recognising that someone shopping for a six core may not want to spend at their price point and not need all the performance, but still want a six core.

That is how certain areas of the car market evolved, in particular, 'soft roaders' 4WD's for people who didn't want or couldn't afford Land/Range Rovers or Landcruisers but still wanted a 4WD.

Whilst AMD's six core may not perform as well as Intels 4 Core, just like a Suzuki Vitara won't go off road like a Landy will, they are both still 4WD's. Even if Intel Quad is faster than AMD Six, AMD cpu is still a six core, that might not make sense if there is no performance, but some will purchase simply because it infer/implies performance.

 

Quite right.

I understand feeling some sort of favouritism for one company over another, just because of previous good experiences. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time AMD were on top in the CPU game, it was up against the Pentium 4...

This 6-core CPU barely competes with Intel's similarly clocked quad-core (with hyperthreading as well I admit). I personally think it's time AMD moved on from their "breathed-on" Athlon64's.

As for x86 - I don't think Intel would be allowed to keep it to themselves if AMD went under. The various competition watchdogs would have a field day.

 

It was meant as one.

I dislike flame wars. If an argument cannot be based on reason it is not an argument worht being part of. The same goes for spending money.

 

Why you ask, allow me to answer you.

One of the said reasons it's because Intel already pushes the envelop too far when charging for their cpu's, now imagine if AMD utterly fails like Nvidia has, the prices would be higher and higher.
Although lizard has a point about them not caring about us, it feels good to help a company to stand up to its rivals. So, before you think it's an all out AMD fanboy I also say if the rolls were inverted, AMD on top for years while charging loads of money, I would stand for Intel. Getting the more bang for bucks product.

I acknowledge Intel superior products but I would like to see what AMD has to offer since they have a kind of a reasonable price for their products. And it's not like I hate Intel, it's a kind of hate to see a company go down utterly and with no possibility of coming back and leaving the market wide open to a leech to suck it all. Come on, who believes in a corporate having a monopoly charging the most reasonable price instead of overcharging the consumers

As many has a sweet spot about that particular company, such as EVGA or Sapphire or XFX or Asus and so on, I have for AMD. Although not a underdog in a literal way, in the present, AMD is getting the underdog mark and I like to help (when their products justify, of course, money is hard to earn except for politicians) that companies to emerge and strife against odds.

But here I rest my case: If AMD next architecture outcomes a huge failure and if I need an upgrade, I will buy Intel since I'm an enthusiast - not an extreme overclocker - and I like to have the higher-end parts and my bank account will weep like a sissy boy, that's for sure!
Sorry if anything is misspelled, I'm Portuguese.