AMD six-core CPU prices and clock speeds unearthed
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted March 22nd 2010 3:16PM
posted March 22nd 2010 3:16PM
The gang at DigiTimes have always struck us as processor obsessives -- constantly out on the streets, roughing up mobo manufacturers, getting them to spill their secrets (they probably look like Gene Hackman in Night Moves). And they've sure been busy, this time digging up some dirt on AMD's six-core Phenom II line. Hitting shelves as soon as the second quarter this year, the X6 1035T will clock in at 2.6GHz, the 1005T at 2.8GHz, and the 1075T at 3GHz. There is also a Phenom II X6 1095T possibly coming to fruition in the fourth quarter of the year, but we don't have any data on that one yet. According to Alien Babel Tech (where we did our undergrad, by the way) the 1055T is will retail for $199, while the as-of-yet unknown 1090T black edition will retail $295. As always, we recommend that in lieu of an official announcement you take all this with a grain of salt.
[Thanks, Blurib]
[Thanks, Blurib]
And to think I thought my Phenom II x4 295 BE was a steal!
Keep it going AMD
hmm.
I've been itching to build an i7 PC lately, I may end up using the Black Edition of one of these instead.
@Drybones5
Yea man I definitely agree. I'm planning to buy some AMD stocks because I know they will catch up because their about to release their 8 cored processor probably in this 3rd Quarter. Keep it going AMD!
The _only_ good thing about AMD CPU's is that I didn't have to pay twice as much for my superior Intel CPU.
@Mister Warmth AMD has world's first: 1GHz processor, 1st 64bit (consumer) processor, 1st dual & real dual core processor, 1st real quad-core processor, 1st 6 core processor. All AMD processors have 1/3 to 1/2 cache of intel processors and are built in older process. Yet, AMD offers more bang for buck, AMD's are bout 10% slower only, and unless you need the fastest processor you can get (which is the case for less than 1% of the people) AMD is better choice. Even so, a Black Edition AMD won't let anyone down, guaranteed!!! Just my 2 bucks...
@Drybones5
where's the typo in that cpu name? because i'm sure AMD has never made that processor...
@Wildman
I think he means a 955?
@archkron
Wow I'm dumb. Yeah its the 965 BE. IDK where I got 295.
@nomadewolf
well you've been quite informative but i guess you forgot to mention that intel invented the processor itself
I wonder how AMDs 6 cores will compare to Intel's i7 quads- probably use more power and still don't surpass benchmarks, but here's to hoping AMD may someday gain their mojo back...
Well that's how AMD Triple-cores fared against Intel Core 2 Duo parts at the time, so yeah, double everything and the trend will probably continue.
@think before you react
I'm just glad that the 6-core i7 has some competition. Without that Intel could charge an arm and a leg...
@PlatinumSkeet True, but only if the AMD 6 core can push as hard as the Intel 6 core. Intel wont care otherwise because they price their products to compete with AMDs stock based on performance, not just cores. I wouldn't mind seeing some cheaper 980s though :D
@PlatinumSkeet The Phenom II is no competition for the i7 though, so unfortunately this will do nothing for the prices of the six-core i7's. It'll probably be competitive with the quad core i7's though in applications that can use all 6 cores efficiently.
But seriously though, since the Phenom II X4 couldn't keep up with the quad core i7 it makes no sense to think that the six core version can compete with the six core i7.
About time AMD gives us another option. Someone to keep Intel and their prices in check. Just hope it holds up in comparison.
@TheGadgetologist Well looking at the existing 6 core Opteron pricing, not sure how much of a deal these are going to be. Granted the "consumer" dribble down Athlons have always been cheaper than their workstation/server comparable parts, but a 2.2Ghz 2427 is over $500.
I don't get it... what do you do with 6 cores? Starting to think anything beyond dual core is a gimmick. Are there any apps/games that can even utilize all these cores??
It would be nice to be able to assign two cores to a game, one to my music player and the other to word docs etc. having the ability to do more than one thing at a time.
Yet Windows can only process 1 thing at a time, there's no real multitasking going on. Try copying two files at the same time and watch one copy while the other waits and that's with Windows 7 64bit and a quad core machine.
This is all a gimmick to sell chips!
@bonedog73
Some people use other OS's and other high end software that needs these things.
The average consumer doesn't
@bonedog73 while your right about the copy and wait "feature" in windows 7, you can assign cores to specific processes. It's called "Set Affinity" in Task Manager/Processes. Never noticed a difference, but hey it's there!
@bonedog73
Have you tried setting processor affinity. Its been around since the Windows NT days.
@bonedog73
My computer was rendering frames from Cinema4D for 5 days straight for a 3d animation project. Intel Core2Quad 3.0ghz. Try doing that on a dual-core or less and see how long that takes.
@bonedog73 if use two separate drives to copy you can see multi tasks, a HDD can only read and write one thing at a time.
@bonedog73
You're an idiot. Compared to your processor, your harddrive is a giant, slow, piece of crap. You're bottle-necked by your hdd here. As for Windows being able to process one thing at a time: LOL.
@bonedog73
lol
@bonedog73
Dude, file copy time is related to hard drive speed, not CPU power. Get a Western Digital Velociraptor, or even better, an SSD, and you'll see your copy time shrink significantly.
I have a Core i7 machine built for converting Blu-Rays to much smaller mkv files. Takes 4 hours to do, whereas my older Core 2 Duo would take a day or two! There are many applications that benefit from the extra cores. Music playing and document writing are definitely two applications that do not need all this extra horsepower. And most games... You just need a decent video card, but extra CPU might be helpful with some games.
@bonedog73 Bad Company 2 with fraps or xfire broadcasting running xD
Whoa what was you rendering? How long was the animation? (if it was an animation)
@bonedog73
The Source engine, notably the one used in Team Fortress 2 has multiprocessor support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28game_engine%29#Notable_technology
anyone know if these will support DDR2 memory?
@UberLaff
If it's a new socket, and new chipset, I doubt it. But if it's using the same AM3 socket with the same chipset, then it should have memory addressing for DDR2. Besides supporting legacy/being cheap, I dont see why you'd want to run a bottlenecked DDR2 with a 6-core CPU.
AMD has been really looking good lately. Sure the processors don't perform as good as Intel's quad i5 and i7's but their nowhere near as much cost-wise. It's like you trade 20% performance decrease for 80% price decrease lol.
@CJisohsocool - and you don't have to buy all new supporting hardware (motherboard, etc) to drop these in. Definitely handy for upgraders on a budget, who already happen to have AM2+ or AM3 motherboards that these new CPUs are compatible with.
@Vrmithrax To be fair the X58 boards will support the 6 core i7's. However, I agree Intel was very bad in the 775 socket for chip generation to generation compatibilty in the same f'n socket.
AMD FTW!!!
So you can get 5 AMD 6 cores for the price of one Intel 6 core, or 3 of the black editions with 100 dollars left over.
@Nitesh Except it won't really compete with the intel six core so much as various intel quad cores that it's similarly priced as.
@tekdemon Not in benchmarks...no. But a quick price check shows the Intel 980x pricing out at around $1000 - $1100. So if you go for the 1090T @ $300 instead, and assume motherboard and RAM are comparable, that leaves an additional $700 - $800 for such things as...
Performance/Gaming
- RAID array for system partition
- SSD for system partition
- 2 SSDs in RAID for system partition
- Big honkin' video card ~ $500
- Two high end video cards in Crossfire ($250+ each)
- $300 video card and 8+ NEW games
- 8GB more of RAM
Depending on the actual application, any one of these might close the performance gap between the Intel and AMD cpus when compared alone. Plus, you have other options to if you're not a gamer...
Multimedia
- Blu-Ray reader
- Blu-ray Burner
- Blu-ray reader + Blu-ray burner (both)
- 2 - 3 1TB HDDs + RAID 5 controller
- Multi-bay stand alone home server device (1TB+)
- $200 video card + 2 23" LCD Panels (@ $200 each)
- $200 video card + 27" - 32" HD TV (@ $500 - $600)
Misc
- $700 - $800 Laptop
- 2 netbooks (one for you, one for a friend)
- 1 netbook, 1 MID/android tablet, new smartphone
- New $500 digital camera + 32GB micro SDHC/CF card
- MS Windows 7 Ultimate + MS Office
Call me an AMD apologist if you must, but it's something to consider. We don't compute with the CPU alone, all the associated hardware (and the software as well) affects performance too. Intel undisputedly hits the highest numbers true enough, but personally, I don't think they are high enough to mitigate all these other potential uses for the money.
But that's just me...
slight typo in the post
" the 1005T at 2.8GHz" should be 1055T if i'm not mistaken.
Hey engadget do you mean $295 for the amd 1095? Your wrote 1090
I fully accept that Intel processors are top notch in terms of performance, but I simply cannot afford them. My AMD Phenon II Quad 965 (4 x 3.4GHz) is plenty for me and it was an absolute bargain. Sure, I envy those with i7's, but AMD allows me to have great performance and reliability on a tight budget. Keep up the good work.
@plastik Tell it. I just spent less than $500 to upgrade everything in my PC besides case, PSU, and disks with AMD and ATI kit. I haven't found a game I own that I don't have to turn on vsync for at full 1080p now.
@dingus
If you know of a CPU, main board, video card, and system memory combination that can be had for $500 that will run BFBC2 or Crysis at 1080p on high settings at an average fps over 60 I'd like to know about it.
waitin on that graphene breakthrough...20 years later...
6 cores for $200?
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMM
Even if you pretend 12 threads using HT on the Intel part is equivalent to 12 full cores, two of these is still less than half the price of one Intel sexa-core.
AMD is playing for keeps.
@Akhen
HT is more like a 30-40% speed increase.
@archkron
That's the best case increase, on average it is only about 10% increase for HT unless performance has gone up a ton since the i7 920 launch,
nice job. AMD seems to have taken a different route than before. They once were the one to beat performance wise, now they totally destroy Intel on the price. Great decisions made by AMD cause they were trailing too much behind Intel, technology wise.
damn!!!!!!!!!!! but intel is the best...
@Antiapple:
Apple uses Intel processors exclusively, yet you are against Apple?
I am confuse.
@michaspi
Thats like saying I love wheels but hate Corollas. Are you still confuse?