AMD's $300 6-Core CPU: Too Good to Be True?
AMD’s new Thuban hexa-core CPUs come out swinging with prices that belie their size
If we’ve learned anything from years of watching action movies: You never, ever count out the underdog. Such is the case with perennial underdog AMD.
Bloodied, beaten, and bruised by months and months of Intel chips that outpaced its parts, AMD isn’t giving up. Instead, it’s hitting back with its own hexa-core CPUs and doing everything just short of yelling yippie ki-yay!
And now for the shocker: These hexa-core CPUs are affordable. Hell, one of the parts is practically budget-priced. Intel’s high-flying hexa-core Core i7-980X is $1,000. Contrast that with AMD’s new 3.2GHz Phenom II X6 1090T at $295. Want more? The 2.8GHz Phenom II X6 1055T costs $200. Yes, $200 for a hexa-core processor. So yippie kay-yay mother frakker, ineed!
Want even more good news? AMD’s new chip will be backward compatible with the vast sea of AM3, and even older AM2+, motherboards out there. We’re quite glad to hear this, because at one point the company told us it planned to jettison DDR2 support, which would have cut off the AM2+ folks. Fortunately, the company changed its mind and both new chips include DDR3 and DDR2 support.
Just like with those Hollywood action movies, this story wouldn’t be complete without an element of suspense: Are AMD’s Phenom II X6 processors capable of whopping Intel’s similarly priced quad-cores, or even its $1,000 wonder, the Core i7-980X? To find out, you’re going to have to read on.
What’s the best budget chip available today for those interested in getting good performance on the cheap? We’ll walk you through the top five chips and tell you which one to buy.
| CPU | Phenom II X6 1090T | Phenom II X6 1055T | Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition | Athlon II X4 630 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code-name | Thuban | Thuban | Deneb | Propus |
| Clock Speed | 3.2GHz | 2.8GHz | 3.4GHz | 2.8GHz |
| Turbo speed | 3.6GHz | 3.3GHz | N/A | N/A |
| Cores | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| L2 Cache | 3MB | 3MB | 2MB | 2MB |
| L3 Cache | 6MB | 6MB | 6MB | N/A |
| Socket | AM3/AM2+ | AM3/AM2+ | AM3/AM2+ | AM3/AM2+ |
| AMD | 125 watts | 125 watts | 125 watts | 95 watts |
| Process | 45nm | 45nm | 45nm | 45nm |
| Die Size | 346mm2 | 346mm2 | 258mm2 | 169mm2 |
| Transistor Count | 904 million* | 904 million* | 758 million | 300 million |
| Price | $295 | $200 | $185 | $100 |
*Transitor count not released. Figure is derived from AMD’s hexa-core Opteron part
Under the Hood of AMD’s Phenom II X6
In many ways, AMD’s new Phenom II X6 isn’t all that different from the Phenom II X4 processors. Both chips are built on a 45nm process, have the same 125-watt TDP rating, and feature the same microarchitecture. Of course, the Phenom II X6 is far larger than a Phenom II X4. A typical Phenom II X4 is 258mm2. The Phenom II X6 is about 40 percent larger at 364mm2. Oddly, AMD wouldn’t disclose the transistor count of the Phenom II X6, but we’d guess it’s the same or pretty close to the hexa-core Opteron 2435 at 904 million. On the surface, it would appear that AMD just took a Phenom II X4 and glued on two more cores. It’s not quite that simple, though. The L2 cache of the new chip remains at 512KB per core. The 6MB of L3 cache is also the same as with the older quad-core. That’s actually a reduction since the 6MB of L3 is shared among six execution cores instead of just four. Whether that plays into the performance of chip, isn’t yet clear. But AMD has made some other changes to boost performance.
Turbo Boost, Meet Turbo Core
AMD’s top-end Phenom II X6 1090T has a lower clock than the Phenom II X4 965 BE, but AMD makes up for that, and addresses the lack of applications and games optimized for six-cores, by introducing a new Turbo Core mode. Turbo Core overclocks three of the cores in the CPU when threading loads are light. The 1090T will Turbo Core from 3.2GHz to 3.6GHz, and the 1055T will Turbo Core from 2.8GHz to 3.3GHz. The mode is transparent to the OS and works without the need of drivers. It’s also not as discriminatory as Intel’s similar Turbo Boost, where apps that hit only one core will get more of a boost than apps that hit two or three. AMD said its tests show that the biggest benefits come from the three-core increase in games and apps that have not been optimized for four or more quads. Folks who want to mess with overclocking limits and ratios for Turbo Core can do so using AMD’s OverDrive utility.
Keeping Things Compatible
AMD’s strength has been its ability to make new chips work in older motherboards. In the three years that Socket AM2+ has been out, Intel has retired Socket 775 and introduced two new sockets that are incompatible with each other. That AMD can get its newest Phenom II X6 to work in older AM2+ boards (and probably even a few AM2 boards, too) is a testament to good planning. The only limiting factor for upgraders with the new Phenom X6 is likely a board’s thermals: The board must support 125-watt processors for the user to expect long-term reliability. BIOS updates will also be required, but AMD says that at launch, no fewer than 160 boards will have BIOS updates available to support the Phenom II X6.
Make Way for the 890FX Chipset
With the new chip, AMD is also introducing a new chipset series: the 8 series. The top chipset from AMD is the 890FX, which will replace the 790FX chipset. The 890FX has a big leg up over its Intel counterpart, the P55 chipset, in the number of PCI Express 2.0 lanes the chipset supports. One of the problems we’ve run into with the P55 lately is the lack of available PCI-E lanes to pass data from USB 3.0 and SATA 6 drives. With many P55 motherboards, installing two GPUs into the x16 PCI-E slots will handcuff the bandwidth of USB 3.0 and SATA 6 devices. Not all boards are affected, but most are. With 42 PCI-E 2.0 lanes available in the 890FX chipset, you can easily run multiple GPUs as well as your other devices without being constrained. Compare that to Intel’s P55 chipset which features 16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes in CPU and a pathetic eight PCI-E 1.0 speed lanes in the P55 chipset itself.
The new 890FX also features the SB850 south bridge with native SATA 6 support for six devices. The one key item missing from the SB850 is USB 3.0. Most board vendors are instead integrating NEC controllers to add the feature.
Inside the Phenom II X6
AMD’s new Thuban core is essentially the Istanbul core used in the Opteron 2435. Packing roughly 904 million transistors, the monolithic core has controllers for both DDR2 and DDR3 embedded in it. While the Opteron that it’s derived from has up to four Hyper Transport links for multiprocessor configurations, Thuban uses just one HT link to connect to the chipset.
So Is It Fast?
We put Phenom II X6 up against Intel’s best and brightest
As always, this is where the rubber meets the road, and to get a good feel for where Phenom II X6 1090T falls, we compared it to a spate of chips including the $282 2.8GHz Core i7-860, the $200 2.66GHz Core i7-750, the $195 3.4GHz Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, and, of course, the $1,000 3.33GHz Core i7-980X.
We used identical GeForce GTX 280 cards in all of our test platforms, along with the same graphics drivers. For the Athlon testing, we used the new MSI 890-FXA GD70 motherboard. A Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD6 powered the LGA1156 parts, and an Asus P6X58D Premium handled the chore for the LGA1366 procs. All of the dual-channel boards used 4GB of DDR3/1333 RAM, while the triple-channel boards had 6GB of DDR3/1333. Windows 7 Professional and matched 150GB Western Digital Raptor 150 drives were used in all the platforms.
For benchmarks, we ran more than two dozen tests to find the strengths and weaknesses of AMD’s new chips. The results are interesting, to say the least.
![]()
Philips
September 24, 2011 at 1:25am
Thanks for the informative post. Everything looksawesome. It shall be looked out.
![]()
dsellens
June 06, 2010 at 12:36am
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.
![]()
ryan792622
May 02, 2010 at 7:27pm
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!
![]()
trident60
May 18, 2010 at 4:50am
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!
![]()
Nipyf2
April 27, 2010 at 6:42pm
The benchmarks at the overclockers club look quite a bit different... the 1090t does quite a bit better
![]()
SSquirrel
April 27, 2010 at 11:31am
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
![]()
Zachary K.
April 27, 2010 at 10:34am
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"?
![]()
asFallion
April 27, 2010 at 12:09pm
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.
![]()
SSquirrel
April 27, 2010 at 10:14am
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
![]()
big_montana
April 27, 2010 at 9:14am
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 $309 respectively.
![]()
B10H4Z4RD
April 27, 2010 at 9:01am
my question is this: If I'm running lots of 3D modeling/rendering software [maya lightwave etc] and Bad Company 2 is my new favorite game, do i stick with my q6600 or do i upgrade to this? So tempting...
______________________________________________________________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, FIght Club.
Intel Q6600@3.2
ASUS P5N-D
Evga GTX 275 896
![]()
hagbard
April 29, 2010 at 4:04pm
At this point in the game, I would recommend sticking with the Q6600 for now. I have one as well, and I still find it performs very well for its age. If anything, wait until Intel's new chips come out later this year. Then you'll have the choice between price-chopped i7s, new Sandy Bridge chips, or AMD's X6.
![]()
wlballplayer
April 27, 2010 at 6:47am
so what do 2 more cores really do for you. I think i'll stick with my dual core for the next 2 years, maybe by then the 48Core will be released at 300$
![]()
Ilander
April 27, 2010 at 6:12am
...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...
![]()
Baer
April 27, 2010 at 5:26am
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.
![]()
festiva_man
April 26, 2010 at 11:31pm
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.
![]()
roninnder
April 27, 2010 at 12:14am
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.
![]()
zepontiff
April 27, 2010 at 6:19am
Not to mention if you go intel there is NO upgrade path. Spend more money now only to spend more money later!
![]()
Wolfy78
April 27, 2010 at 4:23am
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.
![]()
Caboose
April 27, 2010 at 7:16am
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! =-
![]()
Spartacus
April 27, 2010 at 7:44am
That's a great way to throw away 30% of your multi-threaded performance. For free too!
![]()
Caboose
April 27, 2010 at 8:00am
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! =-
![]()
NotSure
April 27, 2010 at 1:40pm
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.
![]()
Caboose
April 27, 2010 at 1:47pm
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! =-
![]()
Caboose
April 28, 2010 at 10:25am
"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! =-
![]()
devin3627
April 26, 2010 at 10:41pm
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!
![]()
Peanut Fox
April 26, 2010 at 10:21pm
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?
![]()
mesiah
April 27, 2010 at 3:12am
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.
![]()
Caramoore
April 26, 2010 at 9:53pm
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
![]()
Bender2000
April 27, 2010 at 8:41am
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.
![]()
Ntldr
April 27, 2010 at 7:51am
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.
![]()
Neufeldt2002
April 26, 2010 at 8:46pm
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.
![]()
Jims45wow
April 26, 2010 at 11:53pm
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
![]()
VegasLiz
April 26, 2010 at 8:20pm
I've heard that this is only the beginning there will be 50 Core coming out, not sure if AMD though.
![]()
RiverLucky
April 30, 2010 at 7:28am
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.















