AMD's $300 6-Core CPU: Too Good to Be True?

43

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Philips

Thanks for the informative post. Everything looksawesome. It shall be looked out.

x930bt review

avatar

dsellens

No wonder the X6 did lousy against a quad core when the test was done with 2 generation old software.  Try it with CS5 and see what happens.  I'll lay odds, you will get 2 more wins solidly in the X6 column.

avatar

ryan792622

 all test should be reran on the Phenom II X6 using platform parts  use radeon cards instead of GeForce GTX 280 amd is platform tech rember! reviews on other sites show much beter proformance using amd cards to nvidia parts do to platform tech!

avatar

trident60

I see your point, but isn't this review supposed to be about the CPU's, not the GPU's?

 I am AMD fanboy and definitely favor them. Every PC in my house is AMD with the exception of my laptop. As far as this six core AMD chip is concerned, I'm indifferent as of right now. I wish the six core AMD chip would have out performed the intel quad cores decently like the Athlon 2 quad core did to the Core i3 budget chip review in the mag. That would have made me very happy and I would seriously consider picking up the Phenom II x6 if it did. But as it stands, with what I do on the PC even a quad core is more than I need so what am I going to do with a six core processor? I'm better off going with less cores, better technology, and higher frequencies to achieve better performance in less threaded applications.

I laughed a bit when I read somone mentioning needing to upgrade their 939 processor. I'm still running an old Socket A Athlon 3200+ machine. I just built an Athlon II dual core machine and was completely blown away by the overall speed increase from what I'm used to. I can only imagine what the Core i7 930 I'm going to get is going to be like!

avatar

zakn

For the People!

avatar

Nipyf2

The benchmarks at the overclockers club look quite a bit different...  the 1090t does quite a bit better

avatar

SSquirrel

Zachary K said:

"i would prefer having a stock clock of 4 or 5 GHz than 6 cores. did
they just hit 3 GHz and say "screw it, less money to put in more cores"?"

 

This chip is already ridiculously high wattage, how high would they have had to push it to rech 4-5GHz stock?  Chipmakers have been seeing less gain from pure MHz gain and more from throwing additional cores, especially as more and more software becomes multi-threaded.  Ancient software that won't be getting upgraded, yes more pure speed would be better.  That is hopefully an ever shrinking class of software tho.

Hagen

avatar

Zachary K.

i would prefer having a stock clock of 4 or 5 GHz than 6 cores. did they just hit 3 GHz and say "screw it, less money to put in more cores"?

avatar

asFallion

You realise that any higher than 3GHz already requires much better cooling. This is why multi-core cpus were invented. The 3GHz barrier is hard to breach with commercial cooling.

avatar

SSquirrel

The i7 860 still looks to be a better value.  Better overall
performance, about the same cost and 30w less power usage to keep your
electricity bills down.  Yes 6 cores from AMD costs less  than 6 from Intel, but you can beat the AMD performance w/a similarly priced quad core.  If you're building a brand new system, there might be some cost savings from motherboards.  If you have a compatible AM2 or 3 mobo already, you'll definitely save some money over going Intel.  Gaming results were all lower than the i7, barring the DIrt 2 anomaly.  This just doesn't feel like a compelling purchase to me.

Hagen

avatar

big_montana

I need to upgrade my ancient socket 939 system and with mu limited budget, this will be my next processor. Considering that Tigerdirect is selling the 1055T for $150 and the 1090T for $250 right now this is to good a deal to pass up. Newegg has them for $209 and $309 respectively.

avatar

B10H4Z4RD

my question is this: If I'm running lots of 3D modeling/rendering software [maya lightwave etc] and Bad Company 2 is my new favorite game, do i stick with my q6600 or do i upgrade to this? So tempting... 

______________________________________________________________________

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, FIght Club.

 Intel Q6600@3.2

ASUS P5N-D

Evga GTX 275 896

 

avatar

Peanut Fox

In your case, I would go with an i7 920/930

avatar

hagbard

At this point in the game, I would recommend sticking with the Q6600 for now. I have one as well, and I still find it performs very well for its age. If anything, wait until Intel's new chips come out later this year. Then you'll have the choice between price-chopped i7s, new Sandy Bridge chips, or AMD's X6.

avatar

wlballplayer

so what do 2 more cores really do for you. I think i'll stick with my dual core for the next 2 years, maybe by then the 48Core will be released at 300$

avatar

Ilander

...THG has benchies that indicate Thuban can beat the i7 975 in quite a few circumstances...it's almost certainly a benchmark difference, but I'm VERY curious as to when and where that happens, because I believe both sites have objectively-obtained data...

avatar

Baer

It compares reasonably well with Intel's lower priced chips. As I am looking for max performance the good news is that this may make intel reduce the price of the 980X.

As far as most of these benchmarks, I can beat or aproach most of the better scores with my overclocked (on air)  i7 920.

avatar

xinoy

6 cores nice :) Speed 'm up scotty! :) and the price is good!

 

webdesign prijzen

avatar

festiva_man

I jizzed my pants.  AMD won't outperform Intel, so what?  At a price difference like that, no ones gonna give a crap.  I have used intel for quite a while but after running the market for so long I am glad to see some competition.  I need to upgrade my CPU from the e2200 I currently have and I believe I will spend an extra hundred now and get a A2 mobo and one of these instead of just an e8500.

 

Hopefully this passes the spam filter.

avatar

roninnder

What price difference?  The fastest AMD on the chart has comparable performance to the Core i7 860 which retails for about $270.  The top tier Intel chip costs more, but it's way out of AMD's league in performance.

avatar

zepontiff

Not to mention if you go intel there is NO upgrade path. Spend more money now only to spend more money later!

avatar

Wolfy78

With Hyperthreading turned on the Intel chips are essentially 8 core processors.  If you look at it in this aspect, the 6 core AMD chip is a lot cheaper per core, and the motherboards are cheaper.  So yes there is a price difference. 

avatar

Caboose

 IMO, Hyper Threading always has been, and always will be, a gimmick. Every PC that comes across my workbench with an Intel CPU, gets Hyper Threading disabled!

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

Spartacus

That's a great way to throw away 30% of your multi-threaded performance. For free too!

avatar

Caboose

 The apps that are used in my workplace are still so old, that multi-threading wasn't even thought of!

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

NotSure

You use software that predates 1993?!

 

I was using multithreading on the Amiga in 1993. But then, there were reasons we Amiga fanatics kept telling you all that our system was massively advanced compared to your dos based machines.... but PC and Mac users just kept saying that "No one needs multitasking" and "The Amiga is just a games machine".

I can undersrtand with the willful ignorance of the PC croud over the decades of alternate systems how you could make this mistake though.

avatar

Caboose

 Ok, maybe not that old.

Besides, the Amiga is just a games machine! ;)

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

Caboose

 "he reminds me of it every time we talk as a counter point when talking
about builds"

You must have me confused with someone else, as I've never seen you, or talked to you (aside from comments on MPC)

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

devin3627

the spam filter is worse than ever. I never had to deal with it until today... MAXIMUMPC! DISABLE ALL COMMENTS, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?!?!?! DO IT!

avatar

vistageek

˙sod ɐ sı ɹǝʇlıɟ ɯɐds ɔdxɐɯ ǝɥʇ

avatar

Peanut Fox

I don't know.  I'm happy that AMD is catching up, but when the part is out performed by equally priced midrange quad core Intel parts; I have to ask.  What do an extra 2 cores really get you?  

  

avatar

mesiah

I agree. AMD is being outperformed by CPUs with only 2/3 of the cores. Seeing a 6 core for $300 looks nice on the shelf, but if it can't best current quad core CPUs its just for show.

avatar

Caramoore

As a self-confessed AMD fan boy let me just say that I'm impressed. With this you get a 6 core processor with for about $700 less than the Intel part. For what I use it for and for the people I build systems for the price/performance ratio can't be beat.

 Great job AMD and great coverage guys!

Randy Word

avatar

Bender2000

If a similarly priced Core i7 Quad performs as well or a little better than the AMD Hexacore, then the price/performance ratio is the same. So what are you doing that alters the price/performance ratio? Just having 6 cores doesn't improve anything.

avatar

Ntldr

Spam filter blocking me but short version is.  More cores not important.  Newer technology and improvements in current technology is where performance is coming up not adding more cores. 

avatar

Neufeldt2002

I really don't think that anyone was expecting these chips to out perform Intels. I would hope though that a die shrink and new architecture (like fusion and bulldozer?) might be more of a straight match.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Please fix the spam filter it does not work right.

avatar

Jims45wow

Not Right, not left, not at all!

Jim

 Phenom II X4 940 Black

 MSI K9A2 Platinum AMI Bios v1.9

4GB Corsair DDR2 1066@800 5/5/5/18/23/2T no fins/fans

ATI Saphire 4870 512MB DDR3 750MHz/900MHz core/mem

1TB HD, 1

avatar

VegasLiz

I've heard that this is only the beginning there will be 50 Core coming out, not sure if AMD though.

avatar

RiverLucky

Hi all,

 having more cores is better but it also depends on the applications/games.

 Most of the software out there is not utilizing the potential of multicores right now.

 It would be interesting to see the benchmarks of applications that are designed to utilize multicores.

 

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.