Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Yahoo redesigns Flickr, adds 1 terabyte of free storage and more
The Phenom II X6 1090T BE is expected to hit shelves at just under $300, making it three times more affordable than the Core i7 980X. At this price point, this 3.2GHz hexa-core AMD processor will be sitting alongside the Core i7 930 and Core i7 860 from Intel. Let me remind you that this is a fully unlocked Black Edition chip that depending on how it overclocks could be a real bargain for those of you willing to tweak your hardware a bit.
Those looking for something even cheaper, today's AMD announcement will not disappoint. The Phenom II X6 1055T will be sold for just $220, a mere $20 more than the Core i7 750. This should make for an interesting shoot out.
Read the complete review.
User Comments: 45
Got something to say? Post a comment-
There's two errors in the review. One is the Phenom II X4 956, and the i7 750 xD. Anyway, nice processors from AMD
. I might consider getting the X4 and unlocking it 
. -
Well, hopefully if Bulldozer is not AM3 compatible it will still be able to beat Intel on performance or significantly on price/performance so your above mentioned decision will be the stupid course to take.
I'd like to say that including core utilisation with the gaming benchmarks was really enlightening and a great feature of this review.
I agree that the new CPU's are underwhelming, though I might still consider buying one as an upgrade for my 710 when their prices come down.
Why do you think they keep pushing it back, its "hey, buldozer this quarter? oh sh*t intel 6 core, lets push it back a year, we need 50% more production out of this cpu."
-
The Bit-Tech review branded the Crossfire IV as a slow poke on the SATA 6GB tests.
Is that impacting your tests? I have seen results all over the place for this board on SATA and USB.
I think the sweet spot for the X6 is in Adobe CS5 64 bit. You can demo the whole thing right now at Adobe.
An overclocked 1090T/890FX board with MAX ram, SATA 6GB drives and a GTX 285 should give the best bang for the buck with the Mercury Playback Engine in Adobe Premiere.
At least that is what I am hoping for.
-
How would they compare in virtual PC environments, since hyper-threading should be turned off does the six dedicated cores from AMD out perform the four from Intel if all cores are being utilized?
-
princeton said:
Guest said:How would they compare in virtual PC environments, since hyper-threading should be turned off does the six dedicated cores from AMD out perform the four from Intel if all cores are being utilized?
Why should hyperthreading be turned off? If your going to say parts of the I7 that make it better should be turned off then the X6 cpus should have 2 cores disabled because they also tested quad core cpus.
-
Okay I am not trying to be rude but when gaming the eye cannot see the difference after 60fps so yes the i7 does perform better you can not see it so how does it help you? It really doesn't. Think about it this way. You are showing off two things and one is doing way better than the other but there is no need for it when what you are trying to do is lowering the efficiency. This is the same thing with graphics and frames per second. Our eye and brain can only percieve 60fps so when people say they can get 300fps out of their card and CPU I just say so what. I get 120 fps and I know it does not matter to much when you go above the 60 mark. I am just throwing that out there to all the guys dissing the CPU because of the fps rating. It is a great CPU that just needs to be tinkered with and I am also just sayin 200 compared to 1000 for a CPU is quite a bit of difference. AMD keep it going!
P.S. Yes I personally own a Intel processor but I am switching over to an AMD for better support under linux.
-
StaffSteve said:
Okay I am not trying to be rude but when gaming the eye cannot see the difference after 60fps so yes the i7 does perform better you can not see it so how does it help you? It really doesn't. Think about it this way. You are showing off two things and one is doing way better than the other but there is no need for it when what you are trying to do is lowering the efficiency. This is the same thing with graphics and frames per second. Our eye and brain can only percieve 60fps so when people say they can get 300fps out of their card and CPU I just say so what. I get 120 fps and I know it does not matter to much when you go above the 60 mark. I am just throwing that out there to all the guys dissing the CPU because of the fps rating. It is a great CPU that just needs to be tinkered with and I am also just sayin 200 compared to 1000 for a CPU is quite a bit of difference. AMD keep it going!P.S. Yes I personally own a Intel processor but I am switching over to an AMD for better support under linux.
A. Those were just sample games. So newer more demanding games will run better on the more powerful CPU.
B. You are completely wrong with your initial statement anyway. Well perhaps not completely wrong. Yes our eyes cannot tell the difference once going over 60fps but we can certainly feel the difference. Any experienced gamer will tell you that there is a massive difference in the way fast paced first person shooters feel when running at 60fps to say 100fps.
-
Things r pretty diff actually..Like current gen games uses only 4 cores..May b wen games start usin 6 cores,Phenom X6 might take d lead i guess....
-
Did the author plagiarize this: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom_ii_x
_1090t_be_1055t,8.html or vice versa? -
-
StaffSteve said:Its the same Steve.
He always copies my work.
-
Staff
We should really consult a lawyer about it.
-
I hear Rambus' legal team are between cases at the moment......ka-ching!
-
Staff
Haha. Perfect. Something really has to be done about this Steve guy...
-
StaffSteve said:I hear Rambus' legal team are between cases at the moment......ka-ching!
hahahahah
goldHaha. Perfect. Something really has to be done about this Steve guy...Yeah but the question is what?
To try and keep this on topic we are looking at the new AMD Phenom II X6 1075T processor next week
-
Haha. Perfect. Something really has to be done about this Steve guy...
You mean the 'Steve's' don't you Matthew?
...but which Steve is the evil one ...the LH Steve , or the TS Steve?
-
i have my amd phenom 2 x6 1090t running on liquid clocked to 5.7ghz.......i wanna see anyone do that with their precious intel. i have always been a amd fan but i lost what respect i had for intel when they started putting their overpriced junk into apples,when they did that the statement they made was yuppies can now play on their apples while drinking their starbucks and be using intel.....how sweet
-
i have my amd phenom 2 x6 1090t running on liquid clocked to 5.7ghz.
oh come now... Not unless the "liquid" is LN2, or you won the binning lottery of historic and freakish proportions. Cant wait for the PS'd screen shot though.
-
i have my amd phenom 2 x6 1090t running on liquid clocked to 5.7ghz...
WOW!!! Not bad considering the world record for the 1090t on H2O is 4.9GHz ...oh, and here's the wPrime run....
i wanna see anyone do that with their precious intel....You mean like 5.3GHz with a 980X on H2O? (hex-core) or 5.8GHz best stable OC on water for an Intel CPU ?
i have always been a .......a little man who must be quiet ?
amd fanI bet AMD are thrilled
but i lost what respect i had for intel when they started putting their overpriced junk into applesBecause everyone knows IBM based PowerPC CPU's are the way of the future.
when they did that the statement they made was yuppies can now play on their apples while drinking their starbucks and be using intel.....how sweet...while you stand outside fogging up the glass and obscuring the view whilst panhandling no doubt. What's your schtick?....
-
Very nice review. I also read the review on the 1100T BE and I've decided on holding off on upgrading. I'm running a Phenom II X4 955 BE currently and I've been able to overclock it to 3.4 GHz stably simply by bumping up the clock multiplier - no FSB bump or voltage increase needed. Since I use my system mainly for gaming the extra 2 cores in an X6 won't amount for much at this point in time - I pretty much figured that from the get-go since very few games seem to take advantage of multi-core so having 4 or 6 cores vs 2 makes little difference in most cases. Being able to potentially OC in the 4GHz range would be nice, but not at the price vs. performance factor at this point. When the CPU prices drop a bit more I will consider it.
The biggest advantage in my opinion to the AMD processors has been the ability to upgrade without having to change motherboards/platforms. I upgraded from an AMD X2 core to an X3 to my current CPU using the same motherboard, and I could upgrade to the lastest x6 core if I wanted to. The X2 processor was from another system where the MB bit the dust, but the AM2/AM2+/AM3 socket has allowed me to upgrade easily and rather inexpensively as prices have fallen over the past couple of years. And if I wanted to replace my current motherboard and be able upgrade to DDR3 memory, etc. I still could with another MB using the same chipset so I wouldn't have to install the OS from scratch - and generally those motherboards are less expensive than their Intel counterparts. Not so easily done with Intel CPU's and motherboards - your Core 2 Duo simply isn't going to fit into that i7 motherboard and allow you to upgrade the CPU later.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Cameras
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.