• 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

mmj_uk said:
That's very strange, I'm guessing reviewer error since his conclusion doesn't really make sense either:



...he says that with the Phenom 965 sitting above all the Intel CPUs in the same benchmark.

EDIT: I wonder if he had V-sync on?
Click to expand...

If they aren't running the latest patch then Dirt 2 runs in 1-thread profile for 6-core CPUs. The patch fixes this and sets them to the quad-core profile.

If they benchmark with the demo version of the game it'll be acting as the unpatched retail would, so 1-core profile.
 
What were people expecting in games with a X6? Especially as most games can't make anywhere near half use of quad core processors yet.

It also seems many here are comparing the i7 and X6 in gaming performance, which isn't the way to do it. Look at the highly threaded encoding/transcoding/compressing etc benches, and the 1090 beats the i7 950 a fair amount, and nearly always the 920, and the 1055 is a bit better than the 920 in general too.

There's no point comparing game performance, as (with the exception of the 980X) they are all GPU bound and exactly the same. Anyway, what does anyone want/need a X6 for when gaming? These processors should appeal to those who do some serious encoding etc, and if you game, frankly a 955 BE or i5 750 is more than enough. Save your money and invest in graphics.
 
Marvin said:
What were people expecting in games with a X6? Especially as most games can't make anywhere near half use of quad core processors yet.

It also seems many here are comparing the i7 and X6 in gaming performance, which isn't the way to do it. Look at the highly threaded encoding/transcoding/compressing etc benches, and the 1090 beats the i7 950 a fair amount, and nearly always the 920, and the 1055 is a bit better than the 920 in general too.

There's no point comparing game performance, as (with the exception of the 980X) they are all GPU bound and exactly the same. Anyway, what does anyone want/need a X6 for when gaming? These processors should appeal to those who do some serious encoding etc, and if you game, frankly a 955 BE or i5 750 is more than enough. Save your money and invest in graphics.
Click to expand...

+1
Unless that X6 is capable of clocking reliably past the X4 then you have nothing to lose.
 
Marvin said:
What were people expecting in games with a X6? Especially as most games can't make anywhere near half use of quad core processors yet.

It also seems many here are comparing the i7 and X6 in gaming performance, which isn't the way to do it. Look at the highly threaded encoding/transcoding/compressing etc benches, and the 1090 beats the i7 950 a fair amount, and nearly always the 920, and the 1055 is a bit better than the 920 in general too.
Click to expand...
X6 1055 does beat i7 920 in heavy threaded thing such as encoding, but only by a small margin.
Let's assume both are priced at £170...for average users wise...does it make more sense to buy CPU that's slightly faster in heavy thread applications, but perform slower in light threaded applications, OR a CPU that's a better all-rounder that is slightly slower in heavy thread applications, but much faster in light thread applications?

I mean if paying the same money for CPU, I would choose the CPU that's not only fast at encoding and stuff, but a good performer for gaming as well. For if it is for heavy threaded work only, then yes I agree the X6 1055 and 1090 would be a better choice.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Marvin. I've been waiting the past few months for these chips and anandtech benches the i5 750 still outperforms the X6 in games, which is mostly what I'd be using the CPU for (I don't do ANY encoding or the like). It's cheaper to go i5 and Asus Gene than it is to go X6 and Crosshair IV. A little disappointed because I really wanted to try AMD. Just can't justify the spending. But if you're going to be doing CPU bound work, the X6 really are fantastic chips for the money.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
I think it is you that are not seeing things in the full context. X6 1055 does beat i7 920 in heavy threaded thing such as encoding, but only by a small margin.
Let's assume both are priced at £170...does it make more sense to buy CPU that's slightly faster in heavy thread applications, but perform slower in light threaded applications, OR a CPU that's a better all-rounder that is slightly slower in heavy thread applications, but much faster in light thread applications?
Click to expand...

Add in motherboard pricing into the equation though.

If you are doing mostly encoding and rendering tasks you could get a Phenom II X6 1090T and a 880G motherboard for around the same price as a X58 motherboard and a Core i7 920.

What CPU you get is really dependent on what you are using your computer for. Anyway I hope that the Core i7 930 and Core i7 860 do drop in price a bit as this will be good for us consumers.
 
Last edited:
the i7 920 is now £167!

these new cpus are in trouble on their first day of release by an end of life product.
 
OEM though:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-283-IN

So the overall price should be the same as the retail one for sale(around £180).

Anyway no one believed me when I said prices should start to drop for the Intel processors when these are released.

Once the Core i7 920 stocks are gone the Core i7 930 should drop to the same price.

OTH,it would be nice to see the X58 motherboards dropping in price by another £20 to £30 though.

Having said that even the HD5770 1GB was in trouble with EOL HD4870 1GB and HD4890 1GB cards either being cheaper or around the same price.
 
Last edited:
I am glad I bought my 4ghz i5 rig afterall.

AMD have released a 6 core cpu that really isn't very fast.
Yes it is resonably priced, but as other have a said an i7 920 is still better.



The i7 has also been out for ages.
 
mglover070588 said:
I am glad I bought my 4ghz i5 rig afterall.

AMD have released a 6 core cpu that really isn't very fast.
Yes it is resonably priced, but as other have a said an i7 920 is still better.

The i7 has also been out for ages.
Click to expand...

Not for highly multi-threaded software (read the actual reviews) and again what about motherboard prices??

You are talking around £140+ for an X58 motherboard.

This will work even in a £65 motherboard as peak power consumption is even lower than the X4 965 according to many reviews.
 
Last edited:
I really dont see why so many people are complaining about these. Amd have released a highly clocked true 6x processor, with one model unlocked, for a very significantly lower price than the intel counterpart.

Yes the Intel part is better, but for £800 I'd hope it would be. There are a few things people need to remember about these:

1. They're not for games, yet. Lower clockspeeds and less cache per core will mean the quads are better for this, at stock speeds anyway.

2. The prices are likely to be in the region of £10-30 more expensive than normal at the moment due to early adopters etc, and the fact its new tech.

3. The vast majority of games and benchmarks are not coded for 6 core, so its no surprise to see even some of amd's own section beating the x6.

These processors are for people who need a cheap and cheerful solution for encoding/video editing/processor intensive work, and it these prices they will snapped up quite sharply.
 
I fancy boys said:
I really dont see why so many people are complaining about these. Amd have released a highly clocked true 6x processor, with one model unlocked, for a very significantly lower price than the intel counterpart.

Yes the Intel part is better, but for £800 I'd hope it would be. There are a few things people need to remember about these:

1. They're not for games, yet. Lower clockspeeds and less cache per core will mean the quads are better for this, at stock speeds anyway.

2. The prices are likely to be in the region of £10-30 more expensive than normal at the moment due to early adopters etc, and the fact its new tech.

3. The vast majority of games and benchmarks are not coded for 6 core, so its no surprise to see even some of amd's own section beating the x6.

These processors are for people who need a cheap and cheerful solution for encoding/video editing/processor intensive work, and it these prices they will snapped up quite sharply.
Click to expand...

Your right on the money there. Also this release is good even for Intel fans as Intel will drop prices too. The Core i7 920 has conveniently dropped in price just prior to launch too.
 
stulid said:
well no.

the 5770 offers DX11, for some people that means a lot, and lower power consumption.
Click to expand...

I know loads of people who bought an HD4890 1GB instead of the HD5770 1GB. The HD5770 1GB increased in price quite a bit after launch and their were HD4890 cards for around the same price if you looked around. Ditto, for the HD4870 512MB and HD4870 1GB which were under £100 too.

I would have gone for an HD5770 1GB simply due to the power consumption alone and DX11 but it depends on what you want from a graphics card.
 
Last edited:
Hi

flame me if you wish and its only my opinion but ....

I think an aweful lot of peeps are being blinded by gaming performance results and Intel optimised benchmark tools ...

Its been shown many times that a 2 core cpu is absolutely fine for the majority of games using a single gpu ... lets face it the vast majority of computer owners have single gpu setups still . So a X6 isnt going to blaze a trail in gaming but its not exactly struggerling behind all others either

I'm not totally 100% sure on the Intel optimised benchmark tools arguement its just mentioned lots on the internet and recently it was proved that even some code was optimised by Intel themselves to favour their cpu's so of course the figures will not always show AMD cpu's in a true light.

So I could be way of the mark as I'm far from an expert but I do think peeps claiming the new X6 is a dead dodo on launch day should take off the gaming blinkers and read the reviews properly and see that the X6 beats the 920 and 930 in many of the multi threaded apps such as encoding which would be the reason to have a 6 core cpu in the first place.

Cozzy (wearing my AMD tinted shades and proud to support the underdog - come on you Engeeeerrrrrland :D )
 
I fancy boys said:
I really dont see why so many people are complaining about these. Amd have released a highly clocked true 6x processor, with one model unlocked, for a very significantly lower price than the intel counterpart.

Yes the Intel part is better, but for £800 I'd hope it would be. There are a few things people need to remember about these:

1. They're not for games, yet. Lower clockspeeds and less cache per core will mean the quads are better for this, at stock speeds anyway.

2. The prices are likely to be in the region of £10-30 more expensive than normal at the moment due to early adopters etc, and the fact its new tech.

3. The vast majority of games and benchmarks are not coded for 6 core, so its no surprise to see even some of amd's own section beating the x6.

These processors are for people who need a cheap and cheerful solution for encoding/video editing/processor intensive work, and it these prices they will snapped up quite sharply.
Click to expand...

You are right, but releasing a cpu WORSE than the current competition means it is bound to not be a huge success.

I think the new Nvidia range have proved this.

I can see AMD grabbing a few buys from the budget pc builder and crap PC shops like PCWORLD selling it as OMGWTFBBQ massive 6 core cpu best ever.

I am also an AMD fanboy at heart! However since core2 they have been trailing behind.
 
I wish at least one of the reviews had used ArmA 2 as a gaming benchmark. That really needs CPU power, unlike the majority of games that have been used from what I can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom