Phenom II x6's

[Shane]

ooo nice price, whats the performance going to be against the i7 quads?

Im betting they still wont be as good as a I7,But like i said Ken ,If the price is right then thats something i could put up with....i dont think it would be all that far behind the I7.

We wont realy tell until we can get real benchmarks from real people....i mean we dont know how legit those benchmarks are atm thats going around.

Still cant find any damn pricing

 

[2048Megabytes]

I hope that's true, then people will be selling their x4's for cheap then!

I won't. I was trying to sell my Phenom II 940 for $120 but now that I have just reinstalled my entire hard drive I don't want to.

Good to see AMD has a decent price on their six-core Phenom II. I am wondering what the marks will be with it.

What I really want is a Phenom II Quad-Core that has a clock speed close to 3 gigahertz which only uses 80 Watts.

 

[Aastii]

Im betting they still wont be as good as a I7,But like i said Ken ,If the price is right then thats something i could put up with....i dont think it would be all that far behind the I7.

We wont realy tell until we can get real benchmarks from real people....i mean we dont know how legit those benchmarks are atm thats going around.

Still cant find any damn pricing

I bet in benchmarks the quad i7s will beat them, but real world those 2 extra cores will give them the edge deffinately

I have just so happen to have a little money at the moment, and as I don't have to pay for going to chesterfield now, a little more, so that coupled with the sale of my 720BE (depending on the price of the x6's in UK ofcourse ) may just land me on one, provided Asus make support prior to or just after the launch of the new CPUs on the M4A79XTD, unlike they did when the 965 came out.

Deffinately up for seeing what happens with them

 

[Twist86]

Yeah, intel stayed with 775 for years,then switched, now they are going to switch....again.

AMD will inevitably need a new socket at one point though as well.

True but at least AMD will make the chip backwards compatible with its previous socket. Intel demands way to much cash/upgrading anymore.

I bet in benchmarks the quad i7s will beat them, but real world those 2 extra cores will give them the edge definitely

True but need a program that can actually use the cores. Gaming wise I am still a head

 

[bomberboysk]

Im betting they still wont be as good as a I7,But like i said Ken ,If the price is right then thats something i could put up with....i dont think it would be all that far behind the I7.

We wont realy tell until we can get real benchmarks from real people....i mean we dont know how legit those benchmarks are atm thats going around.

Still cant find any damn pricing

I bet in benchmarks the quad i7s will beat them, but real world those 2 extra cores will give them the edge deffinately

I have just so happen to have a little money at the moment, and as I don't have to pay for going to chesterfield now, a little more, so that coupled with the sale of my 720BE (depending on the price of the x6's in UK ofcourse ) may just land me on one, provided Asus make support prior to or just after the launch of the new CPUs on the M4A79XTD, unlike they did when the 965 came out.

Deffinately up for seeing what happens with them

Singlethreaded benchmarks intel will still be superior, multithreaded they will be even with amd more than likely taking a very slight edge.

True but at least AMD will make the chip backwards compatible with its previous socket. Intel demands way to much cash/upgrading anymore.



True but need a program that can actually use the cores. Gaming wise I am still a head

The first bulldozer will be AM3 only, and after that a new socket that will not be backward compatible will be released, although, knowing amd, that socket will last awhile like AM3/AM2+/AM2 did(Remember socket A? That lasted forever as well)

 

[Shane]

Singlethreaded benchmarks intel will still be superior, multithreaded they will be even with amd more than likely taking a very slight edge.


The first bulldozer will be AM3 only, and after that a new socket that will not be backward compatible will be released, although, knowing amd, that socket will last awhile like AM3/AM2+/AM2 did(Remember socket A? That lasted forever as well)

Just wondering...these AMD processors that are backward compatible....does using a AM3 processor on a AM2+ cause bottleneck or something?

Dont know much about AMD

Either way though im going to just get a AM3 Socket board.

 

[El Gappo]

Not really, there are a few gimmicks you miss out on but nothing that effects daily performance. In fact for locked cpu's ddr2 boards are better

 

[spynoodle]

ooo nice price, whats the performance going to be against the i7 quads?

There's no doubt that the i7 960 will beat it in every scenario. It's a hard call for the lower-clocked i7s, though. I'm assuming that adding the extra two cores onto the Phenom ii 965 will increase the performance by 50% in hexa-core threaded applications. This will most likely bring it over the i7 950 just slightly. AMD's edge here, as always, is price. If the 1090t really costs only $300, then intel sees a problem. It's not so much a problem with the higher-clocked Thuban cores. but the lower-clocked ones, which will threaten the i7 920. Just a quick question: Do six-core processors not overclock as well as quad-core processors? If so, then intel still has the overclocker advantage with the i7 920.

 

[El Gappo]

There's no doubt that the i7 960 will beat it in every scenario. It's a hard call for the lower-clocked i7s, though. I'm assuming that adding the extra two cores onto the Phenom ii 965 will increase the performance by 50% in hexa-core threaded applications. This will most likely bring it over the i7 950 just slightly. AMD's edge here, as always, is price. If the 1090t really costs only $300, then intel sees a problem. It's not so much a problem with the higher-clocked Thuban cores. but the lower-clocked ones, which will threaten the i7 920. Just a quick question: Do six-core processors not overclock as well as quad-core processors? If so, then intel still has the overclocker advantage with the i7 920.

You sir are talking out of your bumhole.

 

[bomberboysk]

There's no doubt that the i7 960 will beat it in every scenario. It's a hard call for the lower-clocked i7s, though. I'm assuming that adding the extra two cores onto the Phenom ii 965 will increase the performance by 50% in hexa-core threaded applications. This will most likely bring it over the i7 950 just slightly. AMD's edge here, as always, is price. If the 1090t really costs only $300, then intel sees a problem. It's not so much a problem with the higher-clocked Thuban cores. but the lower-clocked ones, which will threaten the i7 920. Just a quick question: Do six-core processors not overclock as well as quad-core processors? If so, then intel still has the overclocker advantage with the i7 920.

In real world usage, the phenom II will actually be faster than the i7 960, especially when multitasking. The i7 9X0 range are all the same chips, and all overclock similarly, buying an i7 960 is a complete waste over buying an i7 920/930, and when buying a cpu you factor overclocking into the picture. With six cores, the phenom II's will hold a slight edge over the i7 processors, and the Phenom II x6's will overclock just as well as the x4's.

 

[spynoodle]

In real world usage, the phenom II will actually be faster than the i7 960, especially when multitasking. The i7 9X0 range are all the same chips, and all overclock similarly, buying an i7 960 is a complete waste over buying an i7 920/930, and when buying a cpu you factor overclocking into the picture. With six cores, the phenom II's will hold a slight edge over the i7 processors, and the Phenom II x6's will overclock just as well as the x4's.

From what I've seen, six-cores aren't all that special in today's applications: yet. Here are some links on the Core i7 980x:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/6
Also, here's a quote from PCworld:

Intel is pitching the Core i7-980X as the the premier part for the enthusiast gaming crowd. In our tests, we did see some improvements over the Core i7-975, but they were marginal. In Unreal Tournament 3 (1920-by-1200 resolution, high settings), the Core i7-980X cranked out 159.9 frames per second as compared to the Core i7-975's 155.4 fps, a 2.8 percent improvement. In Dirt 2, the Core i7-980X offered 73.3 fps, against the Core i7-975's 71.7 fps--a 2.2 percent increase.

Here's the link to the full article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1912...nough_intels_core_i7980x_extreme_edition.html

 

[bomberboysk]

From what I've seen, six-cores aren't all that special in today's applications: yet. Here are some links on the Core i7 980x:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/6
Also, here's a quote from PCworld:

Here's the link to the full article:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1912...nough_intels_core_i7980x_extreme_edition.html

Core i7 in general is overkill for gaming, but that is not what the matter is about. Every benchmark you linked from that article shows pretty good improvement with more cores, except sysmark and programs that dont take full advantage of >4 cores. Plus, benchmarks do not tell the whole story, especially when multitasking, as you can have multiple singlethreaded programs that are all relatively resource heavy running with a multiple core processor.

 

[spynoodle]

Core i7 in general is overkill for gaming, but that is not what the matter is about. Every benchmark you linked from that article shows pretty good improvement with more cores, except sysmark and programs that dont take full advantage of >4 cores. Plus, benchmarks do not tell the whole story, especially when multitasking, as you can have multiple singlethreaded programs that are all relatively resource heavy running with a multiple core processor.

That is very true. Honestly, though, I don't know about you, but I pretty much never have more than one or two programs open, so the multi-program thing doesn't really apply to me. Still, I'm probably only like that because I used to run WinXP on a Pentium 3 *shudder*. Either way, what's the maximum improvement by adding 2 more cores: pretty close to 50%, right? So I still don't think that Thuban will have that much of an advantage over a Core i7 at 3+GHz.

 

[bomberboysk]

That is very true. Honestly, though, I don't know about you, but I pretty much never have more than one or two programs open, so the multi-program thing doesn't really apply to me. Still, I'm probably only like that because I used to run WinXP on a Pentium 3 *shudder*. Either way, what's the maximum improvement by adding 2 more cores: pretty close to 50%, right? So I still don't think that Thuban will have that much of an advantage over a Core i7 at 3+GHz.

Theoretically, yes it will be around 50%. The biggest thing though about thuban is that it will be AM3, which unlike intel planning on changing sockets again, will at least be compatible with bulldozer.

 

[spynoodle]

Theoretically, yes it will be around 50%. The biggest thing though about thuban is that it will be AM3, which unlike intel planning on changing sockets again, will at least be compatible with bulldozer.

Yeah, I'm as unimpressed as anyone at intel's socket-happy behavior. It's not even as much the lifespan of their new sockets that annoys me, but the inclusion of both LGA1156 and LGA1366 sockets. It angers me that it's impossible to buy a Core i3 or i5 dual-core, and then later upgrade to an i7 920. I think that they may just be moving too fast, and not planning ahead. I'm betting that socket 2011 (that's the amount of pins, right?) is going to be instituted for the sole reason to have enough bandwidth to support an 8-core processor. If you look at their upcoming 8 core Xeons, they're going to have a new server socket: Socket 1567. It goes to show that apparently 1366 pins isn't enough, sadly.

 

[bomberboysk]

Yeah, I'm as unimpressed as anyone at intel's socket-happy behavior. It's not even as much the lifespan of their new sockets that annoys me, but the inclusion of both LGA1156 and LGA1366 sockets. It angers me that it's impossible to buy a Core i3 or i5 dual-core, and then later upgrade to an i7 920. I think that they may just be moving too fast, and not planning ahead. I'm betting that socket 2011 (that's the amount of pins, right?) is going to be instituted for the sole reason to have enough bandwidth to support an 8-core processor. If you look at their upcoming 8 core Xeons, they're going to have a new server socket: Socket 1567. It goes to show that apparently 1366 pins isn't enough, sadly.

Doubt it, AM3 has 941pins(only 938 used on current processors) and hasnt run out of bandwidth, even with 6 core processors.

 

[linkin]

In those benchmarks of the i7-980x, they used a stupid resolution, that high and it's GPU limited. if they want to stress the cpu they need to use 1024x768 or similar.

 

[spynoodle]

Doubt it, AM3 has 941pins(only 938 used on current processors) and hasnt run out of bandwidth, even with 6 core processors.

Well, your guess is as good as mine as to why they would start a new socket. Maybe 8-core processors need an obscene amount of bandwidth for some reason? Maybe they're gonna make a triangle-shaped CPU?

 

[El Gappo]

So you guys want me to post up some proper benchmarks?

Release date it's mine

I have by doubts about bulldozer on am3, it's a completely new architecture and am3 at the end of the day is a rather slow socket. I think it deserves it's own new socket. Intel have a new one every few months for gods sake lol.

 

[spynoodle]

So you guys want me to post up some proper benchmarks?

Release date it's mine

I have by doubts about bulldozer on am3, it's a completely new architecture and am3 at the end of the day is a rather slow socket. I think it deserves it's own new socket. Intel have a new one every few months for gods sake lol.

Yeah, whatever you can put up is great. It'll be nice to see how this thing performs. Like linkin said: test it at a low resolution. Also, try opening a bunch of programs at once.

EDIT: Do you have i7s to test it against?