# AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.20 GHz



## Omega (Apr 29, 2010)

After a long period of scaling down its processors both in price and performance, AMD finally got some fresh reinforcements to continue the fight with Intel. The new Phenom II X6 1090T and its 3.20 GHz clocked six cores, aim to take AMD to new heights, where Intel's Core i7 processors were untouchable until now. 

*Show full review*


----------



## wahdangun (May 20, 2010)

wew, i never tough it's gonna perform this good.

i'm glad that now, amd can really compete with intel in higher up


----------



## Zubasa (May 20, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> wew, i never tough it's gonna perform this good.
> 
> i'm glad that now, amd can really compete with intel in higher up


Not as good clock for clock, but I will have to say good enough 
Although I would like to see a better approach at Turbo Core.
AMD's Turbo Core is kind of broken as it is right now in terms of core voltage


----------



## Easo (May 20, 2010)

This will probably be my next upgrade.

P.S.
Your version of Dawn of War II is kinda obsolete, its 2.2.2 now, which will bring changes to performance. (yes, i am fan of that game xD)


----------



## Omega (May 20, 2010)

Easo said:


> P.S.
> Your version of Dawn of War II is kinda obsolete, its 2.2.2 now, which will bring changes to performance. (yes, i am fan of that game xD)



To update results to v2.2 I would have to have all the processors and motherboards at my disposal at all times, which i don't


----------



## DanTheMan (May 20, 2010)

I will enjoy working with this processor when I build new at years end. Going from a dual core 2.3 to this baby will be a very nice change of pace. Thanks Omega for a great review! BTW what was the issue with the MSI motherboard?


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 20, 2010)

nice review, very interesting power jump when oced, kinda glad to see that posted out now rather than wait to see the compalints of system blue screens when running an X6 and 5970 quadfire on a 1kw psu lol

all in all it's not a bad cpu, but it really doesn't look like the 6 core is mattering all that much. I think i'll stick to quads for now.


----------



## Omega (May 20, 2010)

DanTheMan said:


> BTW what was the issue with the MSI motherboard?



Random BSOD's or freezing when some bigger applications are started. But we got pre-production sample so you don't have to worry if buying off shelves. Great motherboard, when it works


----------



## DanTheMan (May 20, 2010)

I plan on using the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula board you used. I see a lot of great reviews with great overclocking potential. I will not go with the Extreme version coming out later - (prefer ATI cards). I think the Hydra chip setup in the Extreme will be a problem to setup and work correctly. Also I see a lot of folks on Newegg who complain about the Northbridge overheating due to the heatsink not being fastened down correctly. Did you notice this in your sample?


----------



## Mistral (May 20, 2010)

With the way DoW2 autoupdates, I guess to keep consistency the bench is running cracked...

Anyhow, great review of a pretty interesting processor. And the overclocking power consumption chart is a killer. Almost double? Intense.


----------



## Omega (May 20, 2010)

Mistral said:


> And the overclocking power consumption chart is a killer. Almost double? Intense.



I was surprised to see those numbers myself, but it was double-triple checked. Settings in BIOS were set to 1.50 V and the board would add some overvolting up to 1.55 V when under load. Phenom II X4 965 would hit some 300-350 W with 1.50 V.



DanTheMan said:


> Also I see a lot of folks on Newegg who complain about the Northbridge overheating due to the heatsink not being fastened down correctly. Did you notice this in your sample?



I noticed high temps on NB/SB/PW cooler, but I didn't disassemble it to see if bad contact was the issue. Just slapped small quite fan on it to keep it under control.


----------



## Zubasa (May 20, 2010)

Omega said:


> I was surprised to see those numbers myself, but it was double-triple checked. Settings in BIOS were set to 1.50 V and the board would add some overvolting up to 1.55 V when under load. Phenom II X4 965 would hit some 300-350 W with 1.50 V.


Most likely due to the 1.5V+ that you were pushing through that chip, other chips might do those clocks with lower voltage 
I guess better cooling should also help.


----------



## Delta6326 (May 20, 2010)

Wow, i was expecting more, with being higher clocked and having six cores. Sounds like I would be getting a i7 860 cheaper and faster in almost everything. But the good ole Phenom II X4 is still kicking. I probable won't upgrade for at least 1-2 years


----------



## Zubasa (May 20, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> Wow, i was expecting more, with being higher clocked and having six cores. Sounds like I would be getting a i7 860 cheaper and faster in almost everything. But the good ole Phenom II X4 is still kicking. I probable won't upgrade for at least 1-2 years


A 1055T should also top out around those clock with good mobo and ram 
There you go for an i5 price super value upgrade.


----------



## Valdez (May 20, 2010)

yogurt_21 said:


> nice review, very interesting power jump when oced, .



Because the vcore is pretty high.


----------



## Valdez (May 20, 2010)

Omega said:


> To update results to v2.2 I would have to have all the processors and motherboards at my disposal at all times, which i don't



Also cinebench r11.5 is out there for a while


----------



## erocker (May 20, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> Wow, i was expecting more, with being higher clocked and having six cores. Sounds like I would be getting a i7 860 cheaper and faster in almost everything. But the good ole Phenom II X4 is still kicking. I probable won't upgrade for at least 1-2 years



I'm thinking overclocking and stability were affected by temperatures in this case. 4.1ghz is excellent while using a smaller air cooler that isn't much better than stock. With Phenom II's if you keep them cool, things like voltage can be lowered and frequencies can be increased.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 20, 2010)

I swear ever time my room buys something for his computer, you guys do a review on something in that area.  This review is 4 in a row.

I believe the only thing really holding AMD back is the memory bandwidth.  The triple channel or quad channel should provide even their current CPU's more breathing room and I hope that is the direct they are planning to go with the next architecture.


----------



## cdawall (May 20, 2010)

erocker said:


> I'm thinking overclocking and stability were affected by temperatures in this case. 4.1ghz is excellent while using a smaller air cooler that isn't much better than stock. With Phenom II's if you keep them cool, things like voltage can be lowered and frequencies can be increased.



such as with the V10 i was able to do the same 4.15ghz with 1.45v which would drop power usage a good chunk.

chip performed very well IMO and in stock vs stock situation OEM's may be able to push this as a better cpu bang for the buck wise.


----------



## freaksavior (May 20, 2010)

Wow, thats very surprising.


----------



## cdawall (May 20, 2010)

with an overclock the i7 chips probably still beat it but its getting alot closer


----------



## mrcmark (May 20, 2010)

Nice review! 

I just noticed that the temperatures for 4.1 ghz reached 76 degress. Isn't the maximum of the 1090t is only at 63 degrees?


----------



## mechtech (May 20, 2010)

Nice review Omega.

I was wondering if you tested the undervolting propeties at stock clock speeds?

I know I can undervolt my 955BE quite a bit and it does drop load power consumption quite a bit also.

Will you be testing this with the 1090T?

Thanks


----------



## AsphyxiA (May 20, 2010)

I hate the fact that these use so much power when overclocking, however, that is a universal caveat, but still 440 watts .

I am glad to see that the differences in performance between Intel and AMD are finally drawing closer to each other though.


----------



## erocker (May 20, 2010)

AsphyxiA said:


> I hate the fact that these use so much power when overclocking, however, that is a universal caveat, but still 440 watts .
> 
> I am glad to see that the differences in performance between Intel and AMD are finally drawing closer to each other though.



440 watts total system power.


----------



## Omega (May 20, 2010)

mrcmark said:


> I just noticed that the temperatures for 4.1 ghz reached 76 degress. Isn't the maximum of the 1090t is only at 63 degrees?



Clock speeds automatically scale down to 1600 MHz when you reach ~ 80 degrees.



mechtech said:


> Will you be testing this with the 1090T?
> Thanks



I'll check that one for you, sit tight.


----------



## trt740 (May 20, 2010)

Nice review


----------



## Yukikaze (May 20, 2010)

I actually like the 1055T a whole lot more than the 1090T. 

Over here the 1090T is quite a bit more expensive (Close to the 100$ mark per CPU) than the i7 920/930 lineup, with which it is pretty much tied performance wise (Which is quite the feat for AMD, actually, even if it took them six cores. On the other hand, they just pretty much matched the performance provided by Intel 1.5 years ago). The i7s, however, bring a platform capable of both SLI and Crossfire to the table due to the price difference (Unless one were to take a 1090T in a 770 or 785 chipset motherboard, but that makes far less sense as an enthusiast system - Works fine for non overclockers, though). If the i7 860 is taken as competition, then the 1090T is even less attractive over here due to the cheaper (When compared to X58s) P55 boards.

The 1055T on the other hand is absolutely bloody amazing for its price. Over here it sells at exactly the same price point of the i5 750 and it becomes harder to justify the P55 setup in this case (Especially when locally a 1055T and a Crosshair III can be had for the price of a 1090T if you shop around). I have a buddy who has a 770-chipset based AMD setup who could really benefit from an upgrade to a 1055T right now.


----------



## rampage (May 20, 2010)

good review, strait to the point

i just got a 1090T black edition, i love it, altho they do need plenty of volts to get a high OC, i settled on 3.8 @ 1.35v x 6 cores and a turbo of 3 cores @ 4.3 ghz @ 1.45v 33c load,

also the temps seam to be out by 10>15c comparing in windows to bios (windows is cooler), time will tell, im expecting to see in a  few month these chips burning out possibly because of people running them a bit warm


----------



## chaotic_uk (May 20, 2010)

why you still using cat 9.12 drivers ?


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 21, 2010)

*I love great tech from every one*

I've always choosen intel for power & performance, but I will build an amd  x6 at some point just to experience it my self.  Truthfully I got ticked when the hardcore amd guys started trumpeting of the new world order because of this cpu and how it can match/beat  intel's six core. In fact it posted this just to tick them off:

Love AMD video cards, great value on the six core but.... 
Hyundai can make a car that looks like a Mercedes, has all the features Of a Mercedes, and cost 1/8 of the price of a Mercedes but its still a Hyundai. Having a six core that can barely handle an intel quad is like having a Ferrari with the performance of a mini van... a Hyundai mini van. 
Still great value for the classification of a six core, but some perfer 100% angus beef not salisbury steak. Nothing against Hyundai or salisbury steak 

But it was great to see a straight up comparison of the 1090t with its pears.  I have a better idea of its capabilities.  I'm workling on an i7 860 build presently. When i'm done, this will one of my future projects!  I love good tech no matter who builds it.  This is the best I've seen from amd in quite a while. I hope they keep it up!


----------



## Omega (May 21, 2010)

chaotic_uk said:


> why you still using cat 9.12 drivers ?



Because that was the newest driver available when i started benching CPU's on current benchmark suite. To upgrade the drivers, or game versions, or add new tests I would have to re-bench all of the CPU's you see in graphs, and I don't have all of them at my disposal at all times.

Drivers will be updated with new bench suite version, together with benchmarks when currently used ones are outdated. Until then, all of the CPU's are tested in same conditions.


----------



## Zubasa (May 21, 2010)

chaotic_uk said:


> why you still using cat 9.12 drivers ?


It really doesn't matter much, this is a CPU review 
As long as all the software are the same for all the tests, it is fine.
Unless for example some games adds multi-core support with later patches.


----------



## trt740 (May 21, 2010)

ensabrenoir said:


> I've always choosen intel for power & performance, but I will build an amd  x6 at some point just to experience it my self.  Truthfully I got ticked when the hardcore amd guys started trumpeting of the new world order because of this cpu and how it can match/beat  intel's six core. In fact it posted this just to tick them off:
> 
> *Love AMD video cards, great value on the six core but....
> Hyundai can make a car that looks like a Mercedes, has all the features Of a Mercedes, and cost 1/8 of the price of a Mercedes but its still a Hyundai. Having a six core that can barely handle an intel quad is like having a Ferrari with the performance of a mini van... a Hyundai mini van. *Still great value for the classification of a six core, but some perfer 100% angus beef not salisbury steak. Nothing against Hyundai or salisbury steak
> ...



*No this would be like a very well built 4 door 8 cylinder sports sedan (AMD 6 core) against a Highend  12 cylinder SUV , both well built it's just how you get there thats different.* You seem to be indicating AMDs cpus are lower quality which is wrong.


----------



## cdawall (May 21, 2010)

trt740 said:


> *No this would be like a very well built 4 door 8 cylinder sports sedan (AMD 6 core) against a Highend  12 cylinder SUV , both well built it's just how you get there thats different.* You seem to be indicating AMDs cpus are lower quality which is wrong.



very wrong seeing how intel themselves admits there fab process is lesser than that of AMD even as far back as the phenom 1 days. i like thinking caddy CTS-V vs a caddy escalade with a chip in it. both are fast both handle high loads but the escalade can take more than the CTS-V


----------



## trt740 (May 21, 2010)

cdawall said:


> very wrong seeing how intel themselves admits there fab process is lesser than that of AMD even as far back as the phenom 1 days. i like thinking caddy CTS-V vs a caddy escalade with a chip in it. both are fast both handle high loads but the escalade can take more than the CTS-V



Friend a Sports sedan is like a Audi A 8 and the I7 is beefer like a SUV, in application nothing stops it, but in windows AMD is faster.


----------



## cdawall (May 21, 2010)

trt740 said:


> Friend a Sports sedan is like a Audi A



bah CTS-V american muscle sedan


----------



## trt740 (May 21, 2010)

cdawall said:


> bah CTS-V american muscle sedan



and I wasn't knocking AMD


----------



## cdawall (May 21, 2010)

trt740 said:


> and I wasn't knocking AMD



i wasn't trying to say you were sorry i am a little bit out of it just had some teeth pulled and on pain killers


----------



## Loosenut (May 21, 2010)

Very nice review Omega. Thank you


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 21, 2010)

Whee, power draw is a bit of a worry total, but over all, good chip


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 21, 2010)

*Luv amd just as much*



trt740 said:


> *No this would be like a very well built 4 door 8 cylinder sports sedan (AMD 6 core) against a Highend  12 cylinder SUV , both well built it's just how you get there thats different.* You seem to be indicating AMDs cpus are lower quality which is wrong.



No disrepect to amd and any amd user.  Amd has the same and sometime greater quality level  as intel.  Amd just takes  a different  path and posses a different  customer philosophy.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 21, 2010)

Great review man. One note that has nothing to do with your review but on one of the tests, Photoshop. I use PS a great deal and its been multi threaded for sometime now. However major tasks like saving a tif file in layers still runs on a single thread. Its sad but true.

For me actions in Photoshop will never push a CPU like saving will.


----------



## Makaveli (May 21, 2010)

76c full load does not look safe at all!

Good review.


----------



## Omega (May 21, 2010)

Makaveli said:


> 76c full load does not look safe at all!



Those temps are for overclocked CPU. For stock, load temps were under 50c, and that's with small Katana III cooler set to ~1500 rpms.


----------



## demonkevy666 (May 21, 2010)

these reviews are mixed as some show it slow then I7 in encoding and then other faster :/

also scalability of real cores should be beating hyper threading. even with a slightly low IPC.


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 21, 2010)

AsphyxiA said:


> I hate the fact that these use so much power when overclocking, however, that is a universal caveat, but still 440 watts .





erocker said:


> 440 watts total system power.



Yeah, but it still more than doubled power usage when overclocking.

I find that very shocking, and disappointing. :shadedshu

I have an I7 920 system at 3.667 with HD 4830 crossfire, and it uses around 370 watts max at load.


----------



## W1zzard (May 21, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great review man. One note that has nothing to do with your review but on one of the tests, Photoshop. I use PS a great deal and its been multi threaded for sometime now. However major tasks like saving a tif file in layers still runs on a single thread. Its sad but true.
> 
> For me actions in Photoshop will never push a CPU like saving will.



how does save as tif consume any cpu time? all photoshop does is read from memory and write to disk or read from scratch and write to disk


----------



## suraswami (May 21, 2010)

Good review.  91w idle, hmm I wonder if I lower the volts to .775v from regular 1.1v how much I can save on the idle watts.


----------



## Super XP (May 21, 2010)

Omega, love your Avitar  And wonderful review.



> Full Name:  *Jean-Luc Picard *
> Borg designation:  Locutus
> Species:  Human
> Gender:  male
> ...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 21, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> how does save as tif consume any cpu time? all photoshop does is read from memory and write to disk or read from scratch and write to disk



Copy files inside of windows and you will see the OS use multiple threads to do so. Granted its only as fast as the HD or RAM can handle it but it still uses CPU power to do so. In Photoshop the task is single threaded. I have files that literally take 2 or 3 minutes to save and they are less than 100 megs. Some are only 40 megs. 

Now save that same file as a .psd and the file will take about 10 seconds. I could be wrong but I thought any kind of compression was CPU based.


----------



## Omega (May 21, 2010)

PopcornMachine said:


> I find that very shocking, and disappointing. :shadedshu



First of all, to achieve some quality overclocking results you would need to spend a day or two at it. That's the time I don't have when doing reviews, or rather I don't want to spend on overclocking that much. So those results are for reference only, what would happen if you would run the CPU at that high voltage. With better cooling, and more tweaking I am sure that even better results could be achieved with lower voltages - resulting lower power consumption and heating.




TheMailMan78 said:


> For me actions in Photoshop will never push a CPU like saving will.



Retouch Artist test is nicely optimized for multithreading. You can download and try it here : www.retouchartists.com


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 22, 2010)

Omega said:


> First of all, to achieve some quality overclocking results you would need to spend a day or two at it. That's the time I don't have when doing reviews, or rather I don't want to spend on overclocking that much. So those results are for reference only, what would happen if you would run the CPU at that high voltage. With better cooling, and more tweaking I am sure that even better results could be achieved with lower voltages - resulting lower power consumption and heating.



I get it.  Grain of salt applied.  Thanks.


----------



## W1zzard (May 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Copy files inside of windows and you will see the OS use multiple threads to do so. Granted its only as fast as the HD or RAM can handle it but it still uses CPU power to do so. In Photoshop the task is single threaded. I have files that literally take 2 or 3 minutes to save and they are less than 100 megs. Some are only 40 megs.
> 
> Now save that same file as a .psd and the file will take about 10 seconds. I could be wrong but I thought any kind of compression was CPU based.



yes compression is cpu based, i thought you were saving uncompressed tif.

if windows copied files all at once it would kill performance because of disk seeks happening at the same time requiring more time than doing sequential reads only. use performance monitor to look at what gets accessed and when


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 22, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> yes compression is cpu based, i thought you were saving uncompressed tif.
> 
> if windows copied files all at once it would kill performance because of disk seeks happening at the same time requiring more time than doing sequential reads only. use performance monitor to look at what gets accessed and when



Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes try saving a compressed tif w/layers in Photoshop and you will see that its single threaded. Its sucks because that by far is the most time consuming thing you can do in PS. 

Actions, Filters and other stuff haven't been an issue for sometime now. Another thing that can be very time consuming is a large image resize.


----------



## W1zzard (May 22, 2010)

hmmm i'm saving a 15000x15000 image to zip tif in 5 seconds with cs2, win7 32, 4 gb ram to hdd


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 22, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> hmmm i'm saving a 15000x15000 image to zip tif in 5 seconds with cs2, win7 32, 4 gb ram to hdd



Dimension isn't what gets you. Layers and channels do along with intense gradients. If you like Ill be happy to e-mail you a file you can test out.


----------



## demonkevy666 (May 22, 2010)

no NB over clock?


----------



## computertechy (May 22, 2010)

would also like to know what bios was on the Crosshair IV at the time because asus have stated this in their new bios

 	Crosshair IV Formula BIOS 0707 2010/05/06 update
1.Enable SATA down mode support to fix the Samsung SATA2 HDD issue.
2.Enhance gaming performance.
3.Enable the support of DDRIII-2000 under full 4 DIMM configuration when using Thuban processor.
4.Enhance SATA6G performance
5.Enable fix CPU multiplier for 6-core processor when disabling [Cool and Quiet] in BIOS. 

and the very new

 	Crosshair IV Formula BIOS 0801 2010/05/18 update
Improve certain CPU performance

Good review btw +1


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 22, 2010)

I am not sure if bios code is inclusive of eachother, So I suggest You get the first one if it is newer than the version you have, and then after that get the second 1, and make backups of the original bios incase of goofiness, and also ensure to reset your bios first.



computertechy said:


> would also like to know what bios was on the Crosshair IV at the time because asus have stated this in their new bios
> 
> Crosshair IV Formula BIOS 0707 2010/05/06 update
> 1.Enable SATA down mode support to fix the Samsung SATA2 HDD issue.
> ...


----------



## computertechy (May 22, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> I am not sure if bios code is inclusive of eachother, So I suggest You get the first one if it is newer than the version you have, and then after that get the second 1, and make backups of the original bios incase of goofiness, and also ensure to reset your bios first.



i have 0801 the newest their is, just want to know what bios the IV was on for the review because that could of helped performance even more. my IV was buggy as hell when i first booted it up with my 1090T.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 22, 2010)

Basically states board makers were not ready for Thuban Launch, I would of started Updating right then to get rid of any issues.


----------



## computertechy (May 22, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> Basically states board makers were not ready for Thuban Launch, I would of started Updating right then to get rid of any issues.



true, but you can only update if the bios is their in the first place. it wasn't lol but is now.

but u cant expect to get perfect unbugged motherboard's when they have only pretty much just come out.

They were ready for Thuban launch, but as with any new hardware, you get bugs. Just like games tbh they require us to test them.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 22, 2010)

Myself am thinking about the Crosshair IV Extreme or the GA 890FX- UD7


----------



## computertechy (May 22, 2010)

im not a gigabyte user tbh, im too much an asus fanboy atm, why not wait for the Crosshair IV Extreme?


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 22, 2010)

I said I am waiting for that, but I have my reservations with Asus due to bad past with them amongst customers machines i have worked on with an Asus Product.


----------



## computertechy (May 22, 2010)

lol sorry mate, having some bad tablets atm, The UD7 does look good tbh.


----------



## Omega (May 22, 2010)

mechtech said:


> Will you be testing this with the 1090T?
> Thanks



Actually, if you're willing to experiment on BIOS settings, it would seem you can save quite a bit with lower voltages. Settings for results bellow were :
- fixed clock 3200 MHz
- cpu voltage 1.175 V














computertechy said:


> would also like to know what bios was on the Crosshair IV at the time



0707 bios was used


----------



## inferKNOX (May 24, 2010)

Is it just me or are all the graphs upside down? Aren't the lowest on a "lower is better" graph and the highest on a "higher is better" graph supposed to be at the top, not the bottom?
Sorry if this has been said already (I just could swear that it's different in other reviews here).


----------



## Imsochobo (May 24, 2010)

erocker said:


> I'm thinking overclocking and stability were affected by temperatures in this case. 4.1ghz is excellent while using a smaller air cooler that isn't much better than stock. With Phenom II's if you keep them cool, things like voltage can be lowered and frequencies can be increased.



I did 3800 mhz with a Phenom I with water 1.44 V, that proves your point. (temps was 20C on the core with Norwegian winter cooled radiator) and somehow just 3 cores, still people said they dont go futher than 3500 mhz and i did wprime at 3800.
Extreme amd clocking = 1.55 V = 6.2 ghz (suuuuub zero)
the lower the temps, the higher the clocks, and phenoms love low temps! absolutely love the blue side.

Done have good cooler, up voltage to gain the "same" result and something that sucks power like nothing else, pair that with a trisli setup and we got a powerconsumtion winner here ?


----------



## PopcornMachine (May 24, 2010)

Imsochobo said:


> ... (temps was 20C on the core with Norwegian winter cooled radiator)  ... Extreme amd clocking = 1.55 V = 6.2 ghz (suuuuub zero)



Hello there in Norway.  I have no concept of living in cold climate areas. I have only occasionally visited them, then quickly return home.

Just wondering how you got sub zero temps.  Dry ice, Liquid Nitrogen, or did you just put the whole computer outside?


----------



## Blacklash (May 24, 2010)

I'm updating my AMD rig with a 1055T and an Asus Crosshair IV. I'll likely have an opinion to report this weekend.


----------



## mechtech (May 25, 2010)

Omega said:


> Actually, if you're willing to experiment on BIOS settings, it would seem you can save quite a bit with lower voltages. Settings for results bellow were :
> - fixed clock 3200 MHz
> - cpu voltage 1.175 V
> 
> ...



Cool

Thanks a lot much appreciated!


----------



## damric (May 26, 2010)

Nice review. What range can people expect to overclock the CPU-NB stable?


----------



## hooj (May 30, 2010)

So should i skip my i7 Upgrade and get one of these instead..!?
I mean for this price why not eh?  I may as well just stick with AMD!





> *What can you say
> *
> gold stargold stargold stargold stargold star
> 
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 74752 (May 30, 2010)

Just for a hoot...on a supposedly inferior board to boot.


----------



## Omega (May 30, 2010)

4 GHz performance for AMD might not be that impressive when you consider Intel Core i7 needs just about 3.5 GHz to do better.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 30, 2010)

Last I recall this topic is about AMD, not Intel, ATI or Nvidia.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jun 7, 2010)

Overclocked power consumption 440W? WTF? I was considering to pair a 1055T with a Crosshair IV, but now I think I'm just going to go with an i7...


----------



## HeX_00 (Jun 7, 2010)

440W will be full system power consumption, not just the CPU


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jun 8, 2010)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> Overclocked power consumption 440W? WTF? I was considering to pair a 1055T with a Crosshair IV, but now I think I'm just going to go with an i7...



That avatar says it all.  j/k.

These CPU's consume exactly the same as AMD's X4's at clockspeed. 3.2 Ghz X6 = 3.2 Ghz 955 X4 in power consumption.

It uses no more power than an i7 920...if that.

These CPU's are doing 4.3-4.4 Ghz stable on water so it's about equivalent in single thread to an i7 at 3.8 Ghz + two cores.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 28, 2010)

sorry to dig up a older thread but my cousin does video editing about a 1hour show once or twice a week using Adobe cs5, i was wandering whats a better buy AMD x6 1090T, i7 860, or i7 930? i can get each for $295 so what ever is better performance wise thanks!


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2010)

Delta6326 said:


> sorry to dig up a older thread but my cousin does video editing about a 1hour show once or twice a week using Adobe cs5, i was wandering whats a better buy AMD x6 1090T, i7 860, or i7 930? i can get each for $295 so what ever is better performance wise thanks!



Perhaps you should price out complete systems for each and make your decision. They are all pretty close.


----------



## Omega (Jun 28, 2010)

yup... i would go with Phenom or Core i7 930, depending on which system would end up cheaper.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jun 28, 2010)

i7 930 ... and overclock it.

I have a  920 and got it to 3.95 with tweaking, and now run it at 3.667 for everyday use.

Of course, motherboard cost is a consideration.  However, there are some cheaper X58 mobos out there. I got a MSI x58m for $140 on sale.

The 3-channel memory is the real expense right now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 28, 2010)

dont bother with overclocking, beyond that intel intends on replacing the socket soon anyway


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jun 29, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> dont bother with overclocking, beyond that intel intends on replacing the socket soon anyway



Perplexing bit of advice.

Also, I'm not that concerned about the future of the socket.  My computer will continue to work.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 29, 2010)

One thing i dont understand....for a long time Intel have been banging on about how anything above 1.45v Vcore degrades the service life of the CPU - but with most reviews read, I have seen that most need in excess or 1.5v to get to 4Ghz or 4Ghz+, shouldnt the same thing apply to AMD 45nm Processors too???


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 29, 2010)

AMD and Intel use different Elements for their Transistors/packages, AMD is still on SOI where Intel is on HKMG (Germanium).


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 29, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> AMD and Intel use different Elements for their Transistors/packages, AMD is still on SOI where Intel is on HKMG (Germanium).



Wait.  I thought HKMG is just a new material used.  Intel still uses SOI's, they just use SOI's with HKMG's.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 29, 2010)

I mistakenly said Germanium, it is Hafnium Intel is using

Pardon this file being so old but it does determine intels roadmap up to 2011.

this is from Intel directly

http://download.intel.com/technology/silicon/HighK-MetalGate-PressFoils-final.pdf


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 29, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> I mistakenly said Germanium, it is Hafnium Intel is using
> 
> Pardon this file being so old but it does determine intels roadmap up to 2011.
> 
> ...



See and now I am not sure if I am just confused.  On page 7 and 11 of that document you can clear see the HKMG seem to be embedded or mounted onto a silicon wafer.  I always that that silicon wafer was the SOI and the gates used for the transistors up until now were some kind of poly-alloy.  Intel just started using High K Metal Gates which was a better tech than transistors and that is what was replaced.  That would mean it was still on a silicon wafer.

So I don't know if I have my terms wrong or am I just wrong about what was changed cause I know some of that is right.

Long story short if someone answers this, is 

A. SOI just the manufacturing tech used to create the transistors AMD uses now and most processors have been using; And HKMG are just the new style of Transistors.

B.  SOI is that wafer and Intel has complete changed how they build their wafers where silicon is no longer used in that process.


----------

