AMD intros its fastest quad-core, new Phenom II X6

By on January 5, 2011, 9:00 AM
Following the launch of the first Fusion chips for netbooks and entry-level notebooks AMD has turned its attention to desktops. Unfortunately, it will be a while before we see the company’s latest architecture in this space but at least they’ve made a few additions to their current Phenom II line with the 3.6GHz Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition and 2.9GHz Phenom II X6 1065T processors. The former is AMD's fastest quad-core processor to date, while the latter promises to combine high performance with a relatively low 95W TDP and the company's own Turbo CORE technology.

The Phenom II X4 975 comes with all the standard features of the quad-core Phenom II line: 45nm Deneb cores, 4x512K L2 cache, 6MB L3 cache, 125W TDP. Of course, being a Black Edition CPU the multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclockers to easily push it over its standard configuration. The price of $195 places it at just a few dollars above the 970 BE. Meanwhile, the Thuban-based Phenom II X6 1065T is now AMD’s quickest sub-100W hexa-core chip. We don't know the pricing for this unit yet but it'll probably be around the $200-230 mark looking at the rest of the lineup.

AMD is also adding a new product to its entry-level quad-core range with the introduction of the Phenom II X4 840. Despite the Phenom II branding, this chip is based on the Propus core typically found in the Athlon II line and as such features 4x512K L2 cache and no L3 cache. The chip has a TDP rating of 95W and is set to retail for around $100.




User Comments: 29

Got something to say? Post a comment
Xero07 said:

Ehh, I hate company naming schemes, If it looks like an Athlon, works like an Athlon and performs like an Athlon, it should be called an Athlon.

The 95W six core sounds like a reasonable deal though.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

If its based on the Anthlon Core surely that means it doesn't have the Phenom II features such as the extra Instruction sets and better Virtual management etc...

If so, why call it a Phenom II?? thats just lowering the already damaged Phenom II Name.

3DCGMODELER 3DCGMODELER said:

we want 12+ cores at 3.0+ ghz.. thats all

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Ooh I just had a thought (I know, amazing right?)... that x6 1065T with the ASUS M4A88T-I mini-ITX motherboard (which accepts at maximum 95w TDP processors), talk about one hell of a mini server/@home/VM server type system in a small footprint...

yRaz yRaz said:

burty117 said:

If so, why call it a Phenom II?? thats just lowering the already damaged Phenom II Name.

I don't understand your statement. As far as I'm aware the Phenom II name is a GREAT brand name. If you want to talk about the original Phenom then, yes, it sucked. Phenom II's are powerful processors that are also affordable. I really don't know how much more you could want....aside from overclocking ability and it has that too. So lets recap the pros of the phenom name

Price

Performance

Overclocking potential

Price

It will run Crysis

Price

CONS

slower than i7?

[PREEMPTIVE ARGUMENT]

I am also aware of the i7 performance relative to the phenom, but that isn't what we're discussing.

princeton princeton said:

yRaz said:

burty117 said:

If so, why call it a Phenom II?? thats just lowering the already damaged Phenom II Name.

I don't understand your statement. As far as I'm aware the Phenom II name is a GREAT brand name. If you want to talk about the original Phenom then, yes, it sucked. Phenom II's are powerful processors that are also affordable. I really don't know how much more you could want....aside from overclocking ability and it has that too. So lets recap the pros of the phenom name

Price

Performance

Overclocking potential

Price

It will run Crysis

Price

CONS

slower than i7?

[PREEMPTIVE ARGUMENT]

I am also aware of the i7 performance relative to the phenom, but that isn't what we're discussing.

Sorry to say but with the i5-2500K costing only around 200 bucks there's no point in buying an AMD unless you are just upgrading the CPU.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

yRaz said:

burty117 said:

If so, why call it a Phenom II?? thats just lowering the already damaged Phenom II Name.

I don't understand your statement. As far as I'm aware the Phenom II name is a GREAT brand name. If you want to talk about the original Phenom then, yes, it sucked. Phenom II's are powerful processors that are also affordable. I really don't know how much more you could want....aside from overclocking ability and it has that too. So lets recap the pros of the phenom name

Price

Performance

Overclocking potential

Price

It will run Crysis

Price

CONS

slower than i7?

[PREEMPTIVE ARGUMENT]

I am also aware of the i7 performance relative to the phenom, but that isn't what we're discussing.

I was saying that surely this cheaper Phenom II doesn't have the same performance or features as a normal Phenom II because its based on an Anthlon Core so therefore shouldn't really been called a Phenom II.

And I have a Phenom II myself, they are great especially for there price but...

Considering its the best AMD have to offer and when in comparisson to the i5's/i7's

I'd say the name has been damaged since Intel released those proccessors.

yRaz yRaz said:

Princeton said:

Sorry to say but with the i5-2500K costing only around 200 bucks there's no point in buying an AMD unless you are just upgrading the CPU.

[link]

i5 760 2.8ghz $205

[link]

phenom II X4 970 3.5ghz $185

not only is it faster, it's cheaper

also keep in mind that AMD motherboards are cheaper than intel(for the most part, not making a general sweeping statement.)

burty117 said:

I was saying that surely this cheaper Phenom II doesn't have the same performance or features as a normal Phenom II because its based on an Anthlon Core so therefore shouldn't really been called a Phenom II.

And I have a Phenom II myself, they are great especially for there price but...

Considering its the best AMD have to offer and when in comparisson to the i5's/i7's

I'd say the name has been damaged since Intel released those proccessors.

I don't think the name has been damaged at all. They are also being very competitive right now.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

yRaz said:

Princeton said:

Sorry to say but with the i5-2500K costing only around 200 bucks there's no point in buying an AMD unless you are just upgrading the CPU.

[link]

i5 760 2.8ghz $205

[link]

phenom II X4 970 3.5ghz $185

not only is it faster, it's cheaper

also keep in mind that AMD motherboards are cheaper than intel(for the most part, not making a general sweeping statement.)

burty117 said:

I was saying that surely this cheaper Phenom II doesn't have the same performance or features as a normal Phenom II because its based on an Anthlon Core so therefore shouldn't really been called a Phenom II.

And I have a Phenom II myself, they are great especially for there price but...

Considering its the best AMD have to offer and when in comparisson to the i5's/i7's

I'd say the name has been damaged since Intel released those proccessors.

I don't think the name has been damaged at all. They are also being very competitive right now.

WTF?!

the i5 is much faster, look at the techspot review for instance

[link]

notice how the i5 almost half's the loading time in the application test?

I like AMD too, don't get me wrong, my last 4 PC builds have been AMD Phenom II's but the one Intel one I have done was alot faster than the top of the line AMD stuff, although the Intel setup was £50 more.

princeton princeton said:

burty117 said:

yRaz said:

Princeton said:

Sorry to say but with the i5-2500K costing only around 200 bucks there's no point in buying an AMD unless you are just upgrading the CPU.

[link]

i5 760 2.8ghz $205

[link]

phenom II X4 970 3.5ghz $185

not only is it faster, it's cheaper

also keep in mind that AMD motherboards are cheaper than intel(for the most part, not making a general sweeping statement.)

burty117 said:

I was saying that surely this cheaper Phenom II doesn't have the same performance or features as a normal Phenom II because its based on an Anthlon Core so therefore shouldn't really been called a Phenom II.

And I have a Phenom II myself, they are great especially for there price but...

Considering its the best AMD have to offer and when in comparisson to the i5's/i7's

I'd say the name has been damaged since Intel released those proccessors.

I don't think the name has been damaged at all. They are also being very competitive right now.

WTF?!

the i5 is much faster, look at the techspot review for instance

[link]

notice how the i5 almost half's the loading time in the application test?

I like AMD too, don't get me wrong, my last 4 PC builds have been AMD Phenom II's but the one Intel one I have done was alot faster than the top of the line AMD stuff, although the Intel setup was £50 more.

Also he must have misread my comment. I said the 2500K, not the 760. Even so the 760 is faster than the phenom II 970, not slower. Not to mention in the review you posted the OLD 750 was the one being used, and it was still faster by a noticeable margin.

So lets take a look. The 970 competes with the i5-760(and actually loses in many cases, so it isn't faster). Maybe you misread but I said the i5-2500K. If you take a look at the review here the 2500K out performs or matches the i7-975. And the 975 is a far superior chip to even AMDs fastest 6 core cpu. So no, AMD is anything but competitive right now. I can get an ASUS LGA 1155 board for $150-$200 and it will exceed the features of an equivalently priced AM3 board.

Even if you pay $50 more for an Intel system. You'll have payed more than that for the electricity to run an AMD one. Sandy bridge only uses 1/2 to 3/4 the power of AMD chips. I do admit if you already run an AMD system it's cheaper to buy just an AMD cpu. But for any user who wants better efficiency and performance per dollar the i5-2500K is superior to any AMD chip you can find. I saw the 2500K at canada computers reservations for only $204 CAD. That amounts to less than $200 USD usually, CAD is slightly higher ATM but that's rare.

yRaz yRaz said:

princeton said:

Also he must have misread my comment. I said the 2500K, not the 760. Even so the 760 is faster than the phenom II 970, not slower. Not to mention in the review you posted the OLD 750 was the one being used, and it was still faster by a noticeable margin.

So lets take a look. The 970 competes with the i5-760(and actually loses in many cases, so it isn't faster). Maybe you misread but I said the i5-2500K. If you take a look at the review here the 2500K out performs or matches the i7-975. And the 975 is a far superior chip to even AMDs fastest 6 core cpu. So no, AMD is anything but competitive right now. I can get an ASUS LGA 1155 board for $150-$200 and it will exceed the features of an equivalently priced AM3 board.

Even if you pay $50 more for an Intel system. You'll have payed more than that for the electricity to run an AMD one. Sandy bridge only uses 1/2 to 3/4 the power of AMD chips. I do admit if you already run an AMD system it's cheaper to buy just an AMD cpu. But for any user who wants better efficiency and performance per dollar the i5-2500K is superior to any AMD chip you can find. I saw the 2500K at canada computers reservations for only $204 CAD. That amounts to less than $200 USD usually, CAD is slightly higher ATM but that's rare.

I have been out of the loop for a while, my last build was December 09 . I'm going to have to stay with AMD for overclocking only on this one. I built my rig around overclocking so power isn't much of an issue for me. I understand that intel can go higher than AMD in some areas, but I don't want to risk spending too much on a CPU that I might kill.

as far as competition goes the i5 is faster but I'm sure it would be priced much higher if the phenom II didn't pose some kind of threat.

Leeky Leeky said:

I think you'd need to be doing something seriously wrong when overclocking in order to risk killing a new CPU, regardless of who made it.

Extreme overclocking aside, the only two things I can see that will seriously reduce CPU life are voltage, or temperature issues by pushing your luck, or setting them to plain stupid levels of voltage and then not cooling them adequately.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

People should just get a 955 and clock it to 3.6ghz or a 965BE.

Honestly, this clocks make little to any real world difference. I have mine at factory 3.4ghz and it runs absolutely fine.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

we want 12+ cores at 3.0+ ghz.. thats all

Nah, surly you'de just settle for 11 cores wouldn't ya?

Mizzou Mizzou said:

For my everyday system I went with AMD because at the time it was considerably cheaper than the Intel alternative. Currently using a 965BE running a 24/7 4.0Ghz overclock and it snaps though whatever you throw at. The 975BE is a nice progression for the Phenom II series and is an excellent upgrade for anyone already invested in AMD.

I think you'd need to be doing something seriously wrong when overclocking in order to risk killing a new CPU, regardless of who made it.

Extreme overclocking aside, the only two things I can see that will seriously reduce CPU life are voltage, or temperature issues by pushing your luck, or setting them to plain stupid levels of voltage and then not cooling them adequately.

Absolutely spot on.

DokkRokken said:

Another day, another 100MHz bump for the PhenomII X4.

But a 95 watt hexa-core? Now that's what I call progress.

Guest said:

To All AMD Fanboys,

Rejoice for AMD has released a new phenom II.

but seriously who will buy a old junk cpu architecture when the 1st generation i7 and the sandy bridge makes phenom II looks like a new kid on the block and i5 760 is more efficient. Toms have a great review regarding the efficiency of the sandy bridge and phenom II bites the dust. Seriously AMD should put their money to R&D than releasing new processors from old architecture.

But then I just hope AMD will not be seen as a BUDGET company in the near future. They should thank Intel they are still in the cpu market. Intel can give them a one-hit-KO. Has everyone wondered why intel wont release an i3 (sandy bridge) with four cores??? AMD should sell Bulldozers (tractor) lolololololol.

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I just love it when fanboys brings plastic knifes to a gunfight.

No one care about what you have to say, really. Please stop putting your life at risk by defending what you think is the best buy you have made so far so you dont feel stupid when someone tells you something they bought they thought was better for them.

Please for the love of god... I would really love to see a thread of argued commentaries not looking for "the best" answer but showing a different point of view, really really love that.

zogo said:

Actually there is no point in this argument at all. There are only few programs and games that can run on more than two cores. The software isn't catching up with the hardware. So it's all marketing stuff.

Having quad core on 3.0 Ghz is quite enough for everything to run perfectly.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

There are only few programs and games that can run on more than two cores

huh?, you would be hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of games released over the last year that only use 2 cores.

There is quite a lot of software that is mulit threaded.

Having quad core on 3.0 Ghz is quite enough for everything to run perfectly

really? why? , because you have one? how do you know what I use my computer for? and "a quad core"? there is a huge range of quad cores out there from Phenom I's to I7 2600K. The performance gap between them is enormous....so which one @ 3.0Ghz is perfect to run everything?

Guest said:

Anyone heard of the best bang for the buck.. Grab a brain people.. most don't have a pocket full of it. so grow up. Buy what you can afford and do the best bang for the buck..

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

First AMD comes out with Radeon 68x0 cards which are slower than the Radeon 58x0. Now there's a Phenom that's actually an Athlon. Something bad is going on at AMD marketing.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

First AMD comes out with Radeon 68x0 cards which are slower than the Radeon 58x0.

How exactly did you reached this conclusion? The reviews which I have read on Techspot, Tom's, Anand's, or Guru's all show they are bit faster than the older siblings.

Saintnsinner said:

But at least there's no DRM (Digital Rights Management) on any of these AMD chips. No thankyou Intel, I'm waiting for Fusion, come AMD don't make me wait too long.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

But at least there's no DRM (Digital Rights Management) on any of these AMD chips. No thankyou Intel, I'm waiting for Fusion, come AMD don't make me wait too long.

So Intel use Digital Rights Management on some of thier chips? Hmmm...Never heard that one...

Andrek Andrek said:

Naively can I ask what crysis is?

Leeky Leeky said:

This is Crysis: http://www.ea.com/games/crysis

Its billed as one of the most computer intensive games of its release period, and often referred to as the benchmark for finding out if your computer is powerful (maybe a better word is tough) enough. If it runs Crysis, its said you own a pretty decent spec computer, as weaker computers struggle to even run it, never mind play it happily.

This is where all the "Yeah but can it run Crysis" comments originate from.

It also happens to be (in my eyes) a fantastic game as well.

Andrek Andrek said:

Ah I see!

Thanks for that info Leeky

Guest said:

He may be referring to the new remote kill switches in the sandy bridge CPUs?

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.