| AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition Processor |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Tuesday, 27 April 2010 | |
|
Page 8 of 12
PCMark Vantage Test ResultsPCMark Vantage is an objective hardware performance benchmark tool for PCs running 32- and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7. PCMark Vantage is well suited for benchmarking any type of Microsoft Windows Vista/7 PC: from multimedia home entertainment systems and laptops, to dedicated workstations and high-end gaming rigs. Benchmark Reviews has decided to use a few select tests from the suite to demonstrate simulate real-world processor usage in this article. Our tests were conducted on 64-bit Windows 7, with results displayed in the chart below. TV and Movies Suite
Gaming Suite*
Music Suite
* EDITOR'S NOTE: Hopefully our readers will carefully consider how relative PCMark Vantage is as "real-world" benchmark, since many of the tests rely on unrelated hardware components. For example, per the FutureMark PCMark Vantage White Paper document, Gaming test #2 weighs the storage device for 100% of the test score. In fact, according to PCMark Vantage the video card only impacts 23% of the total gaming score, but the CPU represents 37% of the final score. As our tests in this article (and many others) has already proven, gaming performance has a lot more to do with the GPU than the CPU, and especially more than the hard drive or SSD (which is worth 38% of the final gaming performance score). Beginning with the results from PCMark Vantage's TV and Movies benchmark, the Intel Core i7-980X leads the pack with a score of 6118, followed by the overclocked AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T with 6043. The stock speed AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T produces 5828, which is just slightly more than the 5740 points scored by the AMD X4-965. The Intel Core i7-920 produces 4985, and comes in last place for PCMark Vantage TV and Movies performance. Taking my Editor's Note into consideration (see above), PCMark Vantage Gaming benchmark gives the test to Intel's Gulftown... and by a huge margin. It's too bad (for Intel) that real-world video games don't benefit nearly this much by the processor, or else the Video Game Benchmarks section of the Intel Core i7-980X review would have looked very different. It's a good thing that the PCMark Vantage Gaming benchmark can utilize up to sixteen processor cores... :) Moving on to the Vantage Music tests, which weight the CPU for 75% of the score, we see just how well the added cores improve the transcoding process. While the Intel Core i7-920 delivers 8602 points and the Gulftown Core i7-980X improves upon it with 12665, the 3.4GHz AMD Phenom-II X4-965 tops them both with 12886. Even more impressive for AMD's Phenom-II series is the results for their X6-1090T Black Edition CPU, which produced 16292 points at stock, and 18227 overclocked to 4.0GHz with a 4.3GHz Turbo CORE. Clearly, this is the ideal route for enthusiasts who encode their own video and transcode various audio formats. While I'm not in agreement with the weighted importance of certain hardware components in the gaming tests, nor do I think that 1024x768 resolution without anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering effects is representative to the "consumer experience" as Futuremark puts it, I will agree that the TV & Movies and Music test results are fairly representative of the real-world experience. In both of these tests, the AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition CPU was favored heavily over the others, especially the more expensive Intel Core i7-980X.
|
|
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