-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Six core Benchmarks
- Thread starter CAPTAINBUMFLUFF
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,655
- Location
- Planet Earth
It seems that in Cinebench 11.5 the Phenom II X6 1055T has similar performance to a Core i7 860:
http://en.expreview.com/2010/04/13/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-performance-previewed/7038.html
http://en.expreview.com/2010/04/13/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-performance-previewed/7038.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
So it takes 6 cores PII X6 to achieve around the same performance level as a 4 cores i7 930? So for gaming the i7 930 would still be better then, since games still not gonna support 5th and 6th core anytime soon...
No what that is showing is that 6 physical cores on the X6 is the same as 4 physical + 4 'Virtual' (Hyperthread) cores on the 930.
Games that aren't properly multi-threaded will no more use the Hyper-Thread cores on the 930 than they would the 2 extra cores on the X6.
In fact if you look at the majority of games played at normal gaming resolutions you don't even need 4 cores, or high overclocks, as unless you are running a 5970 or something along those lines you will always be GPU limited.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,879
- Location
- UK
To the people complaining about how dissapointing they think it is, do you just jack off to benchmark scores all day long?
Yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I'm not talking about the Hyperthread. I'm just say the PII X6 doesn't seem it would be any faster than the PII X4 for gaming...and still not gonna be able to beat i7 930 in that area...
But you have to take Hyper Threading into the equation, it is a major part of the architecture, intels cores are 1.8x bigger than AMD's cores because of it. Well not mainly because of it, but Hyper Threading does take up a lot of real estate.
It's not as simple as saying 6 cores vs 4 cores, without investigating further, like architecture differences, transistor counts, dies sizes etc.
I'm impressed, wish i went AM2+ instead of P45 
6 cores + turbo (upto 3) + good overclocks + AMD prices. Whats not to like really, dont buy the games argument because even my Q6600 isnt limited by any of my games atm, never mind a I7 lol.
Mabe 1 day i will get a few 30" screens and some beefy graphics cards to see what being CPU limited is like.
6 cores + turbo (upto 3) + good overclocks + AMD prices. Whats not to like really, dont buy the games argument because even my Q6600 isnt limited by any of my games atm, never mind a I7 lol.
Mabe 1 day i will get a few 30" screens and some beefy graphics cards to see what being CPU limited is like.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
Are you sure? I am pretty sure Hyper-threading takes very little space. In fact Phenom II was bigger than Bloomfield based chips i believe. Hyper-threading is great because its almost free for intel, from what i read around its about 5-10% increase in die space.
Its not a bad processor, but its nothing that intel needs to worry about. It is great for the AMD camp though, the option of upgrading is good
I'm impressed, wish i went AM2+ instead of P45
6 cores + turbo (upto 3) + good overclocks + AMD prices. Whats not to like really, dont buy the games argument because even my Q6600 isnt limited by any of my games atm, never mind a I7 lol.
Mabe 1 day i will get a few 30" screens and some beefy graphics cards to see what being CPU limited is like.
6 cores + turbo (upto 3) + good overclocks + AMD prices.
what does that mean upto 3? i thought turbo worked with all 6 cores not just 3? god im so confused every thread i go to just makes it worse ><
In heavy threaded work all 6 cores will run at stock speed.
When half the cores are idle or aren't really being stressed (minimal activity) the CPU will go into turbo mode, 3 of the cores will run at an increased speed to accelerate the main threads in use, the other 3 cores will clock down to conserve power and heat output.
This way the threads that are in use get the most CPU power.
Last edited:
AMD's turbo works within the limits of the chip, the heat/power remains the same when trubo is active. It does this by reducing power/speed of some of the core's that arent being used in favour of giving this to the cores that are being used.
With 6 cores being used at 100% it wouldnt turbo as that could overheat the chip, but with 1 2 or 3 thread programs that don't benifit from having 6 real cores it lets them overclock a bit to make up for this. So you get the benifit of 6 real cores and the benifit of running older less threaded programs faster then you normally would have. These chips will run these less threaded apps much quicker then current AMD 2/3/4 core chips because of this, and real multi-threaded apps will make good use from all 6 cores anyways.
Intel turbo works on all core's at the same time but uses extra heat/power to achive this, so it cant be left running 100% of the time as it would overheat the chips. Mabe thats why you thought this turbo would run on all cores on this chip too.
Are you sure? I am pretty sure Hyper-threading takes very little space. In fact Phenom II was bigger than Bloomfield based chips i believe. Hyper-threading is great because its almost free for intel, from what i read around its about 5-10% increase in die space.
Its not a bad processor, but its nothing that intel needs to worry about. It is great for the AMD camp though, the option of upgrading is good
Hmm then i wonder why Intels 'core' die size is huge compared to AMD's. Phenom's actual logical 'cores' are much smaller than Intels,
Gaming performance on the PII X4 is the same as on the i7 (better in some games worse in others).
i7 is faster in any game at the same clocks and escpecially in the cpu intensive ones