DailyTech - AMD Launches Six-Core Phenom II X6 CPUs with 890FX Chipset

Submit News

Hardware AMD Launches Six-Core Phenom II X6 CPUs with 890FX Chipset
Jansen Ng (Blog) - April 27, 2010 10:46 AM

58 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on May 6 at 2:26 PM

AMD Phenom II X6 die

More bang for the buck at the same TDP

Advanced Micro Devices is launching today two new six-core variants of its flagship Phenom II processor, along with its latest 890FX chipset. The new Phenom II X6 CPUs will work on current AM3 and AM2+ socket motherboards that have proper BIOS support enabled, making these processors an intriguing upgrade option.

“With AMD Phenom II X6 processors, discerning customers can build an incredible, immersive entertainment system and content creation powerhouse,” said Bob Grim, Director of Client Platform Marketing at AMD. “AMD is answering the call for elite desktop PC performance and features at an affordable price.”

Formerly codenamed Thuban the new chips consist of 904 million transistors and have a die size of 346mm2 on GlobalFoundries' 45nm process.

The two new models being launched today are the Phenom II X6 1090T running at 3.2GHz and the Phenom II X6 1055T running at 2.8GHz. Both feature 3MB of L2 cache, 6MB of L3 cache, and a relatively low Thermal Design Power (TDP) of only 125W.

Phenom II X6 processors also feature "Turbo Core" technology, which can dynamically overclock up to three cores and run them at higher frequencies. Many games and applications have been developed for single- or dual-core CPUs, and this technology is supposed to give you the best of both worlds. The programs most likely to take advantage of all six cores are modeling, content creation and immersive 3D applications.

The real surprise though is the low price at launch. AMD's chief competitor Intel released its high-priced Core i7 980X earlier this year. That particular six-core chip built on the 32nm process sells for $999.

AMD is setting the MSRP of the Phenom II X6 1090T at $285 and the Phenom II X6 1055T at $199, despite the chips being produced on the larger 45nm process. The 1090T is a Black Edition model with a fully unlocked clock multiplier. Overclockers should be able to squeeze even more performance out of the chip, especially on liquid cooling.

Several more six-core variants will be introduced over the next few months. The Phenom II X6 1035T running at 2.6GHz will launch later this quarter, while the Phenom II X6 1075T running at 3.0GHz will launch next quarter. The Phenom II X4 960T, a 3.0GHz quad-core Thuban chip with two cores disabled will launch later this quarter as well.

The AMD 890FX chipset also launching today is an update of the venerable 790FX chipset. Built on a 65nm process, the new chipset uses the new SB850 southbridge. The primary improvement is native support for up to six 6Gbps SATA drives. Up to 14 USB 2.0 devices up supported natively, up two from the 790FX. Unfortunately, USB 3.0 is not natively supported at this time, but motherboard manufacturers such as ASUS and Gigabyte will add support though the use of discrete USB 3.0 chips.

The use of Thuban CPUs along with the 890FX chipset and an ATI DirectX 11 discrete graphics card comprise the "Leo" platform, which AMD is actively marketing to OEMs for the back-to-school and holiday shopping season.

The company is also working on its next-generation Zambezi CPUs which will use 4-8 Bulldozer cores. Designed for the 32nm process node, it will be combined with a new chipset natively supporting USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 along with ATI's Northern Islands GPUs to form the Scorpius platform.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Point being?

By Yucker54 on 4/27/2010 11:39:07 AM , Rating: 2

I mean this is cool and everything but is there any real point for having a six-core processor? Aren't we barely utilizing quad-cores right now?

I am not coming off deliberately to be ignorant, nor am I bashing AMD (huge fan actually) but I don't get what can be done with six cores. Right now at least.

RE: Point being?

By jarman on 4/27/2010 11:47:22 AM , Rating: 4

Virtualization is the first to come to mind. While I can easily run 5-10 "light" VMs without sweating on my slightly dated C2Q, I'd be interested to see how capable the new hexacore processors are with some heavier VMs. Would like to see if the dual channel memory quickly bottlenecks the six physical cores.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 5

Video encoding, 3D work, Crunching for WCG (World community Grid) or FAH (Folding at Home).

For those reasons alone I want a six core processor.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By just4U on 4/27/2010 12:07:21 PM , Rating: 2

Throw in the fact that many of us are enthusiasts .. playing with a six core processor is tempting as hell since most of us haven't been able to do that yet.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By jonmcc33 on 4/27/2010 12:13:31 PM , Rating: 2

Only as long as it outperforms the typical Intel quad core in multithreaded apps. If their six core CPU isn't any better than a quad core Intel Core i5 then I would be wasting my money.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By just4U on 4/27/2010 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 2

I really don't think it's meant to compete against the i5 and sifting thru the reviews it appears to be their answer to the i7860 and i7930 overall.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Taft12 on 4/27/2010 2:09:05 PM , Rating: 2

That makes sense since the 1090T costs the same as those CPUs. Looks like you get terrific value from the 1055T however at $100 less however!

Parent

RE: Point being?

By just4U on 4/27/2010 2:27:04 PM , Rating: 3

I can't argue with that. What is amazing is the overall supply. While reading this article I decided to check out my local computer shop here in Calgary and sure enough they got their stock listed this morning and not just a small limited supply either. They list prices at $219 and $319 respectively which is pretty good for Canadian pricing I think.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 12:48:07 PM , Rating: 2

GPU is still not widely used in most software unless you pay out the bum for the software. So till more software supports using the extra GPU power CPU will still be the best option.

I use mostly Free apps to do my encoding and video editing.

So for me CPU has more worth. Many of WCG's projects don't even use the GPU.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 3

One problem with Badaboom... It only works for Nvidia GPU's that use CUDA.

I am not denying that the GPU is much faster for the type of work I am doing. However, Most software don't take advantage of it.
Most because its ***** to code for it, plus since there are two GPU companies its hard to code with both in mind.

The GPU acceleration is almost here... though its still niche.

Badaboom is also so simple it lacks so many options that a video encoder shouldn't be without.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 2:05:19 PM , Rating: 3

Point me to a software package that uses DX11 compute shaders to encode?

What you talking about?
x264 is the free open source version.
h.264 is the license required version.

Excellent example of a full featured encoder based on x264 is MeGui.
You can vary pretty much everything in the encoding process.

Sorry Badaboom is still pretty narrow when it comes to options.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 3:53:16 PM , Rating: 3

Badaboom uses h.264 not x264.
why the hell did you bring up x264?

x264 command line isn't really needed since MeGui gives you access to it through a GUI interface. In fact while you are selecting options it shows the changes to the command line.

quote:
Excellent example of a software written by an idiot. Requiring admin access rights just to ENCODE A VIDEO CLIP? That's way beyond what I call simply moronic.

I guess someone doesn't trust you with admin rights?
I sure wouldn't. ;)

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 5:44:27 PM , Rating: 2

Btw its not really Megui's fault...
Avisynth needs Admin rights.

However Avisynth is such a powerful tool I don't blame them for using it as their way to feed the program.

Plenty of programs need Admin rights.
Why you nit pick that?

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: -1

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 7:17:50 PM , Rating: 2

Someone with such a strong opinion on everything aren't you?

Parent

RE: Point being?

By StevoLincolnite on 4/27/2010 12:49:45 PM , Rating: 3

Pirks are you a fanboy in everything? I like AMD as a company and there products as the next guy, but seriously?

Also...

1) If pure CPU performance is what you want, Intel has the best right now.

2) AMD have the best price/performance.

3) Not all applications are computed on a GPU, hence the requirement for continually faster central processors.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/27/10, Rating: 0

RE: Point being?

By bighairycamel on 4/27/2010 2:15:26 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3676/phenom-ii-x6-4g...

at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test

Keep in mind they were referring to stock 975, which is not really a fair comparison from a strictly performance standpoint. The point Anand was going for was that the CPU could reach $1k CPU potential. But that's been true of Intel CPUs for as long as I can remember. The 920 can also outperform the 975 when OCd for $700 less. If you want a 1:1 performance comparison, OC the 975 to 4.0GHz and see who comes out on top.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By HotFoot on 4/27/2010 4:08:35 PM , Rating: 3

Here you go.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pheno...

quote:
Strange as it might seem, but a quad-core CPU on Intel Nehalem microarchitecture with Hyper-Threading technology overclocked to 4.0 GHz almost always outperforms six-core CPU from AMD. At the same time I can’t say that Thuban’s frequency potential is higher that of Core i7 CPUs on Lynnfield and Bloomfield cores. Therefore, there is only one possible conclusion here: microarchitecture of contemporary Intel processors makes them faster than AMD processors working at the same clock frequency. And even a 1.5 times increase in the number of computational cores can’t make up for that. That is why we again arrive to the same conclusion that AMD’s only weapon in the battle for consumers is their pricing policy.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By StevoLincolnite on 4/27/2010 5:28:47 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
at 4GHz the Phenom II X6 is faster than a Core i7 975 in our x264 encoding test :P

Overclock the Core i7 to 4ghz and watch it out-perform the Phenom, apples to apples Pirks.

quote:
Not all DOS programs are compatible with USB flash, hence the requirement for continually improving floppy disk drive :)))

Your attempt at a joke/sarcasm didn't even give me the slightest smirk, please try again.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 5:34:11 PM , Rating: 2

http://anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom...

actually he is right.
He just FAILS at putting up a good link.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2

Wait a second... does that test do it without turbo or with?

Parent

RE: Point being?

By StevoLincolnite on 4/30/2010 1:07:38 AM , Rating: 2

Your missing the Core i7 980X which out-performs everything currently, so he is not correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2010 7:35:43 PM , Rating: 3

This was about the dumbest, technically incorrect, moronic thing I have read all week. Pirks, you truly are retarded.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/28/2010 9:46:48 AM , Rating: 1

wow, another idiot who thinks puny CPU can pwn Fermi computation power wise

LOL

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/28/2010 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2

Why the hell do we even bother with CPU's in the first place? Lets replace everything Fermi! sarcasm.

GPU is great is certain computations, very simple ones.
Where the code is embarrasing parallel.

Try to throw complex code branches at it in most cases it'll just shudder and wont be able to do it.

The only one that is an idiot here is the one who isn't an engineer and doesn't know the complex nature of designing and programing for a computer. I know just mostly hardware... I just understand the basics when it comes to progaming.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/28/10, Rating: 0

RE: Point being?

By Azure Sky on 4/28/2010 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 1

there are things a gpu is good for doing, and there are things they are not really good for, your not gonna see the gpu replacing the cpu in desktop systems any time soon, for one thing you cant run windows or x86 code on an nvidia or ati/amd gpu, and i know your an apple fanboi but Windows rules the business world(and has even been pushing apple out of the creative design world since apples move to x86)

GPGPU(opencl/directcompute/cuda/stream) all all in their infancy, there are things they currently CANT DO, Also, please post links to some apps other then badaboom that run on gpu.

Oh and badaboom sucks mind you, if you wana see gpu accelerated encoding that truely flys, try mediacoders cuda mode, it rapes the living shit out of badaboom(and i own badaboom, mediacoders encoder is more powerfull and faster.....and free....i got ripped off!!)

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/28/10, Rating: 0

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/28/2010 5:09:51 PM , Rating: 2

Again... it probably makes sense in your head Pirks.
Though you are not getting your point across.

Not sure what I said was funny.
If you elaborated a bit more I could rebuttal.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Pirks on 4/28/2010 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 2

Easy. If you can distribute algorithm among millions of computers in a grid it's going to be much easier to distribute it among a few hundred GPU cores. Got it?

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Kurz on 4/28/2010 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2

Again you are not seeing the difference between a GPU and CPU.
They have huge differences in Design and Function.

Yes if all Distributed Data Crunching was using GPU's since the algorithms they typically run are embarrassingly parallel we could get much more done in a frame of time. However, not everything a CPU can do a GPU can do.

GPU is very specialized in its task.
CPU is more generalized to handle a broader range work loads.

Not sure why you brought it up when I was really talking about Distributed Data Crunching.

A little hint for further discussion try to focus on the topic at hand.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Yucker54 on 4/27/2010 1:37:06 PM , Rating: 2

Fair enough.

If I had the money I would be a bigger enthusiast but seeing as you described just about everything I don't do, so no wonder why my ignorance would come in.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By just4U on 4/27/2010 2:36:03 PM , Rating: 2

Wouldn't we all be though? Most of us wouldn't be into dropping a grand on the most expensive proccessors out there but when they come down to this price range they are somewhat harder to ignore.

I can tell you right now I don't need a 6 core cpu, and I am perfectly happy with both of the setups I currently own (I7-920 & PIIX4-920) but that really doesn't stop me from giving this 6core serious consideration. :)

To be fair, I build alot of computers, and I am very impressed with all the current offerings by AMD and Intel. Atleast the ones I've had the oportunity to work with ranging from $60-$330 in price.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By amanojaku on 4/27/10, Rating: 0

RE: Point being?

By Yucker54 on 4/27/2010 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 2

That would be awesome...but are our current architectures able to run programs in a manner such as that?

Parent

RE: Point being?

By HotFoot on 4/27/2010 3:48:11 PM , Rating: 2

Existing thread schedulers are far more advanced than what was posted above, and manage power consumption much better to boot.

Parent

RE: Point being?

By Sfaret on 4/27/2010 4:47:10 PM , Rating: 2

The thing people are missing is how the threading of apps is working. Every app out there that effectively uses 4 cores will use more if it has them available. This means that there is already a move forward on the use of these cores.

Parent

need to go faster

By kattanna on 4/27/10, Rating: 0

RE: need to go faster

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 12:20:44 PM , Rating: 3

Why get a older processor based on NetBrust architecture?

Seriously... If you want speed overclock.
I am more interested in how efficient a processor can be.
Then if I want more Ghz I can just overclock it.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By Hieyeck on 4/27/2010 12:47:39 PM , Rating: 2

I'm opposed to this. Theoretically, 6x3.2 is 19.8 GHZ already. Practically, we're probably looking at 15~ GHZ effective, but REALISTICALLY, programmers need to stop letting the OS do the legwork and program for better multi-core usage. It's frustrating watching my games only use 25% of my quad-core.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By AnotherGuy on 4/27/2010 1:40:21 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Theoretically, 6x3.2 is 19.8 GHZ already.

I thought u were joking at first.... but I see u werent.... Thats A Very Wrong Statement!

the speed remains 3.2 no matter how many cores u got in there.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 1

Try taking a class on comprehension.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By HotFoot on 4/27/2010 4:04:11 PM , Rating: 3

We're going on 5 or 6 years now since dual-core came out. Some tasks, like heavily branching code, do not lend themselves well to multi-threading. If heat/physics weren't limiting what's going on, a single core running at 18 GHz would be in every way far superior to 6 cores running at 3 GHz, hands down.

So I doubt the person you responded to really needs a lesson on comprehension. Can we get back on subject here rather than throwing anonymous insults?

Some folks are going to make good use of a 6-core machine. I'm in the category of wishing there was something compelling me to go that route. It's been a while since I built my Penryn rig, and I've yet to find a need to upgrade. I don't do much video encoding (just watch DVDs). Really, my most intensive applications are games, and so far none of those are begging for even four cores.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By Kurz on 4/27/2010 4:52:10 PM , Rating: 2

Never denied that a single core would be faster than a slew of multiple cores trying to handle badly written code. Still a single core wouldn't be faster than multiple cores when multitasking.

Its not really an insult, more like you need to reread what he is saying. He never stated that 6 cores = 20GHZ!!!

Just saying the raw computational power is theoretically 20ghz that. Also because of overhead and bad coding the theoretical power drops down to 15Ghz if you were to use all the cores for something.

Why am I copying what he is saying, since its highly subjective on the situation?

Even though speeds in GHZ haven't increased much, the efficiency at executing and crunching code has gone up. Smaller processes, better architecture and more cores all have lead to faster processing times.

Why not install WCG and use that extra CPU cycles to solves riddles like cancer, AIDS, etc... That plus video encoding are the only reasons why I want more cores.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By Bateluer on 4/27/2010 7:24:30 PM , Rating: 2

I'm in a similar category, I'd love to have a hexa-core box, but I haven't really found a need to bump up from my Wolfdale E8500. Most games these days are console ports, so even when its an efficient port, its not taxing my machine at all. I may replace my 4870 512M with a 2GB 5870 though, probably better bang for the buck.

Parent

RE: need to go faster

By Mojo the Monkey on 4/29/2010 11:08:26 AM , Rating: 2

the 5870 is getting long in the tooth. considering its release date... I'd wait for the next iteration, or at least for the next big price drop - which hasnt come in some time now.

Parent

Nice

By RjBass on 4/27/2010 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 2

And the reviews from places like AnandTech are also coming in and for the price, these new CPU's look solid. This is exactly what we need as Intel has been dominating the high end for some time now, and they have been charging us for it. With better competition in the mid range CPU market from AMD, we will be able to build some really nice computers at really nice prices again as I am sure Intel will be dropping the prices of their more mid range CPU's now.

RE: Nice

By SandmanWN on 4/27/2010 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 2

Speaking of price...
TigerDirect issued $50 rebate on these processors already.

That means you can get a 6-core 2.8Ghz processor for ~$150.
Thats nuts.

I have an old X2 sitting in a AM2+ board. Can't imagine going from a secondary machine to equaling my current quad core main rig for chump change.

Parent

RE: Nice

By just4U on 4/27/2010 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't count on Intel dropping prices though. They didn't do so over the entire run of the Core2.. Hell they even kept pricing fairly high in the P4 days.

Hmmm, You know... if Amd had gone a $100 more on these I think many of us wouldn't be quite as interested but at the same price as the 930 and 860 ... this is a incredibly tempting alternative.

Parent