AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.80 GHz

[inmytaxi]

Actually, no. There have been several reviews that show you don't take a realistic performance drop a card until you hit 4x on the PCIe lane. The difference between 8x and 16x for SLI/Crossfire is non-existant unless you have 2 $400 plus cards.

I see. I have a difficult time finding benchmarks on line that show my card, usually older cards or better cards. I guess my conclusion that the difference was > i5 750 vs. 1055t was mostly inference.

For gaming, i5 750, P II 955, i7 860 are all about the same in performance and your GPU's power is the primary deciding factor. I would not go with the P II 550. While it can hold its own, it will limit the Crossfire/SLI setup. If you are on a budget, get the Athlon X4 620 and OC it a bit or Phenom II X3 720. If you can spend a little more, the Phenom II 955 and i5 750 are the best bang for your buck offers for gaming hands down.

Two reasons for the $80 550 ... a. it can possibly turn into a B50 x4 and b. for the $100 + savings I could get my second 4890 right away.

Do you think 2x 4890 + 550 dual core < 1x 4890 + 965 quad core in terms of fps?

Of course if I get the 635 I could probably get both as it's close in price to the 550 ...

Thanks.

Funny thing is, when I'm actually playing the game, I'm less worried about high resolution etc. and more into the action...I could just turn down the resolution and increase the fps that way ....

 

[WarEagleAU]

Not bad on air, Im guessing you could get close to 5Ghz on liquid??

 

[Formula350]

I think you'll see only a few FPS boost from a quad core. Some of that will be with in the margin or error, and then I figure the other part is that you will take any background (OS) load and pass it to the unused core/s.

A game that uses up to 8 cores would be GRID and DiRT 2, in case anyone is curious.

Another thing that sucks is the X3s fail to be fully utilized in the majority of multithreaded programs and games due to a thing called "Power of 2". Which also makes me wonder if the X6 (AMD or Intel) will be fully utilized in programs since it isn't a Power of 2... 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc are however, and SMP systems (Istanbul would be excluded) or the "X8" Magny-Cours would be used fully, provided an app or game is coded for that many threads. Now that isn't to say an X3 won't benefit over an X2, since like I said before it could alleviate some of the background load. I'm also open to being proven wrong if someone has a few reviews of the X3 vs X2 and X4, since I haven't really read many recently. I had been planning on an X2 from the start since I wouldn't have the money and the only time I considered the 720 was when it was on sale for $99, which I missed out on.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Two reasons for the $80 550 ... a. it can possibly turn into a B50 x4 and b. for the $100 + savings I could get my second 4890 right away.

Do you think 2x 4890 + 550 dual core < 1x 4890 + 965 quad core in terms of fps?

Of course if I get the 635 I could probably get both as it's close in price to the 550 ...

Could and will are 2 different things. I had a perfect batch of a 720BE and that never unlocked. The 550 is a great proc, but I would just go for the sure thing and either get a 720BE or a 635. Those are both gonna be close in price and you will for sure get the extra core or 2.

Another thing that sucks is the X3s fail to be fully utilized in the majority of multithreaded programs and games due to a thing called "Power of 2". Which also makes me wonder if the X6 (AMD or Intel) will be fully utilized in programs since it isn't a Power of 2... 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc are however, and SMP systems (Istanbul would be excluded) or the "X8" Magny-Cours would be used fully, provided an app or game is coded for that many threads. Now that isn't to say an X3 won't benefit over an X2, since like I said before it could alleviate some of the background load. I'm also open to being proven wrong if someone has a few reviews of the X3 vs X2 and X4, since I haven't really read many recently. I had been planning on an X2 from the start since I wouldn't have the money and the only time I considered the 720 was when it was on sale for $99, which I missed out on.

Your missing the complete point of 3 cores with your first sentence. Yes most games only use 2 cores, but when you start a game you also have a lot of background processes running. With a dual core it has to manage those and the game, with a tri-core it can drop the game on 2 cores and the background processes on another. I know you do mention that, but it definitely helps and is worth the small price increase, because background processes can start to get taxing.

Also even if a game isn't meant to run on we'll say 6 cores, it still will usually stress them to around 20%, so there is a gain, nothing huge, but it really doesn't matter, having 4 extra cores to do whatever is nice, and it's nice beyond gaming, I'm not sure I would pay for a more expensive 6 core, but for the $150 I got mine for, it's just flat out awesome, 3.9ghz on the out of box heatsink and crushes games, even if they only use 2 cores, 2 cores from it is plenty enough.

 

[inmytaxi]

What about the benefit of the extra 2 cores with a game like GTA IV that uses 4 cores? In the real world I'll have raid which is processed I believe by the cpu, anti virus in the background, and a million other processses that you probably shut down during a benchmark.

I'd be interested to see if the 1055t suffers less of a fps hit in 4 core games from this "noise" than the 860/930/750/965 from the off loading space you mentioned in the 720 ... and while I'm at it, does crossfire have a cpu hit too?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

While most games only need 2 cores or so, when you do run across a game that uses more than one like Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, a dual core setup will suffer. Since you want an article about it, here is a resent one that fits right into what you are looking to do.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-core-i3-athlon-ii,2666.html

So remember that this Phenom II X6 is a Phenom and has full use of its L3 cache. Even when it only needs a few cores to handle business so to speak, Turbo mode will kick in, up the clock of 3 cores, giving you the power of an OCed Phenom II X3 720. And when it needs more cores, it has 6 of them to throw at it. This is great for most things, it is just overkill for gaming. 4 cores has proven to be more than enough to handle the truly multithreaded games and your computers background tasks without breaking a sweat.

Simple truth. My roommate, most here know him as killer rubber ducky has a P II 550. At stock with a 5850, his system performed like crap. Aftermarket cooler and a 800 Mhz OC, it now plays as smooth as butter. To make sure his card was defective, we tested it in my system with my P II 955. At stock I could run BFBC2 at max everything in DX10 and nearly max in DX11. With the recent driver update, I probably can get DX11 maxed. So his 2 cores at 3.1 vs. my 4 cores at 3.2 proved to be a major difference for that game.

 

[HossHuge]

TheLaughingMan,

Thanks for that website. It gives some good info. I wished they used a PII 550/555 to see what effect a big cache has with 2 cores vs the rest in the bunch. Right now I'm debating on selling my PII550 or my triple-core 425.

 

[inmytaxi]

Thanks for your reply. I've already ordered the new 4890, found one used on ebay for 125 inclusive. Maybe I'll buy the 1055t and do the review I want myself. I assume you can disable the cores in it? I could do a 555 vs. 955 vs. 1055t with xfire vs. one 4890 in my polluted, non fresh Windows 7.

Is there anyway to limit the lanes in a 890 FX to simulate a GX xfire situation?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

TheLaughingMan,

Thanks for that website. It gives some good info. I wished they used a PII 550/555 to see what effect a big cache has with 2 cores vs the rest in the bunch. Right now I'm debating on selling my PII550 or my triple-core 425.

There is an article on that very thing, but it was done some time ago. I think it was in reaction the release of the Athlon 620 and how it stood up against the P II 550 and 720.

Try searching their site for "cores vs. cache" or something like that. I will look myself and post the article if I can find it.

 

[Formula350]

Thanks for your reply. I've already ordered the new 4890, found one used on ebay for 125 inclusive. Maybe I'll buy the 1055t and do the review I want myself. I assume you can disable the cores in it? I could do a 555 vs. 955 vs. 1055t with xfire vs. one 4890 in my polluted, non fresh Windows 7.

Is there anyway to limit the lanes in a 890 FX to simulate a GX xfire situation?

Put it in the third PCIe slot I would say. Or if you have 2 older generation cards you can plug in the first 2 slots to run in CF, that would ensure the third and fourth are running x8. I think that the third and fourth are always x8 though, since most (but not all) GXs are that way.



As for that Tom's link, I was actually very surprised at the game performance boost from L3!

 

[ragejg]

Nice review.

It's nice to see the x3 chips still getting some love.

It is amazing, however, how large the selection is right now for three or more core AM2+/AM3 chips, and how well pretty much ALL of them can game. I'm not talking chart-topping performance, I'm talking bang-for-the-buck-d@mn-I-got-my-money's-worth performance.

Right now an Athlon II x3 3ghz can be had for as low as $60. This reminds me of when TBredB Athlon XP 1700s hit this price, as well as the A64 939 3000+s... good times to be a hardware enthusiast indeed.

I have two 720BEs right now, one's in my 720p media PC (my main gaming rig) with an HD 5830... it's an AMD 770 setup so it can't unlock, but I have it at 3.5ghz. The other 720 is in my desk gaming rig, running @ x4, 3.1ghz with a GTX 465. It seems that the x3 @ 3.5 rig might be a bit quicker in some games for some reason that's not just the video cards. The clockspeed plus the fact that all of that cache is allocated to fewer cores (more cache per core) may be helping make up for the lack of a core... I can't be completely certain though.

I wrote NV News' GTX 465 vs HD 5830 review using the x3 @ 3.5 rig, and have one more upcoming review using this setup as well. After that's over with, though, I'm going x6 so I can remain within the realm of common real-world gaming performance while going a little bit bleeding edge at the same time.

Also FWIW I just scored an old Phenom x3 8600B for a friend's rig (I'll probably OC it to 2.5 or so), and it'll be trying out Bad Company 2 (@ 1280x720, DX9 using XP and an OCed HD 4830) in the coming months. I'm interested to see what this older chip can do in that game, especially since it has L3 cache and three cores. I think as games + OS start to utilize more than what they used to around 2008, those old x3 chips might climb up a few pegs on the benchmark results charts.

 

[inmytaxi]

The 2nd 4890 was purchased for 125 inclusive of shipping and fees, I'm thrilled. For $125 I get to upgrade my old 4890 I paid $150 for into something that outperforms a $400 5870, 295, and beats 5830s ($440 on sale) in crossfire.

The six core 1055T is in house/chosen for it's abililty to morph into dual/tri and quad configurations. I'll use my 890FX to mimic 8x8 GX by using the 1st and 3 lanes, the latter borrows its only eight lanes from the 16 of the lane one, so it'll give us a way to compare performance between the first and second 16x lanes. I don't expect to see much difference, but I want to shame myself for wasting money on a the FX board and this will do it certainly.

I just suck.

 

[PanzerIV]

The 2nd 4890 was purchased for 125 inclusive of shipping and fees, I'm thrilled. For $125 I get to upgrade my old 4890 I paid $150 for into something that outperforms a $400 5870, 295, and beats 5830s ($440 on sale) in crossfire.

I would have got a second HD4870 used for about 120$ in order to crossfire but it would lack DX11 and it's so much more power hungry than a HD5770 so that's why I'm not doing it but yea it would be as good as a HD5850 for much cheaper.

I just installed my 1055T yesterday to replace my E8400 4.32Ghz. I tryed BC2 in 1920x1080, all on maximum HBAO off 0xAA 16xAF just like before.. and wow I couldn't believe it that even at stock speed of 2.8Ghz, the game got suddently 5x smoother than before. No more lag at all even thought I'm still using 1 HD4870 512Mb card. I would never have expected such a performance boost.

 

[TheMailMan78]

While most games only need 2 cores or so, when you do run across a game that uses more than one like Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, a dual core setup will suffer. Since you want an article about it, here is a resent one that fits right into what you are looking to do.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-core-i3-athlon-ii,2666.html

So remember that this Phenom II X6 is a Phenom and has full use of its L3 cache. Even when it only needs a few cores to handle business so to speak, Turbo mode will kick in, up the clock of 3 cores, giving you the power of an OCed Phenom II X3 720. And when it needs more cores, it has 6 of them to throw at it. This is great for most things, it is just overkill for gaming. 4 cores has proven to be more than enough to handle the truly multithreaded games and your computers background tasks without breaking a sweat.

Simple truth. My roommate, most here know him as killer rubber ducky has a P II 550. At stock with a 5850, his system performed like crap. Aftermarket cooler and a 800 Mhz OC, it now plays as smooth as butter. To make sure his card was defective, we tested it in my system with my P II 955. At stock I could run BFBC2 at max everything in DX10 and nearly max in DX11. With the recent driver update, I probably can get DX11 maxed. So his 2 cores at 3.1 vs. my 4 cores at 3.2 proved to be a major difference for that game.

You should try 6 cores at 3.9

While I agree 6 cores are useless for gaming I will say when I went from a 955 to a 1090T my load times were reduced dramatically in BC2.

 

[inmytaxi]

Waiting for the Brown Man ... waiting waiting waiting ...

 

[Formula350]

Waiting for the Brown Man ... waiting waiting waiting ...

*cough* I'll uh... assume you are referring to the UPS guy and not your daily BM


BTW everyone, I saw the Phenom II 1035T is available in China! They had listing placeholders for the (remored to be canceled) X4 960T, and also the 1075T The only ones with a price and that showed stock was the 1035T, 1055T and 1090T.

 

[ragejg]

Might the 960T be the Quad with turbo mode?

 

[Formula350]

Might the 960T be the Quad with turbo mode?

That would be the one. Sozma or some such core, which is X6 with 2 cores disabled heh

 

[DishD]

Best mate and i have just finished 24/7 stable overclock on his 1055t with S1283-red scorpion cpu cooler, X-fired (2x) HIS iceq 5670 1gb's, gigabite 880 mobo, ripjaw ram and 680w psu, idle temp is 19*c 100% load occt test after 2hrs was 44*c CnQ enabled and its winter here

For giggles top stable has been 4.15Ghz runs fine at 4.2ghz but occt test bsod after 15 mins, One Very Good cpu.

http://www.ts3krew.com/index.php?topic=104.0

 

[inmytaxi]

1055t oc only to 3.4

oh well. that's what i get fer being fancy.

it could be the gigabyte mb rearranges my memory timings and that's what's causing problems. won't even boot higher.

and at that speed i get system freezes during gaming.

 

[PanzerIV]

it could be the gigabyte mb rearranges my memory timings and that's what's causing problems. won't even boot higher. and at that speed i get system freezes during gaming.

Yes I don't know wtf is wrong with the memory settings from Gigabyte motherboards... I got their mobo with the 890GX chipset and my ram is rated at DDR3-1600 7-8-7-24 1,35v. The bios sets the voltage to 1.50 which I don't mind however the SPD column isn't even the optimised one it's the terrible Jedec which gives like 9-9-9.

Anyway so I don't think I had the "can't boot issue" at stock speed but at about 275x14=3850Mhz even if the ram is underclock, if I set the SAME value as the auto column but manualy instead of keeping it on (Auto) then the system won't boot but ffs it's the same numbers that (Auto) gives me. That's really weird.. so I could only boot by keeping it on Auto as even if I'd put very slack timing it wouldn't boot for no reasons. Now I've managed to boot in auto at 6-6-6-15 but at only DDR3-1100 because of the memory multiplier :shadedshu I just don't get it why it wasn't 100% stable at 1450 7-7-7

I thought my cpu was being unstable at 3.85Ghz with 1.50v but looks like it was a weird memory issue I had. I'll see if I can push the cpu further, else I'll stay there and lower as much the voltage as I can.

Is it useful to raise these voltages?
- CPU PLL (2.50v stock)
- DDR VTT (0.75v stock)
- NB/PCIE/PLL Voltage (1.80v stock)