There are quite a few games that take advantage of 4 cores these days. The reason these are being talked about is there isn't that much premium for 2 extra cores, and you don't give up clock speed with Turbo mode. We also like the fact the temps/power/over-clocking is very good. While 6 core may not make much difference in all games, there are some people here that do encoding and such that would enjoy the extra 2 cores.
A dead end platform in what way? How long have you had that P35? How long have you had that Q6600? How many times have you upgraded on that LGA775 platform? My guess is not since you upgraded to it in the first place, on which it would be exactly the same if you'd have upgraded to the LGA 1156 platform. I had one upgrade path on LGA775 and there will probably be a newer socket out to replace LGA1366 before the LGA1156 platform is rendered obsolete
Pretty insane for the price. I doubt AMD will lead Intel in performance anytime soon, but honestly they really don't have too. Price per Performance is what the large majority of the market cares about and AMD is definitely leading there.
As I said I'm not an expert. I saw your post. However, I was judging from the benchmarks in this review. When overclocked the 1090T almost managed to match the 980X in lower resolutions. In BC2 there's no difference at all. I'm guessing that the 1090T would rock with CF 5870, 5970, SLI 470, SLI 480, etc. I might be wrong. Probably we need more benchmarks.
Was anyone actually expecting this chipset to beat the i7980 in a benchmark battle? Pfft. But was anyone NOT expecting AMD to deliver in ACTUAL GAME PERFORMANCE and price? Yeah, the i7980 raped in the benchies, but as far as actual gaming went, the Phenom held it's own. Tied even on nearly every game past the 1024X768 area. That and it's $800 cheaper than the i7980. AMD has the right idea. Kick ass performance...for a minimum price. Go team red! :3
I completely disagree with the final conclusions... i'd say that gaming is the only place where you don't have to worry, because all the games are so gpu bound that it's pointless to have those fast i7 and the Phenom II X6 does the job just as fine. In all other areas that are not gaming the i7 beats the X6. But add AMD's X6 a triple channel memory controller and something like hypertreading, then Intel would be in REAL trouble again. I really hope AMD gets back on the fight so we can get better and cheaper CPU's. Meanwhile I'm gonna stay with my Athlon64 3200+
AMD just needs Bulldozer. This is just a stop gap between K10.5 and Bulldozer. SMT isn't the answer to everything as there are drawbacks such as higher latency within the system, cache contentions and etc. The memory subsystem should be improved as well. Not about the amount of channels but the IMC itself as even the Core i5 750 dual channel beats out the Phenom II's version. deltatux
The P35 board I've had since my P965 board died and I got this one as a replacement. You're quite correct in that I haven't upgraded this rig aside from the memory and graphics. The CPU is very much the same. That, however, initially were due to being unemployed and later due to the existence of of more modern platforms. At this point upgrading this platform would be even more stupid than going with S1156 however. My point would be that you shouldn't read anything into what kind of rig people use, there may be any number of reasons for that. I can wait to see the outcome of Fusion vs. Sandy Bridge so I'll do just that. Oh I'm sure it does, it stutters fairly badly from time to time for me even if general gameplay is good. I just follow reviews fairly closely and pretty much every game I play or intend to play seem to perform better, often significantly so, on a i5 750 over a PII 965. Here they are roughly the same price, with the motherboards being cheaper/better on the AMD side of things, but I still can't bring myself to go with either a dead-end option or the inferior option. Feeling the constraints of my budget I suppose, this old machine will have to soldier on until both AMD and Intel have their next-gen platforms out I reckon.
that 1090 would give me a boost in every game on stock clocks tbh... getting myself 5850 tomorrow or so my Q6600 isn't holding its own anymore at all
To be fair he didn't mention using a hexa-core. AMD's platform is compelling enough, an 890GX and a decent Athlon II dual-core would make a great office machine indeed. And a lot cheaper than a S1156 + Pentium G6950 at that.
I'm working on small SQL Database and there are operations that take 100% CPU for few seconds on Dual Core E8400 @ 2.8Ghz Cheap 6 core could be breakthrough for some small buisnes databases considering it's price. It's cheaper to buy 6 core AMD than SQL Commercial license for example
Ah yes, that makes sense. Heck, even the student edition of something like cs5 costs more than most home desktops.
Hmm, looks like a pretty dang cool processor. I (skimmed the article and) like how the cores can all run at different frequencies. Thats pretty sweet. Looks pretty power hungry, but thats sort of expected. Nice processor, nice price. I'd say its mainly for benchies and other things. Not gaming.
Maybe he was referring to when overclocked? In which case, what serious Overclocker cares about power consumption? (who already knows the consequences of course, but there's always a middle ground...)
One thing I miss about my Phenom 2 setup is the custom power and clock profiles that could be set with programs like k10stat. I could idle at 1.5GHz 0.8V and a few milliseconds later be at 3.85GHz 1.48V....I wish Intel had a similar custom power management scheme.