AMD Phenom II x6 Thuban

I'm very excited about this. AMD has had 6 core CPU's out for servers for a few months now. They cost multiple arms and legs though. Intel is supposedly releasing their 6-core for LGA 1366 around Q2 as well. This should be interesting. Even though I'm switching to Intel, I have to route for AMD here.
 
Yeap, people thought it would be a lower bin MHZ. since its a X6. But from what I have heard the first one will be clocked at 2.8GHZ. to keep it at a rated 140W, not bad for a X6 at 2.8. If you have atleast a 10 phase power setup board this puppy might clock as good as a X4.

I'm waiting for Bulldozer though.
 
StrangleHold said:
Yep, people thought it would be a lower bin MHZ. since its a X6. But from what I have heard the first one will be clocked at 2.8GHZ. to keep it at a rated 140W, not bad for a X6 at 2.8. If you have atleast a 10 phase power setup board this puppy might clock as good as a X4.
Click to expand...

If this six core processor is 140 Watt running at 2.8 gigahertz that isn't too bad. The Phenom II 965 is a 140 Watt Quad-Core.
 
2048Megabytes said:
If this six core processor is 140 Watt running at 2.8 gigahertz that isn't too bad. The Phenom II 965 is a 140 Watt Quad-Core.
Click to expand...

From what I understand they are dropping a bunch of Phenom IIs in the next few months and going with a newer stepping and replacing them with lower wattage models

zer0_c00l said:
ya i seen them on newegg about 2-3 months ago
Click to expand...

Yeah they released the server version a few months ago. The Opteron Istanbul X6.
 
From the reviews I've seen Istanbul X6 often lose against i7 based Xeon even in multi-threaded application. Thuban is simply the desktop version of Istanbul

Unless Thuban have high clock speed like the current Phenom X4 (3GHz and above), I don't expect that it will do will even against mainstream i7

The worse thing about Thuban it have big die size because it made on 45nm process. So, selling these at low price may be a bad thing for AMD as a company

Ethan3.14159 said:
I'm very excited about this. AMD has had 6 core CPU's out for servers for a few months now. They cost multiple arms and legs though. Intel is supposedly releasing their 6-core for LGA 1366 around Q2 as well. This should be interesting. Even though I'm switching to Intel, I have to route for AMD here.
Click to expand...

AMD is probably releasing Thuban to compete with Intel i5 and i7, not with Intel 6-core

Intel 6-core is more that just adding two cores. It will have 12MB L3 cache, 32 nm die shrink, new set of instructions (AES) which should improve performance in encryption and decryption

Also, server processors are always expensive. Thuban should be much cheaper than Istanbul
 
Last edited:
maroon1 said:
AMD is probably releasing Thuban to compete with Intel i5 and i7, not with Intel 6-core
Click to expand...

Oh bull, no there not. They are just releasing it because of Intel X6 coming out. Not to compete directly with it, but just to say they have one too. AMDs not going to compete against the i5/7 till Bulldozer is released.
 
It would be nice once windows catches up to the hardware. Windows and games still dont fully utilize quad cores.
 
g25racer said:
It would be nice once windows catches up to the hardware. Windows and games still dont fully utilize quad cores.
Click to expand...

+1

what processors we currently have is overkill...your still good to go if you have a high clocked dual core imo.
 
Linux Ubuntu 9.04 utilizes my Phenom 9550 Quad-Core Processor. Windows Vista only seems to really use two cores of my processor. How come Windows 7 doesn't utilize quad-core processors?
 
2048Megabytes said:
Linux Ubuntu 9.04 utilizes my Phenom 9550 Quad-Core Processor. Windows Vista only seems to really use two cores of my processor. How come Windows 7 doesn't utilize quad-core processors?
Click to expand...

Win7 utilizes some of the cores on a quad core but not the full potential of the quad. As for games, most only utilize 2 cores.
 
g25racer said:
Win7 utilizes some of the cores on a quad core but not the full potential of the quad.
Click to expand...

I definitely disagree with that. Windows definitely does use all 4 cores, i mean how doesn't it? All my multithreaded apps utilize all cores no problem.
 
Motoxrdude said:
I definitely disagree with that. Windows definitely does use all 4 cores, i mean how doesn't it? All my multithreaded apps utilize all cores no problem.
Click to expand...

also, with a quad core you can run about twice as much stuff as a dual core, if you also have the ram to support it. but i thought that was pretty self explanatory. but honestly, i think they are just making these to compete with intel.
 
^^ Were not talking about apps were talking about Windows (os) itself

An OS and a Hard Drive are always gonna be the #1 bottleneck in a system
 
^^isnt it a good thing that the os doesnt use 100% of the resources?^^ if all it needs it 2 cores, then so be it.
 
but if it can use 100%, isnt that bad, if it used 100% you wouldnt be able to do anythingcasue the os would hog all you resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top