At $1,000, it’s simply not possible to use the word value when talking about Intel’s Core i7-980X. Yes, it’s nice that the company is serving up an extra two cores at the same premium price point. And yes, we’re glad to see Intel extending the life of its LGA 1366 interface. But currently, your options for six-core CPUs from Intel include the Core i7-980X and Xeon 5600-series chips. Surprise—all of the hexa-core models are priced at a grand or more. Those prices pretty much only make sense for the folks running heavily-threaded apps in a work environment, who stand to save valuable time/money on encode projects.
AMD’s Opteron 2400-series processors also sport six cores, and they’re significantly less expensive (as low as $455 for the 2.2 GHz 2427). The compromise, of course, is that they’re not as fast. Here, you’re paying for the ability to enable a dual-socket machine equipped with twelve total cores. As with the Intel hexa-cores, these CPUs are totally overkill on the desktop.
Meet The Phenom II X6
Enter the Phenom II X6—what I’d consider to be the first viable six-core option for desktop power users.
The Core i7-980X demonstrated the benefits of increased processor parallelization versus Intel’s previous flagship, the Core i7-975. With both chips running at 3.33 GHz, it is easy to see where an extra two cores buys you better performance.
AMD’s new flagship Phenom II X6 is going to show us whether spending extra money on two extra cores is a smart move. After all, the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition bears a $185 MSRP, while the Phenom II X6 1090T will go for $285. Does a 50% higher core count translate into a greater than 50% price bump?
I'll be honest. My immediate reaction would be that, no, simply adding two cores (and the corresponding L1/L2 caches that go with them) does not map over to a correspondingly higher price tag. But AMD is trying to sweeten the pot by introducing Turbo CORE technology, which we’ve already previewed. Briefly, Turbo CORE attempts to capitalize on the TDP headroom freed up when three or more cores are idle by dynamically overclocking the remaining three cores. On the Phenom II X6 1090T, Turbo CORE takes a 3.2 GHz CPU and boosts a trio of cores up to 3.6 GHz.
As a result, almost any way you cut it, a six-core Phenom II X6 should be faster than the Phenom II X4. The only exception would be when taxing exactly four threads causes the processor to drop to 3.2 GHz, keeping it from benefiting from the fifth and sixth cores, while operating at a lower clock rate than the 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 965.
Say Hello To 890FX
That’s not all, either. AMD is also launching a revised version of its discrete-only desktop platform. The 890FX might sound like a spanking-new northbridge, but it’s really quite similar to the 790FX preceding it. You’ll find that the biggest difference is the SB850 southbridge accompanying the updated platform. We’ll dig deeper into that piece of logic shortly. For now, consider it part two of a new three-part platform AMD is calling Leo, successor to the Dragon platform. The third component is a Radeon HD 5800-series graphics card.
First, let’s talk about what it means to add two cores to the Phenom II family.
- AMD Can Do Six Cores, Too
- Phenom II X6: A Family Of Two
- Making Sense Of Turbo CORE
- 8-Series Chipsets, Revealed
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Media And Transcoding Apps
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: Left 4 Dead 2
- Benchmark Results: Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 2
- Power Consumption
- Conclusion


A mounth ago I got a board ready for AMD x6, and a sempron 140, and now I know that I should just go for phenom 955 and a less expensive board.
You're disappointed that a 6-core 3.2GHz processor is only slightly faster than a 4-core 3.4GHz one, when compared to the difference between Intel's 6- and 4-core processors running at the same speed??? Even a 5 year old could tell you why that's not a fair comparison. You guys really are either idiots or Intel fanbois.
Go back and do it properly.
actually had plans to go x6, maybe wait until they releases a better version
(AMD fan boys know will talk about price...as always )
intel has like 30.000 employees just in the US while AMD only has 15,000 in total not to mention the fact that Intel has a lot more money to throw around. Also even though Intel has a foot in the graphics business it does not devote as much to it as AMD does
It sux that gaming performance is down but then again you'd have to be crazy to buy a 6 core chip to play games on as they are never thread friendly and normally bottleneck on the graphics card or clock speed.
I'm actually very impressed that AMD have managed to come up with a chip that gives intels i series a run for its money and at a price far lower. Considering how much of an underdog AMD is i think they are actually doing a great job and i cant wait for them to bring out their fusion chips as if they pull it off right they could become a more dominant force
With I7-920 priced at around 390$ and AMD PII 965 at 256$ (with import taxes and VAT and so on...) and with I7-920 providing less than 5% improvement (if any...) over PII-965 at more than 30% increase in cost (not to mention the extra cost in motherboard and memory for the Intel part) it's hard for me to understand why would someone choose i7 over PII. Ok, i7 OC (a lot) better but i am not so sure if a 7.4-7.9 mark in Win7 (instead of 7.1-7.5) does really matter over how much fun i have playing games. Plus that myself I prefer a passive (or low speed fan) cooler on the processor and this is why I chose PII-905e (2.5GHz) over PII-945 (3.0 GHz) (both priced the same). I play 'Bad Company 2' and I don't miss PII-945 at all (not to mention Star Craft II Beta which plays on Ultra settings).
In regard to x6 it's worth remembering the whole point of multicore: increasing performance while keeping power consumption low. It's normal to see more and more processors with higher number of cores playing at lower frequencies - overall you still get the performance increase. It's only a shame that the software (games in particular) can't keep up with this trend.
I think that having an x6 at 3.2GHz performing as much (or more) as a x4 965 at 3.4GHz means that AMD has done a pretty good job. On the other side, having the 6core Intel (i7-980x) at 3.33GHz performing the same with a 4core Intel (i7-975) at 3.33GHz looks pretty strange to me - it's at least commendable that Intel priced them the same.
One more note: I would've liked to see how the PII-x6 performs at 3.4GHz - that would help see how much better really are 6 cores than 4. (because at Intel we sort of know - 6 cores are not better than 4).
So, very good job AMD! (KEEP IT UP!)
P.S. All this are just my opinions, i hope nobody feels offended in any way.
I think irish_adam summed up my sentiment perfectly, and expressed it really well. AMD is small compared to Intel, yet looked what they've pulled off here. Phenom II is a generation behind i7; it's a refined core that has been crafted into something that doesn't promise the world but sure as hell delivers especially for those of us who are on a tight budget. The real fault here I think is with the software that still won't take advantage of more computer resources, whether they're AMD or Intel. Now imagine some poor kid who really wants to change that..he buys himself AMD, which creates competition, creates jobs and who knows, that kid might one day be creating the kind of software we all crave.
I got the same feeling reading this review as I did when I found out you can unlock Deneb cores. My only reserve is that 45nm process and it's impact on overlocking, since 125w is already pushing it a bit and much higher speeds are bound to be a cause for concern. Perhaps AMD will transfer to a smaller process, or make even more refinements. As it stands I think they have done an awesome job, having shown just how good this architecture was from the start.
I wonder how these things perform when throwing multiple programs at them simultaneously; a proper stress test, as it were. Then we may really see how much a real core can do as compared to a logical core offered by a Hyper-Threading CPU. It's not totally beyond the realms of believability that someone may be doing multiple things at once! All the benchmarks I've seen so far concentrate on one main task - why not try to run a virus scan whilst compressing a video and using Photoshop?
People who want the amazing 6-core platform will probably be running multiple apps at the same time, otherwise we might as well go back to one really fast single core processor.
I am impressed by the six cores, and let fusion come. But no doubt about it, Intel has the quickest strongest CPU in the market, with a hefty price of 1 thousand dollars. The 920 for the price, is NOT the best purchase. 920 is 280 bucks, the x6 is 300 bucks. Well at least when it comes to GAMING. On the application side..you know one would question who cares about unzipping a file..or sandra benchmarks..these are useless information. lets use real day applications! I am no fanboy I speak the truth. Economy sucks we got no money, and for the performance and price I would go AMD.
Let amd put a 6c/12t and Then we can bash AMD on poor performance. and Pricetag would be around 600 bucks not 1K i bet.
I am impressed by the six cores, and let fusion come. But no doubt about it, Intel has the quickest strongest CPU in the market, with a hefty price of 1 thousand dollars. The 920 for the price, is NOT the best purchase. 920 is 280 bucks, the x6 is 300 bucks. Well at least when it comes to GAMING. On the application side..you know one would question who cares about unzipping a file..or sandra benchmarks..these are useless information. lets use real day applications! I am no fanboy I speak the truth. Economy sucks we got no money, and for the performance and price I would go AMD.
Let amd put a 6c/12t and Then we can bash AMD on poor performance. and Pricetag would be around 600 bucks not 1K i bet.
Wait... where in the world are you guys getting these power consumption figures? AMD doesn't even have power-gating thus it's IMPOSSIBLE for the X6 to out compete Intel's chips that do. It's the newest, absolute power shut off technology Vs down-clocking.
"With Intel® Turbo Boost Technology, depending upon the work load, the power and frequency can be distributed across many cores or focused on fewer cores through the use of power gating—an internal power management unit that can “turn off” power to entire cores."
Anandtech shows WAY diff numbers; the X6 is a horrible power saver.
"The Phenom II architecture in general does reasonably well at idle, but without power gating AMD can't compete with Intel's idle power levels.
Under load Intel also has the clear advantage."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/10
I def like Tom's, but come on, these numbers don't at up at all. Ahem?
IMO the AMD X6s are nothing but AMD's version of a filibuster, until they can come out with Bob & Bulldozer... A great one at that, but nothing to claim "victory" about. Victory isn't about finishing second by .000000000000001sec, Victory is OVERALL performance leads at a competitive price range.
__Everyone knows that there will always be a market for the few 980Xs and EEs out there. People that run very competitive businesses and rich fanboys are of said market. So to even bring up the 980x is pointless, since it's in a class of it's own and ALWAYS will sell. It's a marketing tool to say WE ARE DOMINANT, regardless of price they'll fly off the shelves. Superior MARKETING = sells more than superior products — FACT>.<
__Remember, like most gamers, humans are dumb animals when it comes to shopping, we all know this on here, well cept gamers; being the stupidest, most irrational, and fickle of all computer-enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, I love to game, but in moderation.
Flames away! *Poof!*
Yeah. The Chip doesn't have a gr8 boost for gaming purposes, but what's gd is that it seems there is no noticeable difference when playing games with it in real life, it is only statistically weaker.
I guess you can say your paying for just another X4 for gaming, only with more processing power for work related programs and multitasking. Which is why you pay a bit more.
I don't get this whole "low budget" build ideology; WHY would you even waste your time and money trying to scrap together the most bargain-basement parts to build a "lower" end machine? It's ONLY going to end up hurting you in the end...
Why not continue to SAVE and spend rationally or... (now this is going to sound crazy, just absolutely crazy!!!) You could...... SACRIFICE and stick with the 939/940/775 systems you have (which are way faster than the X2 I'm typing this on, lol) until you do have enough money SAVED up to get a real serious mid to mid-high end machine? The high-end segment of the comp build market is nothing but a huge RIPOFF! You're paying huge premiums for minuscule performance increases.
All this endless whining about low this, budget that. Try exercising some SELF-CONTROL and NOT spending your money on drinking, junk food, lecherous GFs and other "entertainment" crap? Make it a GOAL to save up and get a good solid machine that will last Vs just getting you by in the short-term.
Come on guys I know you can do it if you just decide to CONTROL yourselves.
Good fortune to you all.