bit-tech.net

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition

Comments 1 to 25 of 133

Reply
Mante 27th April 2010, 06:16 Quote
it says manufacture intel :D. keep reading..
Nelly 27th April 2010, 06:35 Quote
Crysis / Terran X3 are old benchmarks - did they even make use of all 6 cores?

I would of liked to have seen Dirt 2 & other DX11 benchmarks, as DX 11 take's advantage of multiple cores.

Also theirs a new Bios: 604 for the Asus Crosshair IV Formula that increases overclocking considerably. :D
flibblesan 27th April 2010, 07:05 Quote
Nice review. Shame that the CPU isn't as good as I expected it to be. Hopefully in a few months the price will drop and I'll snap one up.

Hope you review more X6 CPUs when they are released.
Mante 27th April 2010, 07:21 Quote
I want a 1055t thats the cpu to get for a budget build.
Matarsak 27th April 2010, 07:40 Quote
Disappointing; even in highly-threaded benchmarks (most interesting to me being Cinebench, since I use C4D) the 930 appears to remain the better value.
Ending Credits 27th April 2010, 08:42 Quote
It's getting a bit rediculous how far behind Intel AMD are. Even with 2 extra cores they're struggling to keep up with what is a revision of some 2 year old technology.

At least they're competetively priced.
zagortenay 27th April 2010, 08:43 Quote
Another negatively biased AMD review from bit-tech.net,
Nikols 27th April 2010, 08:45 Quote
Very positive review here...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_phenom_x6_1090t/

"scratches head" Im confused
stonedsurd 27th April 2010, 08:49 Quote
Shame. It was such a promising chip.
zagortenay 27th April 2010, 08:50 Quote
Another negatively biased AMD review from bit-tech.net, I am not surprised anymore. Only 2 game tests, only medium resolution, but strictly negative conclusions. Do yourself a favor and read some other web-sites.
From Overclock3D.net:
"Anyone who has an opinion to voice, and with hardware that's everybody, has long held the belief that games don't take advantage of extra cores enough to justify spending your cash on anything other than a mental dual-core. All of our results showed this belief to be absolute rubbish. The Dirt 2 test had the stock AMD Phenom II X6 1090T beating our 4GHz i7 930 system, despite giving up 800MHz in processing power, having dual rather than tri-channel RAM, and being priced at a similar level."
bit-tech.net you stink!!!
andrew8200m 27th April 2010, 08:52 Quote
How is a review that shows a chip in a price range similar to another that performs on average 15% slower accross the board when it's got more cores make the review biased in favour of the intel chip?? All it means is that the intel architecture ia still better and will be until amd decide to produce something different. Ithought it was a very nice review and the chip is certainly a good buy in terms of how mug performance you get vs the power it uses. At this price though it should be quicker...


Andy
Nikols 27th April 2010, 08:58 Quote
And here...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/1

it seems other reviews found that the 1090T performed as a phenom would be expected in games, a few frames a second behind intels but looked positivly on where the phenom improved, multiple threaded apps where it more often than not beats intels in the same price range. So, that wouldn't be called a success?
stonedsurd 27th April 2010, 09:01 Quote
Hm. I just skimmed through 8 other reviews on the interwebs and none of them had the 1090T getting creamed as badly as BT. Not even AT, which is a very Intel-friendly website.
rickysio 27th April 2010, 09:01 Quote
just because Bit-Tech reviews do not cast AMD in a good light doesn't mean they stink.

It just means you stink of being a fanboy.
Toxic_Lemon 27th April 2010, 09:02 Quote
Well i am quite excited, about this being a normal person with a family and what not, the price range of the intels are too much for myself but the amd`s are just perfectly priced. But again i would like to see a few benchies where it is being tested more. I am sure bit-tech will do that for us again soon.
tonyd223 27th April 2010, 09:23 Quote
arrogant young men who don't spend their own money...
Calle2003 27th April 2010, 09:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikols
Very positive review here...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_phenom_x6_1090t/

"scratches head" Im confused

Because:
"ASUS has started to distribute a new BIOS, 0602 – this actually provides degraded performance as well as issues with Turbo core. Please encourage press to use the 0505 BIOS that can be found on the FTP."

Source: http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/11916-amd-och-nvidia-vaxer-pa-intels-bekostnad
(use google translate for all except the quote).
V3ctor 27th April 2010, 09:32 Quote
I'm going to sell my Q6600 and my EP45-DQ6 and buy a 1090T, i have a spare AM2+ board... Could u guys make a mini-mini-review just to show how much do I loose of using DDR2 1066mhz instead of DDR3?

Thanks
Senilex 27th April 2010, 09:42 Quote
i really do think bit-tech is written by a bunch of amateurs at times
BioSniper 27th April 2010, 09:47 Quote
Is it possible that you could compare it to the i5-750, just to see what these are like compared to the "middle of the road" chip so to speak?
Nikols 27th April 2010, 09:48 Quote
Ooh £247 on scan
Lizard 27th April 2010, 09:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BioSniper
Is it possible that you could compare it to the i5-750, just to see what these are like compared to the "middle of the road" chip so to speak?

Our i5-750 numbers are a few months old so drivers have moved on, so take these numbers with a pinch of salt, but it scored:

i5-750: X6 1090T BE

1,290 in the image editing test versus 1,087
1,937 in the video encoding test versus 1,992
1,140 in the multi-tasking test versus 1,023
1,456 overall score versus 1,367
43fps/93fps in X3: TC versus 30fps/80fps
14,114 in Cinebench R10 versus 18,671

So, a pretty convincing win for the i5-750 in most tests, plus don't forget its close to £80 cheaper (£160 versus £240).
SchizoFrog 27th April 2010, 09:58 Quote
According to Tom's, The i5-750 performs about the same in the games tests at stock speed and I doubt that the results would change much once overclocked. So at least in games it seems to be like for like with a £150 processor. But in multitasking tests it left the i5-750 miles behind and caught up with the i7 CPUs.

So if I was building a system mainly for gaming right now it would be based around the i5-750. If I had more money to through at the system or frequently use multitasking apps that require more horse power then I would go for the i7-930.

As Bit-Tech says in the last paragraph:
Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition.
xaser04 27th April 2010, 10:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zagortenay
Another negatively biased AMD review from bit-tech.net, I am not surprised anymore. Only 2 game tests, only medium resolution, but strictly negative conclusions. Do yourself a favor and read some other web-sites.
From Overclock3D.net:
"Anyone who has an opinion to voice, and with hardware that's everybody, has long held the belief that games don't take advantage of extra cores enough to justify spending your cash on anything other than a mental dual-core. All of our results showed this belief to be absolute rubbish. The Dirt 2 test had the stock AMD Phenom II X6 1090T beating our 4GHz i7 930 system, despite giving up 800MHz in processing power, having dual rather than tri-channel RAM, and being priced at a similar level."
bit-tech.net you stink!!!

Christ that review is an utter joke. They don't even list what resolution is used on the game tests (kindof important when trying to compare processors.....) only 'maximum settings'. The Warhead minimum framerates are very odd, nearly 3 times the i7 930 @ 4ghz? I'm sorry but no.

As a quick comparison Bit's review shows the Core i7-980X (6 core) to be barely faster (minimum or average) than the Core i7-930 in Crysis at the same clock speed (well 4.4 vs 4.3).





.
memeroot 27th April 2010, 10:19 Quote
very interested in the 1055t,

to be honest the 750 is a great chip but with little upgrade path, the 930 is old and board and memory costs hinder.

my guess is that this chip will become more and more relevent as time moves on and cores are utilised but am3 (and the chip) are old tech.

I'm looking for an upgrade from the 939 board and basically want great multitasking and reasonable gaming - most notably with starcraft 2 and fall out on high with 3d (looking at a gtx 470), on the work side its the multitasking and rendering that will swing it.

will likely have closed loop water cooling on graphix and cpu.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums