Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    590

    AMD: Phenom II X6 1055T up to 19% faster than Core i7 860

    According to documents from AMD,

    Phenom II X6 1055T

    at Cinebench 2%
    at Pov-Rat 19%
    at 3DMark Vantage 1%
    at Crysis 1%

    faster than Core i7 860
    AMD: Phenom II X6 1055T, Core i7 860'dan %19'a varan oranda daha hızlı

  2. #2
    Registered User riggnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gleisdorf - Styria - Austria
    Posts
    530
    isn't it a bit of unfair to compare quad-core to hexa-core?

    and i think 1 percent could also be measurement error?

  3. #3
    あいあい傘 bliondi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    20,049
    this is good news, considering the price of the X6 1055T

    but sad that it being a 6 core, it's only marginally faster than a >1 year old architecture (since i7 920) 4 core CPU. and the benchmarks used favours multicore. if used for single threaded application, does the i7 860 take the cake?
    .
    .:: KEIKO ::.
    [ i7 2600K @ 4.3GHz | P8P67 Deluxe | 12GB RAM | 2 x R7970 GHz Ed. | U3011 + 3008WFP + U3011 ]
    [ 11 x 1TB | Intel 730 480GB + Sandisk Extreme 240GB | 4 x 4TB NAS ]
    [ Xonar DX | MW550 + Aego M | Logitech G510 + MX518 | Lian Li G70B | Corsair HX1000W ]

  4. #4
    Registered User Neo_XF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    479
    bliondi, Phenom II arch is also more than 1 year older, your point? Both are on the market, and won't be going out anytime soon, it's the $$$(/performance) that will concern 99% of the customers (unless they're brainwashed fanboy saps)... don't you agree?


    Quote Originally Posted by riggnix View Post
    isn't it a bit of unfair to compare quad-core to hexa-core?

    and i think 1 percent could also be measurement error?
    How is that relevant? LOL...

    If you want to nitpick, i7s also have 8 virtual threads, that often yeld lots of extra performance in such tests. See above.

    Also, I think gaming i irrelevant 99% of the time, since games are the last place where I'd search for multi-core awareness... (of which Crysis would be my last choice anyway).


    That being said, I can barely call this a benchmark, half a day earlier "leaks" are not really helpful... let's just wait for proper tests, shall we...

  5. #5
    Registered User psolord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,301
    So we are going to have reviews of these babys on the 27th?

    Hope Adrianlee is in perfect form, heheh!

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14
    In my opinion any improvement by AMD on their processors is a win for the consumer. I would rather have AMD compete with Intel, this way they are forced to maintain their prices lower.

  7. #7
    あいあい傘 bliondi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    20,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo_XF View Post
    bliondi, Phenom II arch is also more than 1 year older, your point? Both are on the market, and won't be going out anytime soon, it's the $$$(/performance) that will concern 99% of the customers (unless they're brainwashed fanboy saps)... don't you agree?
    as i said, it's good performance for the dollar

    however,


    Quote Originally Posted by Neo_XF View Post
    How is that relevant? LOL...

    If you want to nitpick, i7s also have 8 virtual threads, that often yeld lots of extra performance in such tests. See above.

    Also, I think gaming i irrelevant 99% of the time, since games are the last place where I'd search for multi-core awareness... (of which Crysis would be my last choice anyway).


    That being said, I can barely call this a benchmark, half a day earlier "leaks" are not really helpful... let's just wait for proper tests, shall we...?
    to compare 8 logical, 4 physical vs 6 physical cores is a bit skewed. to compare core for core in single threaded applications (which still is in wide use today), won't the i7 be faster?

    most games nowadays use up to 3 cores. so in theory a 6 core is only 3 core effective in a game. if per core the X6 is slower, doesn't that mean that i7 still takes the performance crown? esp when are on 5870 x 2 etc where cpu becomes a bottleneck?

    however, you could say that at the X6 price point of view it isn't targetted at the top end but more of the 80% general consumer who won't break the bank to buy a 5k rig to play games
    .
    .:: KEIKO ::.
    [ i7 2600K @ 4.3GHz | P8P67 Deluxe | 12GB RAM | 2 x R7970 GHz Ed. | U3011 + 3008WFP + U3011 ]
    [ 11 x 1TB | Intel 730 480GB + Sandisk Extreme 240GB | 4 x 4TB NAS ]
    [ Xonar DX | MW550 + Aego M | Logitech G510 + MX518 | Lian Li G70B | Corsair HX1000W ]

  8. #8
    Free will is my drug
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Bukit Panjang
    Posts
    3,299
    Also, compares with a LGA1566 socket unit... should have compared with the LGA1366 mah.
    Also, 1% margin against the quad.. hurmp pretty insignificant.
    [Mobo] Asus P8P67M-Pro [Chip] Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600k cooled by Antec Kuler 920 [Ram] GSkill Ripjaw-X PC12800 1600mhz 8GB CL7
    [HDD] OS: WD 300GB Raptor (HLHX) || Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB, WD Green 2TB
    [GFX] Asus GTX560Ti DirectCU II OC displayed on [Monitor] Dell U2311
    [PSU] Seasonic-X 560W Gold [Chassis] Silverstone TJ-08E
    [Keyboard and Mice combi] Logitech G110 and G500S [Mousepad] Mouse mat
    [Sound] Altec Lancing MX6021 [OS] Win7 Ultimate 64bit

  9. #9
    Registered User Hairyworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    6,646
    AMD - best price to performance ratio
    Intel - comparing core to core architecture, intel still pwns AMD

    AMD is running a different race right now.
    Intel i7 2700K |Asus Maximus IV Extreme-Z |Samsung 16GB @ 1600Mhz | Asus Matrix 7970 | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | WD 450GB Velociraptor | Seasonic X-750W GOLD | Filco Brown| Logitech G500 | Creative Premium HD | Klipsch GMX 2.1 | Dell U2412M | Silverstone FT02BW | Thermalright Silver Arrow |

    Samsung Galaxy Note III 32G |

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    815
    I am so glad no one compared the PII 1055T against the i7 980X.

    Imho, its price/performance we have to compare, not the number of cores. I don't care if the processor has 1000 cores if it is cheaper and outperforms the competition. If price/performance is not an issue, then look no further than supercomputers. Whats an i7 980X compared to the supercoms when theres unlimited budget as many claim that they have.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by KoKainE View Post
    Also, compares with a LGA1566 socket unit... should have compared with the LGA1366 mah.
    Also, 1% margin against the quad.. hurmp pretty insignificant.
    Iirc, it was stated in a vast number of articles that the LGA1156 i7 860 has some advantage over the LGA1366 i7 920...

    Core i7 860 tested; Faster than Core i7 920 | SITEX 2009 | VR-Zone | Gadgets | PC Enthusiasts

    If anyone wants to bring i7 960, 980X, xeon into the picture, be my guest.

  12. #12
    VR-Zoner ORiN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,221
    I think it is pretty obvious that AMD is playing a totally different game compared to Intel. In terms of price performance, I think AMD still takes the throne while Intel takes the performance throne.
    Inspireo Media - Web/Mobile Design & Development
    Orinity - Hollywood Fashion Tape



    ORiN-Q9550
    CPU & Heatsink: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 & Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme (Lapped)
    Motherboard: ASUS P5Q-E
    RAM: 4GB Team Xtreem Dark DDR2-1066
    Graphics: Sapphire HD7950 3GB DDR5 VAPOR-X
    PSU: Corsair HX620W

    Macbook Air 13"
    CPU: 1.3GHz Intel Core i5
    RAM: 8GB DDR3-1600

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,475
    Quote Originally Posted by riggnix View Post
    isn't it a bit of unfair to compare quad-core to hexa-core?

    and i think 1 percent could also be measurement error?
    IMO if the price of both cpu is almost the same, it is still a fair match.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    956
    no AMD, no quad-core that most of you getting today. agree?

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    58
    I think it is not unfair if they are both priced the same. We don't buy by model but by price. It is like choosing two different cars, usually you choose at the same price range, not by model of how many valves they have. And you choose the faster of course.

    Free Unlimited Picture Hosting http://pixshare.co.nr/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Core i7 860 tested; Faster than Core i7 920
    By SeniorEditor in forum News around the web!
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug 28th, 09, 11:25 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Apr 29th, 08, 02:36 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 5th, 08, 01:23 AM