AMD CPU Refresh: 5 New Phenom II & Athlon II Models

By on September 21, 2010, 3:25 AM
AMD is replenishing its ranks with five “new” processors which include an ultra affordable dual-core model and a modestly priced hexa-core processor.

While the Phenom II X6 1055T operates at 2.80GHz and the 1090T Black Edition at 3.20GHz, the new 1075T slots in-between them with an operating frequency of 3.0GHz. Along with this new hexa-core processor we also have the Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition, Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition, Athlon II X4 645 and Athlon II X2 265.

What we have here are five new AMD processors, none of which depart from what we had already. On the upside though, AMD has introduced all of these models at existent price points which will translate in small price cuts for older processors and overall savings to consumers.

Read the complete review.





User Comments: 26

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

so the core i7-980x and i7-930 systems were tested using 3 x 2gb ddr3 for a total of 6gb memory while the rest (i5-760/i5-650-i3-540 and amd procs) are tested using 2 x 2gb ddr3 for a total of 4gb memory?

isn't the results on gaming performance a reflection of the "extra 2 gb memory" versus that of the other tested computer systems?

-malakaayo

Staff
Steve Steve said:

No the extra memory makes zero difference to the frame rate.

malakaayo said:

thanks for the reply steve...

i am no geek so i asked that question...

seronx said:

[-Steve-] said:

No the extra memory makes zero difference to the frame rate.

Opinion 50% Meh, 50% Wha?)

Technically, It will Triple-channel equals faster texture pop up times than dual-channel the extra memory doesn't do anything in games because all games are 32bit and are locked at 2GBs

Asrock X58 Extreme3 (Intel X58) <--there is a Extreme 4 version

Asrock P55 Extreme4 (Intel P55)

Asus P5E3 Premium (Intel X48) <--- why did you stop using asrock?

Gigabyte 890FXA-UD7 (AMD 890FX) <--pretty outrageous you used this(Wouldn't it be more economical to use UD5?)

And if you believe memory doesn't do sh*t to the games performance

[link]

Use only one stick next time

---

Comment:

Strangest thing is that they didn't even try to overclock the 965BE and rename it internally

because at that voltage on the 970 I am pretty sure the 965BE would be at 3.8GHz and be pretty stable

1.4 Volts and it still uses 125 Watts of power damn it must be an overclocking beast that 970

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Wow could we be sillier and take things further out of context?

First I will address your memory capacity concern. The first user was concerned about the difference between 4GB and 6GB of which I said there is zero and that is 100% accurate, especially in the games we have tested. I said nothing about using 2GB of memory, there is a difference in performance when only using 2GB of memory when opposed to 4GB or 6GB of memory.

Next what exactly is your point with the motherboard crack? I don't get it? There is an Extreme4 version, that's great news. We did not use an Asrock LGA775 board because we do not have one, where is the crime? Are you serious about the 890FX motherboard being outrageous, like it makes any difference in terms of performance. We are not comparing motherboards, we are comparing processors.

seronx said:

[-Steve-] said:

Wow could we be sillier and take things further out of context?

First I will address your memory capacity concern. The first user was concerned about the difference between 4GB and 6GB of which I said there is zero and that is 100% accurate, especially in the games we have tested. I said nothing about using 2GB of memory, there is a difference in performance when only using 2GB of memory when opposed to 4GB or 6GB of memory.

Next what exactly is your point with the motherboard crack? I don't get it? There is an Extreme4 version, that's great news. We did not use an Asrock LGA775 board because we do not have one, where is the crime? Are you serious about the 890FX motherboard being outrageous, like it makes any difference in terms of performance. We are not comparing motherboards, we are comparing processors.

1. I recommended only using 1 stick of 4GB

2. You started to BS(What I mean by this is that you said 2GB would be different than 4GB, when I only said games only use 2GB)

3. It is proven that if you use different motherboards from different manufactures the review tends to become BS

4. Different type of QA(Quality Assurance) for every single company

5. If you really wanted to prove CPU performance you would have singled out the CPU being utmost important

5a. Neglect RAM use only 1 slot 4GB

5b. Single out a motherboard manufacture, or go for the best motherboard(Which is impossible to do)

6. CPU performance is affected by dual-channel and triple-channel effects

7. Wouldn't it be more realistic comparison if you were comparing it to a fellow motherboards?

8. I didn't call the 890FX outrageous just that you were using an XL-ATX motherboard outrageous

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I will just leave it at that, you have said all you need to.

seronx said:

[-Steve-] said:

I will just leave it at that, you have said all you need to.

I just want to leave another critical note

Were you using the same heat sink and thermal paste?

[link]

I don't see heatsink or thermal paste :\

Nor do I see the case

or pictures of the case

or Temperature of the air

What settings did you use in each bios?

Did you leave them at stock

or did you do a few changes unbeknown to us?

princeton princeton said:

seronx said:

[-Steve-] said:

I will just leave it at that, you have said all you need to.

I just want to leave another critical note

Were you using the same heat sink and thermal paste?

[link]

I don't see heatsink or thermal paste :\

Nor do I see the case

or pictures of the case

or Temperature of the air

What settings did you use in each bios?

Did you leave them at stock

or did you do a few changes unbeknown to us?

Although your a troll and a terrible one at that, I think your not aware this is trolling and are just retarded.

Cueto_99 said:

I think it was a very good review, you should realize at techspot headquarters, they don't have a full armory of PC components to build homogeneus systems with different platforms, and still, the results and conclusions shown pretty much reflect what you'll gain or lose if you decided to buy these new processors... anyways, although reviews are based on benchmarks and objective tests, there is always a subjective part to them, and that should be respected and tolerated...

BTW, thanks for the review Steve, personally I find it very interesting, I use a Phenom II X4 955 and thanks to its unlock multiplier I'm running it almost as that new PII X4 970, so I believe for those of use that hace a Blk Edition AMD, there is no need to upgrade.

Guest said:

Thanks TechSpot!

That was a great review, quick too, seeing as the processors were just released.

I totally agree, it is somewhat weird to have 1, 2, 3, 4... around 11 or 12 processors all under a $100, although it does give people on a budget a lot of options..!

Guest said:

It is so disappointing to see AMD trailing almost everywhere and not making grounds even on i5-750. This is a mid priced Intel processor (@ Microcenter i5-760 is 169 I assume that i5-750 would be lower). AMD could release hundreds of such processor, like Steve said, it is getting ridiculous. None of them could make a difference. AMD is becoming the cheap/very poor man choice.

en0nym0us en0nym0us said:

It's amazing how they can slightly OC a CPU and release it as a "new" processor.

Also, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 has been $165 for quite some time now.

This reminds me of Intel. Their i3/i5/i7 has been out since the beginning of the year and they still advertise the commercial as "Introducing the new Intel processor family".

SeiveD said:

Well, triple-channel vs dual-channel should allow for higher transfer rate to/from memory. How much that helps? Probably depends on the scenario itself.

And as for AMD becoming the poor man's choice, well.. It's great that their prices are lower, last I checked their prices were better in terms of performance/dollar than Intel's equivalent processors. But AMD is also working on Bulldozer which we should see... next year, was it? That'll be interesting. It should directly compete with the core-i7 crap. I won't deny that AMD's been slow to the punch this time though, they got lazy and let Intel take the lead, and for far too long.

Guest said:

will there be a mobile refresh before bulldozer?

DokkRokken said:

Yeah, referring to AMD as a 'poor-man's choice' is only relevant if you care about benchmarks. As you can plainly see, both brands trade blows in the synthetics and encoding. As for gaming, all CPU's, when paired with the 5850 give you excellent performance across the board. So the AMD chip only gets like, 180FPS compared an Intel's 200. Is that really a meaningful reason to pay an extra amount for the Intel?

If you're a 'savvy' consumer that just wants to work on essay's and play a game, then AMD platform is the better option when cost is factored in. There's really no major compromise whatsoever unless you spend more time analyzing games instead of playing them. And if you're into that, and arguing over mundane numbers is your kind of game, then by all means, roll with Intel.

teklord teklord said:

180 FPS vs 200 FPS means 16xAA vs 32AA for constant 60 FPS. i7 for me.

SeiveD said:

The GPU is going to be handling your anti-aliasing. The CPU should have little, if anything, to do with that.

en0nym0us en0nym0us said:

180 FPS vs 200 FPS means 16xAA vs 32AA for constant 60 FPS. i7 for me.

I am not understanding your statement. If you get 180 FPS with AMD CPU and 200 with Intel CPU... it wouldn't matter because anyone (smart) using vsync will still get 60/75/120 etc FPS on either CPU. AA/AF doesn't really fall into the CPU catagory. With that being said... the extra chunk of money really isn't worth the 20 FPS increase that you will never see/use.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

What the two above me said, the GPU handles the AA....

....and really?? 32AA, oh please! BTW 32AA is much more than a 10% performance hit

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Since you guys want to argue over this here is some more info.

This is an article I published using the Radeon HD 5970 with the Core i7 and Phenom II X4 processors with heavy use off AA in games...

[link]

Here is a similar article using a wider range of processors without AA enabled...

[link]

en0nym0us en0nym0us said:

, post: 936344"]Since you guys want to argue over this here is some more info.

This is an article I published using the Radeon HD 5970 with the Core i7 and Phenom II X4 processors with heavy use off AA in games...

[link]

Here is a similar article using a wider range of processors without AA enabled...

[link]

I didn't mean to argue or prefer one brand over the other. What I was trying to understand was why would someone argue over a 180 to 200 FPS difference when I (and most others) am going to lock my frames with vsync anyways.

I only glanced at the links you provided. From what I seen in that quick period of time, it seems as if the Phenom II X4 965 runs more efficient when clocked to 3.8Ghz. I just got my 965 setup and finished installing a fresh copy of Windows7. I look forward to OCing the CPU to 3.8Ghz and testing the performance difference from stock speeds via performance and not by FPS.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I didn't single anyone out, I just meant in general the argument is off topic. Anyway what you are seeing is not better scaling by the Phenom II X4 but rather a GPU bottleneck. The Radeon HD 5970 has become the weakest link and therefore the Phenom II X4 and Core i7 deliver the same performance. This will be the case in any game that is more GPU dependent than CPU.

Guest said:

way i see it 955 BE vs core i7 gaming you spend half the money for 85 to 95% of the performance. So gaming wise a heavy gamer would be wise to get a 955, one heck of a motherboard, and still have enough cash left over for a 100 dollar more expensive graphics card. or liquid cooling solution and jump to 99%-110% of the performance using the same card.

champmanfan said:

RE: Page 4.

What I don't understand is how the cheap i7 930 @2.8GHz outperforms the premium i7 980x @ 3.33GHz by 17% on the SiSoft Sandra Memory Bandwidth Performance test. Why did the 980x only come second?

Of the tests I've read to date, normally the i7 980x comes tops because of the higher default clocks when comparing to the slower 'cost-effective' offering of the 920/930.

Andrek Andrek said:

mmm thanks techspot! this has given me a good idea on affordablilty to CPUs i'm currently looking at!

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.