| AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition Processor |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Tuesday, 27 April 2010 | |
|
Page 3 of 12
Closer Look: AMD X6-1090TThe year was 1998, and I purchased my first personal computer. It was a Packard Bell Multimedia-820 desktop system that featured a 233MHz Cyrix MII-300 processor, 32MB of EDO RAM, and a 3.2GB hard drive. For under $1000 the package deal included the system, CRT monitor, bubble jet printer, attached stereo speakers, mouse pad, and even a floppy disk organizer. Powered by the now-legendary Windows 98 Operating System, I was surfing the web with my 56K modem at speeds that would make people cry real tears by today's broadband standard. What made this system so memorable? Besides being my first computer, it was also the first time I would ever overclock a computer... taking that Cyrix MII CPU from 233MHz up to 266MHz with the move of a single jumper shunt. It was madness, I tell you. That's what overclocking used to be like, way back in the day. You would buy one processor, and after reading instruction on some poorly designed GeoCities/Angelfire website you could turn up the speed and laugh at the suckers paying full retail. Somehow the industry lost its way, and profits prevailed over processor flexibility. Intel was the first to lock-down its processors, and soon AMD followed their lead. This would eventually spawn Intel's Extreme Edition processor series, and AMD's Black Edition counterpart. Like past Black Edition processors, AMD aims to rekindle the lost love for overclocking by offering an 'unlocked' clock multiplier at no additional charge. What's different this time around is that the overclocker can tweak six CPU cores, and add Turbo CORE to the formula.
In present-day 2010, you can still build an entire computer system for less than $1000... and it can even include a six-core 3.2GHz AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T processor. Times have certainly changed, and the technology has changed with it, but still some things remain the same. Let's take a closer look at the AMD X6-1090T model HDT90ZFBK6DGR retail kit: The new 45nm Thuban-generation Phenom-II processors arrive in two flavors: 2.8GHz X6-1055T, and 3.2GHz X6-1090T. The lower-speed X6-1055T offers more headroom for Turbo CORE, which raises half the processor cores an additional 500MHz to reach 3.3GHz. The flagship AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition CPU adds 400MHz for a peak 3.6GHz Turbo CORE speed. Of course, me being me, I overclocked the X6-1090T until it tapped out at 4.0GHz with a 4.3GHz Turbo CORE.
The new hexa-core architecture essentially extends the AMD Phenom-II X6 processor die to accommodate two additional CPU cores. Unlike Intel's 980X, the AMD Phenom-II X6 series does not scale the L3 cache memory amounts with the number of cores. Thuban CPU cache sizes remain identical to those of the AMD Phenom-II X4-965 processor. L1 cache totals 128KB per core (64KB Instruction + 64KB Data), while L2 cache is 512KB per core and L3 receives a shared 6MB. The AMD Phenom-II X6-series 45nm die size measure 346 mm2, packaged in an AM3 938-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA). Like their latest X4-965 processor, all AMD X6 CPU's maintain a 125W TDP. AMD/Global Foundries' 45-nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology enables Thuban to benefit from a 4000MT/s full-duplex HyperTransport link, with one 16-bit/16-bit link at up to 6.0 GB/s I/O bandwidth. An integrated memory controller delivers up to 21 GB/sec dual-channel memory bandwidth, and accepts unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) or PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz). For each of the test systems used in this article, all memory modules were configured at 1333MHz CL7-7-7-20.
While the Thuban die size measure 346 mm2, the outer package is identical to other Phenom-II CPU profiles. This means that our heatsink guidance provided in the Best CPU Cooler Performance series still applies. Combine the AMD Phenom-II X6 CPU to any AMD-890 motherboard and add any ATI Radeon 5000-series video card, and voilà, you've just created what AMD describes as their 'Leo' platform. Benchmark Reviews has already tested the ATI Radeon 5000-series ad nauseam, we'll offer several AMD-890FX motherboard reviews following this article. Some of the key features that make the AMD-890FX platform so valuable are the vast supply of PCI-Express 2.0 link lanes; which now total 44 (42 total lanes from 11-engines on the Northbridge for graphics, USB, SATA, etc, and two additional lanes supplied from one engine on SB850 Southbridge.
|
|
Comments
Keep in mind that I've just spent nearly 26 hours to offer you a comprehensive hardware review on a free website. You're encouraged to purchase your own Intel i7-930 for the sole purpose of testing another processor, and let us know how that goes.
Kudos to you benchmarkreviews.
Paul Gow
Lightning PC Systems
Moderator, Techpowerup.com
The 920 has has had a product discontinuation notice issued and the 930 is the same exact price as the 920. (if you can even find the 920 anymore.. for instance microcenter no longer sells them. noone is going to order a slower processor for the same price. that makes no sense).
Every other site out there has used the 930 as the primary intel example and show that the 930 in most cases beats or is equal to the x6 1090T or worst case compare it both as a reference point.
#content.intel.pcnalert.com/dm/d.aspx/5F8AF763.../PCN109790-00.pdf
You are ignoring the fact that the 930 is faster and the same price as the 920. Therefore making the 920 obsolete as noone is going to buy a slower processor for the same price. It's really that simple. IF anyone still has inventory.. its because everyone else is buying the faster 930 chip for relativly the same price.
I think that 920s have been shown to be better overclockers in general, in 920 vs 930 matchups I've seen many sites that pick 920s as the better value and better overclocker for the price range. I have been going back and forth in building a system and the two in consideration have been the 920 and 1090 because all research has pointed to the 920 as the better cpu for overclocking even if the 930 is faster from the base.
So, I think that overall even I was kinda confused by your attitude/snark even if I did agree with you in principle. Thanks for the review, keep up the great work!
Tom's Hardware: Used the 920 and 930
Legit Reviews: Used the 930
Guru3d: Used the 920
Tweaktown: Used neither
Anandtech: Used the 920
Hardware Secrets: Used neither
Maximum PC: Used neither
PC Perspective: Used the 920
Bjorn 3d: Used neither
Hardware Canucks: Used the 920 and 930.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Of 10 major sites, only 3 included the 930 in their comparisons. 5 used the 920, and two used both, while 4 used neither. Your assertion that reviewers should purchase their own hardware to review is silly: even the sites that could easily afford to, like Anandtech, don't do that.
I think the 920 is still the option to compare along with a lynnfield CPU.
A CPU test is a CPU test, not a RAM test.
I did wish to get this motherboard here (ASUS P6X58D Premium): ##newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131614 until I saw this processor had been released. Would this motherboard here be one that would match or surpass the one I just mentioned: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula ##newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131644 Maybe one that is even better that is in the same price range? If someone could help out with suggestions, I would be very grateful.
Regarding power, I've found it extremely difficult to test accurately. Even with my power meters connected, the difference between idle and load is less than 20W, with a 5W margin of error. Ultimately, the motherboard will make the biggest difference.
I've recently had a discussion on the forum of MCSA students and even there, the lack of understanding was demonstrated.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now.... RAM size does not affect how quickly your CPU runs. You will get no more FPS in Crysis for having 16GB RAM instead of 4GB.
I'll repeat for the sake of getting it through to people: 4, 6, 8, 12 or 16GB RAM does not affect CPU speed. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand how things work.
RAM size can affect overall *system* performance, but only due to the fact that SuperFetch and file caching can reduce Windows' reliance on the paging file for temporary storage.
4GB, for now, is the sweet spot for 99% of users.
Mr. Olin? Maybe an update test with 6GB's.... -please.?
Olin I'm not sure why you questioned what I know as a IT pro but...? And I know the difference of dual, triple and quad channel platforms.(which I never mentioned, but you responded to?). I mentioned the 6GB Ram just as a standard 4bank config. I grasp how basic even bringing that out is. My bad.
Opteron: ##amd.com/us/products/server/processors/6000-series-platform/pages/6000-series-features.aspx
So with double the bandwidth requiring more sticks of memory, you're damned right it'll run faster -- not with more RAM, but with more STICKS of RAM. You could put TWICE as many sticks of HALF THE SIZE, and the memory performance will shoot through the roof.
And before you go wondering if 1090T could possibly have a 4 or even 6-channel memory controller... count the pins on it. More memory controllers = more pins. Even if it DOES have a 6-channel memory controller, 4 of those channels are disabled due to being physically not connected.
Also, Opteron's don't have triple-channel memory controllers, thus testing with 3x2GB would be utterly pointless.
Triple-channel VS dual-channel memory controller is something that is barely worth consideration when building a system, even *if* you could ignore the fact that this means deciding between CPU families. Sure, triple-channel Intel systems blast through the memory bandwidth benchmarks, but that's one hell of a synthetic benchmark and the impact on real-world performance is at best difficult to measure and at worst completely counterintuitive.
So I was curious to see any test, even one that would look at this.
If you get a hold of the 'goods' from AMD I'll say "Thanks" ahead of time.
-again great review. Also liked your Eco review, along with the review on Fudz####. Good product.
1+1+2+2 would work but, then you would be using the mobo in a config different from the Intel test, which would be using only one of the tri-chan mem ctrlrs. not that it's even relevant here, because the tests do not appear to be RAM dependent.
Well, that pretty well explains Intel's "need you fools to be suckers for punishment" attitude towards the consumer with their 980X, ..., -forget it!
i7-930 does it all and more.
...now that nvidia is outta the way, it'll be Intel's turn soon.
AMD's platforms for this kinda-money, can't be beat. Go AMD go !
;)
i7 920
asus p6t6 mobo
6g ram tripple chan
dual gtx 260 in sli
windows 7 x64
Paul Gow
Lightning PC Systems
Moderator, techpowerup.com
1. Matched pairs (or triplets): Not needed. I have a number of hands-on testimonials to the fact that singly purchased value DIMMS work great together.
2. Low-latency RAM will give you blistering performance: Benchmarks show only marginal gains. Low-latency RAM involves increased energy usage, increased heat production and, ultimately, a stressed memory controller.
3. You will benefit massively from RAM able to run at 1600, 1800 or 2000MHz: Again, benchmarks show only marginal improvements. Chipsets have decoupled DIMM clocks from the rest of the system, thus high-MHz RAM isn't a requirement for bus based overclocking (as it used to be).
I would argue that money spent on replacing e.g. 2x2GB 1333MHz Corsair Value Select DIMMs with Corsair TwinX DominatorGT (a price difference of around £120) would be *far* better spent on a faster GPU, CPU or HD.
The suggestion as to a better upgrade is presumptuous, as it really depends on his needs. If he is a gamer or does any encoding, I'd argue that a GPU upgrade could have a more significant impact than the memory upgrade.
The thing is, to have purchased fast RAM in the first place is of little value when compared to spending that money elsewhere. As you say, a faster GPU can perhaps be the better option. A faster GPU and cheap, Corsair Value RAM is better than a slower GPU and RAM that is advertised as 1800MHz.
I've just advised someone building an AMD system. He presented a list of components, including a Phenom X4 and Corsair Dominator GT RAM. I've told him to get 2 separate sticks of Corsair Value instead and with the money saved he can now get a Phenom X6 with a little money left over.
I don't know how I found this site (I think it was PCPerspective but don't quote me on that) but I'm really glad. I'll start dropping in regularly now. Thanks!
##lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=1
It's a unique review with a bit of healthy discussion as well.
default OS, and default Dashboard OS, so the proceess will be transparent, but for power users, they will be able to user WARNER, or EA dashboards, X-box live and Facebook will be "cut out of the loop"
The inclusion of high-res and high-detail GPU generated scenes should be present in a CPU review only to balance and contrast against benchmark results where the lowest resolution and detail settings were used. In this way, system builders (like myself) can make accurate assumptions and calculations about overall system performance when considering each individual component. There's no point spending £400 on a GPU (or £800 on dual GPU's) if the CPU is going to bottleneck gaming performance. Likewise, teaming a 6-core CPU with a £20 GPU isn't going to win favour with a customer looking only for stellar gaming performance on their 45" HDTV.
first lemme tell you the softwares i use often,
Adobe After effects CS5 (64bit), Adobe Photoshop CS5 (64bit), Autodesk MAYA, Autodesk 3Ds MAX (64bit)
Now what i want is to make new rig which'll be used at home, for R & D and some freelance and i'll be using the pc for games also the usage will be 60% work and 40% Games i have to buy almost everything, my budget is $12k .I was thinking of buying:
AMD X4 965
Asus M4A79 T Deluxe
G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1333 2GBX2
WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, 7200 RPM
ATI HD 5850
Now m confused X6 or i7 930?? and how much boost in performance?? or if someone can give me a better config at the given price range.
Thanks
For what you're doing, the AMD Phenom-II X6 is a better choice.
And howz Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 in comparison to ASUS M4A79 T Deluxe
Thanks
What you don't want on a raid 0 is your DATA.
SSD's are faster than VelociRaptors in a RAID0, which are faster than a Caviar Black (even the 7200RPM, 64MB cache, SATA3 one), which are faster than most any other HD you could care to mention.
Size up how fast you want your system to go VS how much storage you really, truly need VS how safe you want your data to be VS how much you want to spend.
Generally, data is replaceable unless it's work you've created. Put that on DVD, USB drives and cloud storage so you don't lose it.
I could put together a system for you which would keep your data absolutely safe whilst being enormously fast and with a bunch of space, but it might cost the wrong side of a year's salary.
Just get the best you can for the money you've got.
Thanks
Any AMD 890FX motherboard
AMD Phenom-2 X4 processor
4 or 8GB RAM
Radeon HD 5850
700W PSU
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Any single ATI video card. Do not underestimate the performance of a 1GB HD 5670. Brand is not important.
If you can, get a Seasonic PSU with a 90%+ efficiency rating. 650W will be enough. This is by far the best PSU money can buy. Whichever PSU you get, spend at least 10% of your budget on it. Do not be tempted to get a cheap PSU, you *will* regret it.
One 64GB Corsair Nova or 60GB Corsair Force F100 for your OS and Adobe apps.
Two 1.5TB WD EARS Green drives. Set these up as a RAID1 volume. Three partitions. One no less than 8GB only for Windows pagefile. One for your relocated Users folder and one for general storage and installing games.
G.Skill 1.3v RAM. 4GB should be plenty.
Your choice of CPU is then limited by how much you have left in your budget.
The OCZ Vertex-2 LE SSD is slightly more affordable than Corsair's Force series, and both are much better than the Nova and other Indilinx SSDs.
Asus offer an 890GX motherboard with USB3 and SATA3. Two features which are really not a big deal. SATA3 isn't going to make anything faster for you and USB3 devices are overpriced. By the time you actually want USB3, you may as well buy a USB3 add-on card if your motherboard doesn't provide it.
You might find an X4 delivers plenty of performance. Dealing with large Adobe projects is more constrained by amount of RAM and speed of HD/SSD. You'd have to be doing fairly complex stuff in order to really tax an X6. Plus, buy the right X4 and you might find you can unlock an extra 2 cores!
The Nova is one of the best performing Indilinx generally available, in real-world tests. A couple of synthetic tests show skewed results but in every practical sense, it's an excellent device. It notably doesn't suffer from pausing. I'm more than happy to build them into systems. I'm *more* happier to use Sandforce based SSD's, but people do tend to compare 60GB unfavourably against 64GB, no matter the other advantages.
As for your triple monitor requirement, an Eyefinity-6 card is not a requirement. The ATI5850 can drive three displays. Their ports differ between manufacturers, but they generally have at least 1 DVI, 1 DisplayPort and 1 HDMI. Armed with the required adapters, you should have no trouble setting up your three monitors. The 5850 still carries the EyeFinity branding, so you'll get full gaming support in the drivers.
Thanks to this X6 release, consumers like myself who already own older Intel Quad Core models can wait and KNOW that since an affordable Hex Core exists by AMD, that Intel can't for too long keep releasing Quad Cores and will have to start making Hex Cores affordable. If not for AMD, INTEL would milk Quad Cores for as long as possible. AMD broke that chain, which makes me happy.
Expect to see Hex Cores become mainstream a lot sooner than later.
With Intel, the only budget option is the Atom line of systems, which are only just performant enough to scrape by in a home PC. A very inflexible solution, as there's no easy, cheap or fine-grained upgrade path.
I don't think Intel will be forced into lowering prices by AMD. Intel are already very competitive at the price points they currently occupy. AMD will remain the ones playing catch-up (think i5). This isn't a bad thing, but don't be fooled into thinking Intel run scared of AMD.
*Choosing* a processor is not about clock speed. It's about identifying your needs and them matching them to a budget.
One thing I believe (at least for me) that reviewers left behind is the virtualization aspect/capabilities of these new 6-Core CPUs. Although I have always liked both platforms (and AMD when they were ahead of this "game") I admit that I have been using Intel for the past 6 years.
Now, I want to build a system for some virtual servers and this 6-Core at an affordable price is really nice.
I really need all the threads i can get, and for less money better. The thing is, i was planning to build a render farm, but i was gonna buy some Core2Quad q9650, and then someone suggested AMD, i did some rapid research and...man, it is so cheap!!
But, after a deeper revision, i found this -correct me if i am wrong-:
The Core2Quad q9650 has 4 cores and 12MB cache.
The Phenom II x6-1090t has 6 cores, but only 9MB cache.
Isint that gonna create a bottleneck? I am no expert,so please explain to me.
And other thing, i need a cheap Motherboard for that, good performance, cheap price, has to be less than $60usd -I am gonna buy lots of them-
Thanx a lot for you attention.
However, to answer your questions: cache will not limit rendering effectiveness. If your models and textures are complex enough that you're considering a render-farm, then cache size is totally irrelevant. Overall system memory bandwidth (and latency, to some extent) will dominate, which is where Core i7 performs superbly.
I would also recommend you not to buy cheap motherboards. Overall stability and system longevity will suffer. You will get more satisfaction having fewer, but more expensive Core i7 systems than many, cheap AMD systems. If at all possible, I would actually consider having perhaps only 1 or 2 systems based around Intel's 6-core Xeon (Westmere) CPU and a Supermicro dual-CPU motherboard.
Loaded up with plenty of ECC RAM, such a system will absolutely scream through render tasks. 12 true cores in one system. Worth it? Sure!
So, why there is a change in thought its confusing buddy... hope you understand...
OK, you will see improvement using Maya and 3DS if you spend more to get an i7 system (and I don't mean an i7-930, I'm talking the expensive end of the i7 range). But... you're 40% gaming. An X6 will scream through games. Your GPU will bottleneck games, with the likes of Metro 2033 taxing even SLI Geforce 480's.
Anyone with infinite budget will be best served with a 6-core Intel Xeon CPU. Everyone else needs to consider exactly how many seconds they really need to shave off their 3D render before the price:performance ratio starts to get too steep. Perhaps I've underestimated your 3d rendering needs?
everest=
cpu queen: 42 029
photoworxx: 42 294
cpu zlib: 124 437
cpu aes: 29 239
avec une msi260gtx 20 000 3Dmark06
My next alternative system will be AMD phenom II 1090t. that is for sure.
All the best.
I am a photographer based in INDIA New Delhi.
Could anyone help me to opt/choose the right motherboard for "AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition Hexa Core Processor", because i fairly do not have any idea as which one to go for, one of the Top Stores in india suggested me to go with GIGB & ASUS...
However i just wanted to check which one is the best as you people have a good knowledge over the products.
My requirement is for a high end purpose for Extreme Gaming and Multimedia.
Your Quick response to this thread would be highly appreciated.
Regards,
DSR V
##newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131667