Phenom II X6 is a MASSIVE FAIL (for gaming)

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Source

Call it strange, but we ran and re-ran these tests. In fact, we formatted, started over, and got the same results. In Crysis, our Phenom II X6 1090T-based platform is simply slower than its quad-core predecessor (AMD Phenom X4 965)

“But you’re clearly limited by your graphics card here,” you say. Alright, well, we’re using the 2010 reference system’s Radeon HD 5850, but let’s try something else. We’ll drop a Radeon HD 5870, a 5970, and a GeForce GTX 480 in the 1090T-based platform and see how much performance a faster card buys.



Amazing—the “fastest” card performs least-impressively, even at 1920x1080 and High quality settings. This is a combination we’d expect to hit the graphics fairly hard, but something is still screwy on the Phenom II X6 1090T-based platform. Now it looks less like our Radeon HD 5850 was holding back performance and more like the processor or platform is to blame.

Let’s try something else. Using a GeForce GTX 480, we’ll compare the performance of a stock Phenom II X6 1090T and a stock Core i7-930, then overclock the former to 3.7 GHz and the latter to 3.66 GHz (both processors with Turbo enabled). We’d expect to see headroom open up if there’s a bottleneck hampering performance.



Lo and behold, even with the fastest single-GPU card you can buy, the Phenom II X6 doesn’t spring to life. Meanwhile, the overclocked Core i7 leaps forward by quite a bit. This one gaming test opened up a ton of additional reformatting, reinstalling, and testing, just to make sure everything was reproducible.

Amazing isn't it?

The i7-930 which is cheaper than the 1090t Phenom II X6 performs significantly better even at lower clocks. Having a high-end GPU (5970) with the AMD 6 core reduces your FPS! Even the Phenom II X4 offers better performance.

Pre-release I said a 6 core CPU would be pointless for gaming... now we see that it is not only pointless, but a waste of money as cheaper quad-cores outperform it.

Read the benchmarks for Dirt 2 a DX11 game (DX11 is supposed to take advantage of multi-core CPU's) Even then the significantly cheaper Phenom II X4 CPU performs better.

[mrcrusty]

That could easily be attributed to how Crysis uses the cores, rather than something to throw at the Hex Cores as a whole, don't you think?







If not that, it may be the TM review itself.

Pretty much every other review really doesn't place the fps difference between the top Intels and the top AMD to be anything significant, that 25 fps difference is definately an outlier, unless the 965's are also 20-25 fps behind the 930, which I very much doubt.

Anyways this is a Total War forum, so screw Crysis, this is the most important benchmark:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...=964&pageid=18

It wouldn't surprise me if the Thubans had teething problems which might be fixed in a BIOS update, or a new stepping revision but I really doubt it's a bad product overall.

[GasMask]

Yeah thats just crysis bring up every other game im sick and tired of these dick waving Nvidia and ATI threads.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Anyways this is a Total War forum, so screw Crysis, this is the most important benchmark:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...=964&pageid=18

...and the Phenom II X4 is still better.

Yeah thats just crysis bring up every other game im sick and tired of these dick waving Nvidia and ATI threads.

As I said, look at the Dirt 2 results. DX11 game and yet 6 cores didn't help it either.

And BTW, as is shown the Phenom II X4 is the best CPU choice, cheapest price yet beats out the hex core.

Do people still play Crysis? It would look like there's a problem with Crysis

So then look at the performance in Dirt 2 FFS. AMD quad core CPU is still better.

[Wheelchair]

...and the Phenom II X4 is still better.



As I said, look at the Dirt 2 results. DX11 game and yet 6 cores didn't help it either.

And BTW, as is shown the Phenom II X4 is the best CPU choice, cheapest price yet beats out the hex core.



So then look at the performance in Dirt 2 FFS. AMD quad core CPU is still better.

6cores aren't meant for gaming.

Honestly, You'll notice NO difference using a Phenom II X4 and a i7 9XX, atleast I haven't and I'm very analytical when it comes to FPS. This thread is fail (for gaming) because it gives people false pretenses. CPU's are very limited in design when It comes to gaming and the GPU is the superior performance factor, all you need to do is manage your bottlenecks and you'll be fine, and hell, with any Phenom II 3-4core+ and any Q6600-E8400-i7+ no bottlenecks will be found with current GPU's (non-sli and crossfire configurations)

Yawn

[Freddie]

Do people still play Crysis? It would look like there's a problem with Crysis because the same drop isn't replicated in the other games they tested and if it is a problem with Crysis I wouldn't expect it to be fixed any time soon.

If you’re a gamer, save the money you’d spend on a six-core CPU, buy your favorite overclockable processor, and spend the difference on graphics or an SSD to cut level load times.

It's hard to take this Angelini seriously at times (the guy is meant to be the managing editor at Toms Hardware), putting aside the fact that's not how you spell 'favourite' the X6 1090t has been shown to be a very capable overclocker. Oh and BTW SSD's would have to come down a lot in price for me put the difference towards one.

[Big Boss]

The 965 in that review is only 1 fps better in average frame-rates, the 1090t has higher min and max. And it also beats the 920 in each category, whereas the 965 does not.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

the 1090t has higher min and max.

A higher minimum... that's what we want...

[Big Boss]

A higher minimum... that's what we want...

Umm, yea, that is what you want.

[mrcrusty]

I honestly can't trust the review.

In the comments, he says that he hit 3.7 Ghz on Turbo Core, but hasn't manually overclocked it and comes to the conclusion that because Turbo Core only goes to 3.7 Ghz, that the 965 is a better overclocker.

Whereas every other review site and it's mother (Guru3d, HardwareCanucks, OverclockersClub, etc) have all been able to get manual overclocks of 4+ Ghz without any hassle.

The credibility of the review was just knocked down significantly in my eyes...

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Umm, yea, that is what you want.

If it had both a higher minimum and maximum then the average FPS would be higher which it is not.

[Big Boss]

If it had both a higher minimum and maximum then the average FPS would be higher which it is not.

Umm, no, average FPS isn't the average between the min and the max, its the average of ALL the fps that are generated.

[Jaketh]

980x rapes them all, too bad only rich bastards can get it

[Shaio]

I'm bloggled they still even use crysis for benchmarking, I mean when i hear crysis these days i think crappily optimized pos, not beautiful hardware intensive game.

Shouldn't they use a newer even more hardware intensive game? Like metro, or since were benchmarking processors, dwarf fortress(although Df would only be good for testing how cores do as individuals), lol.

It would be interesting to me however to see how each of these processors cope when game is forced to use only one core, and it'd be interesting to compare that to there multicore performance.

[Shaio]

It's really sad how slowly games and software are adapting to the multi-core thing, can anyone even think of a game that's capable of using 6 cores, or 4 cores? Cuz so far I've not even seen a third core be used by any of the games I've played.

Also I think cpu benchmarks should come with min, max, avg cpu usage during the text, fps alone is hard to judge processors by.

[Big Boss]

I was going to make a longer post, but decided that when all put together it lacked coherence. I will just say this, this thread looks like it was made just so you could rag on AMD for not being Intel, so lets look at it from the other perspective:

By your logic, any Core i7 chip is a waste of money as it gives negligible performance increases and, the base i7, costs $100 what the i5 750 does. Granted, that isn't twice as much (neither is the Phenom II x4 to x6 though), but when you include motherboard costs as well as RAM costs, ie x58 and tri-channel vs p55/h55 and dual-channel, then it will cost twice as much, maybe more. Would you agree with that?

And to compare flagships, the point from this side of the argument is that Intel's i7 980x is a waste of money for gamers as it gives little performance increase of the i7 930 and costs over 3 times as much.

AMD, considering they didn't market Thuban as a gamers CPU, is much more reasonable than Intel. And in terms of engineering, AMD has managed to add 2 more cores on the same die, while increasing overclockability, and keep it at the 125w TDP, the same as old Phenoms. This is on the same 45nm process to boot. Intel managed to add 2 more cores, while increasing overclockability, and keep it at the low TDP of 130w, using the same 45nm process. Wait, scratch that, they did it with the much smaller and cooler 32nm process.

I think I'm going on a rant now and not making much sense, but I fail to see the point of this thread and whether it makes much sense either.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

I don't think that conclusion was ever really in doubt. Games are only starting to take advantage of Quad Cores now, why expect a Hex Core to be magically better when a Dual-to-Quad performance difference is minimal?

So long as your CPU is good enough not to bottleneck the video card, whether you're using a 965, an i5 750, a 1090T or a 980X, it doesn't really matter, the differences in fps are small if not negligible unless you're in a multiple GPU card setup or unless the game takes advantage of it. Which none do, but will, in 2 years or so.

Perhaps a hex core would be a good purchase in 2 years then, AMD is using an old architecture with this CPU hence the not so great performance even when compared to intel's hex

If it makes the 1090T a "massive fail", then the 980X which costs around 3 times a Phenom II x6 does, is an "epic fail of biblical proportions".

Intel has always released at least 1 $1,000+ CPU in each linup over the last few years. They are always a complete waste of money for price/performance but they are always the best CPU you can buy for a home PC. The only person who should be buying a hex right now is a non-gamer who is using it with software that can utilize all the cores.

I was going to make a longer post, but decided that when all put together it lacked coherence. I will just say this,

Isn't that what this post is?

this thread looks like it was made just so you could rag on AMD for not being Intel, so lets look at it from the other perspective:

Nope, it's simply stating that AMD's hex is pointless for gaming. Pre-release several people claimed it was going to improve game performance for various reasons and I said it wouldn't. This thread is for them.

By your logic, any Core i7 chip is a waste of money as it gives negligible performance increases

Definitely, hex cores are useless for gaming right now.

and, the base i7, costs $100 what the i5 750 does. Granted, that isn't twice as much (neither is the Phenom II x4 to x6 though), but when you include motherboard costs as well as RAM costs, ie x58 and tri-channel vs p55/h55 and dual-channel, then it will cost twice as much, maybe more. Would you agree with that?

The X58 is a superior chipset, it costs more to boot. the i7920 was originally designed with workstation applications in mind however it had great success mainstream. People who want lots of RAM (workstations need that) can have much more on the X58 platform with it's tri-channel RAM.

THe P55 board is best for the average user, the CPU's such as the i5-750 and i7-860 are just as good as the i7-920 (now superseded by the i7-930) The P55 line has only Dual channel RAM which is more suited for home use, it has less PCI-E band-width (which is only useful for multi-GPU boards anyway) and it is cheaper. Intel motherboards have always cost more but their CPU + chipset is always better in some way than a similar AMD setup. AMD however has the best value for the money.

And to compare flagships, the point from this side of the argument is that Intel's i7 980x is a waste of money for gamers as it gives little performance increase of the i7 930 and costs over 3 times as much.

Once again hex-cores are pointless for gaming. I knew that.

AMD, considering they didn't market Thuban as a gamers CPU, is much more reasonable than Intel.

Once again this thread is for the benefit of those who said this was going to be a superior CPU for gaming.

And in terms of engineering, AMD has managed to add 2 more cores on the same die, while increasing overclockability, and keep it at the 125w TDP, the same as old Phenoms. This is on the same 45nm process to boot. Intel managed to add 2 more cores, while increasing overclockability, and keep it at the low TDP of 130w, using the same 45nm process. Wait, scratch that, they did it with the much smaller and cooler 32nm process.

Intel = best performance for higher cost, Intel's hex core = ridiculous price.

I think I'm going on a rant now and not making much sense, but I fail to see the point of this thread and whether it makes much sense either.

The thread title was designed to get fanboyz riled up

I have 2 computers running AMD boards and CPU's. I have a 3.0Ghz. tri-core coming this week. I like AMD, they're awesome.

I like intel for my gaming PC.

[Big Boss]

The X58 is a superior chipset, it costs more to boot. the i7920 was originally designed with workstation applications in mind however it had great success mainstream. People who want lots of RAM (workstations need that) can have much more on the X58 platform with it's tri-channel RAM.

The thing with this statement is that X58 doesn't provide that many benefits, as a chipset, over AMD's 790FX/890FX. One of the best motherboards out there, the Asus Crosshair IV Formula sells at $230 on newegg. The entry level P6T is $220, while the X58-UD3R (featuring sata6/usb3) retails at $210. X58 doesn't provide any real benefits over 890FX, especially not benefits that should raise entry-level products to retail the same as AMD's flagship.

X58 is a server chipset, but its the architecture of the processors that go in it that make it a superior performer, its not a superior chipset feature wise.

The thread title was designed to get fanboyz riled up

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a fanboy, I'd more call myself someone who likes both sides of the argument fairly represented. That said, I do detest Intel's business practices.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

The thing with this statement is that X58 doesn't provide that many benefits, as a chipset, over AMD's 790FX/890FX. One of the best motherboards out there, the Asus Crosshair IV Formula sells at $230 on newegg. The entry level P6T is $220, while the X58-UD3R (featuring sata6/usb3) retails at $210. X58 doesn't provide any real benefits over 890FX, especially not benefits that should raise entry-level products to retail the same as AMD's flagship.

X58 is a server chipset, but its the architecture of the processors that go in it that make it a superior performer, its not a superior chipset feature wise.

X58 benefits: more PCI-E bandwidth, tri-channel RAM.

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a fanboy, I'd more call myself someone who likes both sides of the argument fairly represented.

AMD didn't need representing. Hex core sucks for gaming, that is all.

[Big Boss]

X58 benefits: more PCI-E bandwidth, tri-channel RAM.

Actually, 890fx has 2 more PCI-E lanes than X58, 42 vs 40 to be exact. And both dedicate 32 to GPUs, so dual x16, or 4 x8. And the tri-channel RAM offers no benefit over dual-channel at this point in time. So no real benefits, for a much higher price.