AMD klar med billig 6-kerne CPU

Erroneus (1) skrev:

Det kan godt være AMD ikke tager topydelsen her, men software/spil der er glad for mange kerne elsker sådan en 6-kerne cpu og derudover klarer den sig jo faktisk glimrende i "almindelige" ting og så til en pris der er helt fantastisk.

Det er rart at se AMD er tilbage og forhåbenligt kan det presse priserne ned på Intel, som jeg syntes har været lige et tak for højt igennem længere tid, fordi de har kunne tillade det.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33902850 skrev:

===================Quad Core===================
Alan Wake - Ground up quad core support.
Bioshock (Unreal Engine 3) - Quad core support.
Call Of Duty 4 - Ground up quad core support.
Company of Heroes - Ground up quad core support
Crysis - MP Beta Dual Core support, full game ground up Quad Core support.
DiRT - Ground up quad core support (up to 8 cores reported).
Flight Simulator X - Quad core support with patch.
Lost Planet - Ground up quad core support. (octa core support as well).
MOH: Airborn (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
Supreme Commander - Ground up quad core support.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Quad core ground up, can use 5 threads.
World in Conflict - Ground up quad core support.
Unreal Tournament 3 (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
===================Dual Core===================
Age of Empires 3 - Dual core support.
Call of Duty 2 with 1.01 smp patch - Dual Core support
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Native dual core support (possible quad, need confirmation).
EVE online - Dual core (possible quad core, need confirmation)
Falcon 4.0 - Some Support, extent unknown.
Galactic Civilizations II - Dual core support.
Gothic 3 - Dual core support.
HL2: Orangebox - Dual core support
Stalker - Dual core support with 1.0004 patch.
Quake 4 - Dual Core with patch.
Titan quest + Titan quest Immortal Throne - Dual core with patch.
World of Warcraft - Dual Core with patch.
============================================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor skrev:

The largest boost in performance will likely be noticed in improved response time while running CPU-intensive processes, like antivirus scans, ripping/burning media (requiring file conversion), or searching for folders. For example, if the automatic virus scan initiates while a movie is being watched, the application running the movie is far less likely to be starved of processor power, as the antivirus program will be assigned to a different processor core than the one running the movie playback.

beelz (3) skrev:

Ville hellere have 2 meget kraftige kærner i min CPU end 6 ok kraftige.. Kan ikke se hvad en normal bruger skulle bruge alle de kærner til:S

Er dog glad for at de prøver at konkurrere med Intel igen, Intel sidder for højt for øjeblikket..

NoBrakes (8) skrev:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

ja den er billigere... og hva så? :)

beelz (3) skrev:

Ville hellere have 2 meget kraftige kærner i min CPU end 6 ok kraftige.. Kan ikke se hvad en normal bruger skulle bruge alle de kærner til:S

Er dog glad for at de prøver at konkurrere med Intel igen, Intel sidder for højt for øjeblikket..

kjeldmis (13) skrev:

Det er rigtigt, men du kan ikke sige nej til at Intel har et godt fast greb i markedet, og har massser af credit - netop fordi de har modellerne med mest ydelse

NoBrakes (15) skrev:

flamebait:

jeg synes AMD sutter.

feel free to rate this one

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33902850&page=5#124 skrev:

Many of them are not truly multi core games, just the OS spreading the load.

erchni (20) skrev:

Hvad hedder en 6 kernes processer forresten, dual, quad, hepta? måske, octa.

Daniel-Dane (21) skrev:

Many of them are not truly multi core games, just the OS spreading the load.

mireigi (4) skrev:

Antallet af spil som understøtter mere end én kerne korrekt, kan tælles på én hånd.

Despite being an astonishing £600 cheaper than the exorbitantly-priced Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition, the X6 1090T BE still isn’t a very good buy. That’s because despite being clocked at a respectable 3.2GHz and having a useful auto-overclocking feature in Turbo Core, it’s based on a comparatively old architecture – K10, which is in reality only a tweaked version of the ancient K8 architecture dating way back to 2003.

As a result, the X6 1090T BE really struggles to keep up with the similarly priced Intel Core i7-930, which has was noticeably faster in six of our eight benchmarks thanks to its far more modern Nehalem architecture. The only exception to this was our Cinebench and WPrime tests, indicating that the X6 1090T BE may be worth considering for a low cost graphics workstation. However, even then, the i7-930 retook pole position when both CPUs were overclocked to their air-cooled maximum frequency.

Ultimately, despite being a good step forward for AMD, the i7-930 still remains our first choice CPU in the £200-£250 price range. Only if you have a compatible AMD motherboard and just want to upgrade the CPU should you look to buy the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition.

Today's conclusion is no different than what we've been saying about AMD's CPU lineup for several months now. If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.

You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.

The better way to look at it is to ask yourself what sort of machine you're building. If you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications, AMD will sell you nearly a billion transistors for under $300 and you can't go wrong. If it's a more general purpose machine that you're assembling, Lynnfield seems like a better option.

terracide (35) skrev:

Så længe du ikke overclocker...og hvem hulan køber en i7 eller en PhII uden at OC den?

arne_v (36) skrev:

Vel de fleste.

arne_v (47) skrev:

#46

XP synger nok på sidste vers.

Anandtec skrev:

Note that at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3676/phenom-ii-x6-4g...