TopNax

Home       Previous        AMD page         Intel page         Next

AMD: Two CPUs At 4 GHz

Phenom II X6 1090T

Unlocked Phenom IIs are far less novel—AMD has been doing this for years.    No doubt, the excitement over seeing Intel follow suit stems from the company’s advanced manufacturing technology, which facilitates the massive scalability we got out of the Core i5-655K.

AMD’s 45 nm process is no slouch, though. The company was able to introduce a six-core processor at the same 125W TDP as previous quad-core models. According to AMD, this is a result of adding low-k dielectric material in the metal layers to reduce capacitance. Low-leakage parts mean less heat—and that’s good for overclocking on air (the high-end guys actually prefer high-leakage parts, since they overclock more aggressively, and dissipating heat using LN2 isn’t really a challenge).

I struggled to get the hexa-core 1090T stable at 4.3 GHz with Turbo CORE enabled. Then it was 4.2 or even 4.1 GHz. At each setting, general instability kept us from finishing testing (and heat wasn’t even the issue, despite voltages of up to 1.525V). At the end of the day, the X6 1090T was dialed in at 4 GHz with a voltage of 1.475V. The screenshot below was snapped before we started scaling back voltage at 4 GHz to minimize power use. I won't be surprised if this chip doesn't make it to my next processor review, though. It was definitely ridden hard and put away wet.

Phenom II X4 965

Available under $200, the quad-core Phenom II X4 965 makes a good contender for the Core i5-655K (though it’s worth noting you can get a six-core Phenom II X6 1055T for less, as well; we simply haven’t purchased any yet).

Our 125W sample proved just as stubborn above 4 GHz as the Phenom II X6 1090T, despite our oversized cooler, 1.5V+ CPU VID, and 1.25V NB VID. Prime95 simply wouldn’t let this chip dig in at 4.2 or 4.1 GHz. Nevertheless, we were happy to settle down to a 1.4625V setting while retaining stability at 4 GHz.  And with that, all four of our test subjects were running at 4 GHz or higher and ready for a dash through the gauntlet.

Test Setup And Benchmarks

Benchmark Results: Synthetics

For the most part, Vantage paints a picture we pretty much expected to see. Mainly, the quad-core, Hyper-Threading-equipped Core i7-875K throws down the highest numbers, followed by AMD’s hexa-core Phenom II X6 1090T. The battle between the Core i5 and Phenom II X4 is surprisingly close, considering the significant clock rate disparity.

Reflecting a proclivity for threading, the 3DMark CPU scores are perhaps most interesting. There we see the Lynnfield-based processor score first, followed by the Thuban-based X6. AMD’s Deneb-based X4 snags third, followed closely by the Clarkdale-based Core i5.

Benchmark Results: Media And Transcoding

iTunes continues serving one interesting purpose: demonstrating the merits of high clock rates. The 4.66 GHz Core i5 actually finishes our workload first. Because iTunes isn’t threaded, it gains nothing from the chips with four or six cores. As such, it’s a little surprising to see the Phenom II X4 and X6 with nine seconds separating them. More often than not, though, both 4 GHz parts should be on equal footing in single-threaded titles at the same frequency.

We’ve upgraded to the newest version of MainConcept, which shows the Core i7-875K at 4.13 GHz in first place with AMD’s Phenom II X6 1090T close behind. The Phenom II X4 965 takes third, simply outclassing Intel’s Core i5-655K at 4.66 GHz.

HandBrake exploits parallelism, and the six-core Phenom II X6 1090T offers more of it than the quad-core Core i7-875K, despite Hyper-Threading’s influence. Similarly, the quad-core Phenom II X4 965 is faster than the Core i5-655K.

Though DivX is well-threaded, Intel reverses the trend seen previously and takes a lead versus the Phenom II X4 and X6 with the Core i5 and Core i7, respectively. Xvid is not well-threaded, so it’s no surprise to see the higher-clocked Intel processors finishing our benchmark workload first and second.

Benchmark Results: Productivity

Our Photoshop CS4 benchmark is threaded, so Intel’s Core i7-875K does well here, as does the Phenom II X6 1090T. The Core i5 and Phenom II X4 are on fairly even footing.

Apparently, 3ds Max isn’t able to exploit Hyper-Threading to the same degree as some of our other tests. AMD’s four-core and six-core CPUs are clearly faster than Intel’s unlocked two-core and four-core models in a head-to-head comparison.

Although the Core i5 and Phenom II X4 nearly tie, Intel’s Core i7-875K takes an undisputed win in WinRAR, a compression app we know to be fairly well-threaded.

Not only is 7-Zip threaded, but it’s also optimized to take advantage of Intel’s hardware-based AES acceleration. That doesn’t stop the Core i5 from coming in last place here, though. Fortunately for Intel, its Core i7-875K running at 4.13 GHz is quick enough to secure a first-place finish, but the Phenom II X6 and X4 aren’t far behind.

At 1680x1050, the resolution least bottlenecked by graphics, Intel’s Core i7-875K really stretches out. And even at 1920x1080, the chip’s first-place finish is commanding. Though far fewer people actually play at 2560x1600 on 30” displays, it’s worth noting that the results even out a lot more without AA turned on, while excessive I/O access makes the 4xAA-based scores inconsistent (the screen alternates from smooth to slideshow-like on the Radeon HD 5970). The Phenom II X6 doesn’t seem to be a performance-inhibitor, but as we observed in the Phenom II X6 1090T review, the extra cores certainly don’t seem to help for gaming. We’ll see if this trend continues through our other test titles.

Home       Previous        AMD page         Intel page         Next