• 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 Phenom II X6 1055T & 1090T Reviews

I think its what most people expected to be honest ...

gaming performance sees little or no benefit due to few games using multicores properly

encoding , video , photo work there are big benefits if the software is true multithreaded and the user isnt prepared to pay Intels premiuem prices

all the reviews have overclocked to 4Ghz with ease so appears the norm so far

drawbacks are it is still behind i7 4cores is lightly threaded apps

You could argue .... why would anyone even want an i7 4core if all they do is light threaded/ single threaded apps though

As I do a lot of video encoding as well as gaming and general web use I think the 1090T is a worthy upgrade for me as I already have an AM3 board in one rig

Cozzy
 
The power consumption figures look impressive though.In many of the reviews the Phenom II X6 was consuming less at peak than a Phenom II X4 965!

They look like good CPUs for encoding and such stuff and is a great alternative to the Core i7 processors. For gaming the X4 955BE does look like a good choice still or the Core i5 750 if the latter is under £160.
 
The main problem is that for tasks that aren't highly threaded, the Core i5 750 beats both X6 CPUs. So even at a bargain price point compared to the i7 970/980X, they're still not really worth the money.

I really hope the upcoming Bulldozer/Fusion stuff will give Intel something to worry about.
 
r3loaded said:
The main problem is that for tasks that aren't highly threaded, the Core i5 750 beats both X6 CPUs. So even at a bargain price point compared to the i7 970/980X, they're still not really worth the money.

I really hope the upcoming Bulldozer/Fusion stuff will give Intel something to worry about.
Click to expand...

as i said above .... if you were not using highly threaded apps then you wouldmt buy the X6 or 980X would you ??? ... actually no doubt peeps who just read emails and surf would buy the 980X but then thats their choice of wasted potential :)

I think the new X6 is a good chip but only if the person buying it is going to use the right kind of software to exploit the extra cores ... although the 1090T is probably over priced at the mo and will probably drop £20 or 30 fairly quickly

all IMO of course as I'm no expert but then perhaps I wear tinted glasses as I actually had trouble telling the real diff in performance from a pii965 @stock and i7 920 @3.2Ghz and actually found the AMD to be a smoother snappier experience
 
i think now that AMD are releasing 6 core processors that don't cost an arm and a leg, hopefully more software developers will be encouraged to engineer software for muti-cores.

Once this happens then it will probably be worth it having 6 core processors.
 
I can't believe Hilbert claimed 100% stability after 5 minutes of prime95 and a few benchmarks :/ Most fail.
 
I don't get it though...if the AMD 6 cores is only as fast as a i5 750 or i7 920 Quad-cores even for multi-thread things like encoding and stuff...then why bother (especially now that i7 920 is at just £180)? Wouldn't it be just for bragging right saying "I got a 6-cores CPU", and what people actually getting is in fact just a CPU that's slower in games, considering almost all games don't use the 5th and 6th core...? Even with Turbo-mode to boost 3 main cores' speed by making the 3 other cores idle, it would still be slower for games that support up to 4 cores...
 
Last edited:
dont know why people are complaining about x6 beeing useless because not much uses more than 3-4 cores yet.

maybe if you upgrade every other month to the newest cpu like a lot of people around here seem to its not so great but for people who only upgrade every 1-2+ years the cpu will still have what it takes when games and apps do move onto 6 cores.

give devlopers more cores and the worthwhile ones will find things do do on the extra cores

don't get it though...if the AMD 6 cores is only as fast as a i5 750 or i7 920 Quad-cores even for multi-thread things like encoding and stuff...then why bother (especially now that i7 920 is at just £180)? Wouldn't be just for bragging right saying "I got a 6-cores CPU", and what people actually getting is in fact just a CPU that's slower in games since almost all games don't use the 5th and 6th core...?
Click to expand...
because in the programs that obviously are capable of using 6 cores its faster than a 920? which tells us once people start using more than 4 cores it will edge out in front.

some people dont hop between cpus you see people selling 920s to buy 930s who were talking about selling there 1 month old i7 system to buy a x6, i expect your one of these
 
Last edited:
It is funny that there are no Supreme Commander,World in Conflict and BFBC2 benchmarks I can see in these reviews! If there are can someone please point me to them.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It is funny that there are no Supreme Commander,World in Conflict and BFBC2 benchmarks I can see in these reviews! If there are can someone please point me to them.
Click to expand...

BFBC2 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/18

There is currently a title on the market that is utilizing multi-CPU cores and is heavily threading. Battlefield Bad Company 2 DX11Battlefield Bad Company 2 will happily use four or more cores. The result is that very quickly the CPU does not matter anymore as it maximizing the incredible amount of processors power. As a result the GPU really quickly becomes a bottleneck; even the Radeon HD 5870 flat out is running at 100% whilst the processors have plenty of force left.
Click to expand...
 
arknor said:
because in the programs that obviously are capable of using 6 cores its faster than a 920? which tells us once people start using more than 4 cores it will edge out in front.

some people dont hop between cpus you see people selling 920s to buy 930s who were talking about selling there 1 month old i7 system to buy a x6, i expect your one of these
Click to expand...
Have you even bother reading the reviews?
Just have a look at the review from bit-tech:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/27/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-black-edition/10
 
Last edited:
Well if current gpu's are bottlenecking that can only be a good thing. The cpu (s) will last a few gpu upgrades before being the limiting factor ;)
 
Bit dissapointed with this .Planning on buying new rig soon,had planned for an I7 920 with a Gigabyte X58 UD5 board...The first previews about the 1090 made me rethink the planning,so wanted to buy a 1090 with a Gigabyte 890FX UD 7 board.Prices are 482 euro's for the AMD way,489 for the Intel way...Easy choice i think...
 
Acemath said:
Bit dissapointed with this .Planning on buying new rig soon,had planned for an I7 920 with a Gigabyte X58 UD5 board...The first previews about the 1090 made me rethink the planning,so wanted to buy a 1090 with a Gigabyte 890FX UD 7 board.Prices are 482 euro's for the AMD way,489 for the Intel way...Easy choice i think...
Click to expand...

You sound a little hesitant to me ;) I'm still weighing it up....critical to me is will AM3 take Bulldozer cpu's, if so AMD may be a better choice if not then i7 920 is the way...
 
Troezar said:
You sound a little hesitant to me ;) I'm still weighing it up....critical to me is will AM3 take Bulldozer cpu's, if so AMD may be a better choice if not then i7 920 is the way...
Click to expand...

Maybe i'm a bit hesitant indeed.Partially to the fact i've always used Intel in all my computers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom