AMD Phenom II x6 1075T Review

As you may have already read in our news article this morning, AMD released six new CPUs today. For your viewing pleasure, we are graced with not one but two of these puppies to put under the microscope! This is a review of the new hex-core Phenom II x6 1075T. Don’t forget to check out splat’s review of the Phenom II x2 560 BE after you read this one!

Thuban Wafer - Image Courtesy AMD

Thuban Wafer - Image Courtesy AMD

For quite a few months now, there have been two choices of Thuban – the Phenom II x6 1055T and the Phenom II x6 1090T. This new hex-core drops in right between the two, in clock speed (3.0GHz stock / 3.5GHz with Turbo) and in price, coming in at a respectable $245. This is a heck of a lot of processing power for less than two hundred fifty bucks, that’s for sure. Compared to Intel’s cheapest six core offering (currently retailing for $900), it’s a steal!

The CPU we received came OEM, meaning it was just a CPU by itself with no accessories. Presumably it will come complete with the same package (albeit non-Black Edition) as its big brother, the 1090T. The stock cooler was the same for the Phenom II x4 965 BE & x6 1090T, so it will likely make its way in the 1075T box too.

Phenom II x6 1090T Box

Phenom II x6 1090T Box

Phenom II x6 1090T Stock Cooler

Stock Cooler

Stock Cooler Base

Stock Cooler Base

Stock Cooler Heatpipes

Stock Cooler Heatpipes

For reference, here is a Black Edition box next to a non-Black Edition box.

Black Edition and Non Black Edition Boxes (Image Courtesy AMD)

AMD CPU Boxes (Image Courtesy AMD)

One thing is for sure, the AMD stock cooler of recent years is a fair bit better than the non-extreme edition Intel stock cooler.  If you’re not overclocking, this will keep your processor nice and cool. Now let’s take a look at today’s subject.

Phenom II x6 1075T

Phenom II x6 1075T

Phenom II x6 1075T Pins

Phenom II x6 1075T Pins

Of course, what’s a CPU review without a couple gratuitous die pictures?

Thuban Die Straight-On (Image Courtesy AMD)

Thuban Die Straight-On (Image Courtesy AMD)

Thuban Die Angled (Image Courtesy AMD)

Thuban Die Angled (Image Courtesy AMD)

Six true cores and a bunch of cache is oh so pretty!

Enough gandering, what does this thing have under the hood?

Specifications

Model Number & Core Frequency: X6 1075T / 3.5GHz (Turbo) / 3.0GHz (Base)
OPN: HDT75TFBK6DGR
L1 Cache Sizes: 64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (768KB total L1 per processor)
L2 Cache Sizes: 512KB of L2 data cache per core (3MB total L2 per processor)
L3 Cache Size: 6MB (shared)
Total Cache (L2+L3): 9MB
Memory Controller Type: Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller *
Memory Controller Speed: Up to 2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management
Types of Memory Supported: Unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) -AND- PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz)
HyperTransport 3.0 Specification: One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)
Total Processor-to-System Bandwidth: Up to 37.3GB/s total bandwidth [Up to 21.3 GB/s memory bandwidth (DDR3-1333) + 16.0GB/s (HT3)]
Up to 33.1GB/s total bandwidth [Up to 17.1 GB/s memory bandwidth (DDR2-1066) + 16.0GB/s (HT3)]
Packaging: Socket AM3 938-pin organic micro pin grid array (micro-PGA)
Fab location: GLOBALFOUNDARIES Fab 1 module 1 in Dresden, Germany (formerly AMD Fab 36)
Process Technology: 45-nanometer DSL SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
Approximate Die Size: 346mm2
Approximate Transistor count: Similar to Istanbul’s ~904 million
Max TDP: 125 Watts
AMD Codename: “Thuban”
*Note: configurable for dual 64-bit channels for simultaneous read/writes

Expected retail price: $245

Here we have a true six-core CPU that clocks in at 3.0GHz for $245. What’s not to like?

Test System, Opponents and Methodology

Happily, we get to see this processor tested in a top of the line current-generation AMD setup. Here’s the skinny:

Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula
CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1075T
Cooling: Thermalright Venomous X
with Push-Pull Delta Screamers
RAM: G.Skill Pi DDR3-2400
GPU: ASUS Matrix 5870 Platinum
PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro 600M
OS: Windows 7 x64

There is some stiff competition in today’s review. There are two CPUs from Intel and three variations from AMD:

Intel’s Entries AMD’s Entries
i5 655K Athlon II x4 640
i7 870 Phenom II x4 965 BE
Phenom II x6 1090T BE

Stock benches were all run three times and the average of those is what you’ll see in the results. Overclocked tests were run once.

For the i7 870, tests were only run at its 24/7 overclock of 4.0GHz. For all of the rest, they were run at stock and their respective 24/7 overclocked speeds.

Processor Stock Speed Overclocked Speed
i5 655k 3.2 GHz 4.5 GHz
Athlon II x4 640 3.0 GHz 3.74 GHz and 4.0 GHz
Phenom II x4 965 BE 3.4 GHz 4.0 GHz
Phenom II x6 1090T 3.2 GHz 4.0 GHz, both 200 x 20
and 267 x 15

Now you know the competition, let’s dig into the processor.

Stock Testing

We’ll get testing under way with the Everest suite of CPU tests. There are four CPU tests and three FPU tests. The i7 870 didn’t make it for this round. All tests were run at each processor’s stock frequency. Note that none of the results’ graphed ranges start at zero. This is to help highlight the differences between the processors. Actual differences in score may not look as distant if graphed from zero. First, the CPU quartet.

Everest CPU Queen

Everest CPU Queen

Everest CPU PhotoWorxx

Everest CPU PhotoWorxx

Everest CPU Zlib

Everest CPU Zlib

Everest CPU AES

Everest CPU AES

As expected, the 1075T played a very close second fiddle to the 1090T in all of the CPU benches. The big surprise here is the AES test, where the i5 655K just eclipsed every other competitor. According to Everest, AES is an “integer benchmark [that] measures CPU performance using AES (a.k.a. Rijndael) data encryption.” While Photoworxx and Zlib both are strongly dependent on memory subsystem performance while Queen benefits from the shorter pipeline, it seems AES focuses solely on the CPU’s processing of integers.

I’d give the Thubans an overall win here, hands down considering the other three tests are more dependent on the CPU and its memory controller and not the CPU itself, giving it a strong real-world computing advantage. Up next, the FPU trio.

Everest FPU Julia

Everest FPU Julia

Everest FPU Mandel

Everest FPU Mandel

Everest FPU SinJulia

Everest FPU SinJulia

No real surprises here as far as the pair of Thubans go, with the 1090T showing off its 200MHz clock advantage and the 1075T right on its heels. What is surprising is the 965 BE’s ever so close race with the 655K, but that’s for another review.

Overclocking for Stability

Results in the remaining tests will show stock and overclocked speeds. So we don’t put the cart before the horse, we’ll see how it faired for the average every-day overclocker. It would be remiss not to mention Dolk’s superb Guide to the Phenom II on our forums and thanking the man himself. It and he have helped numerous people clock their Phenom II processors, myself included.

To start, it’s always good to see how far a chip will go on stock voltage. Mind you stock voltage on the Crosshair IV Formula is a bit less than some other boards. Since everything was left on auto (including no LLC – load line calibration), there is a pretty strong Vdroop of ~.05 V. So stock volts on another board may be able to handle more than this.

Anyway, here’s what we got with no changes what-so-ever except for bumping up the bus speed and seeing where we ended up.

First Overclock, Stock Voltage

First Overclock, Stock Voltage

3.3GHz, not bad at all with the aforementioned Vdroop. No one ever cried about a free 300 MHz! Had I turned LLC on (which turns the Vdroop around and makes it a roughly .05 V overshoot of set Vcore under load), this number would no doubt have increased.

Note that ten passes of LinX are a quick and dirty stability test. You will probably want to run more to ensure absolute stability, but these numbers give you a good jumping-off point.

Moving up to see what a solid, reasonable 24/7 overclock was, I set sights on 4.0Ghz. That’s ‘my’ 24/7 overclock. Has been since an E8400 of yore; it has just gotten faster each time because microarchitectures have improved. So that was the goal.

1075T - 4GHz Stable

1075T - 4GHz Stable

The goal was met, with gusto! For reference, the loaded Vcore (remember the Vdroop / LLC thing?) was 1.416 V as read in CPU-z. As you can see in CoreTemp, there is plenty of headroom left. 46° C max on quality air cooling in a not-so-cool 3rd floor office in North Carolina means there is room to go up, even more so in the winter. We’ll stick to 4.0Ghz for testing though. It’s completely stable, hassle-free and a nice round number.

For reference, other voltages used to accommodate the stable 4.0GHz overclock were 1.25 V each on the CPU-NB, HT Ref & NB. Less Vcore was not an option (tried it), but these three were safety voltages and may be able to be reduced. As always, YMMV and overclocking is never guaranteed. I will say this though – if you’re on the Crosshair IV Formula, get the newest 1105 BIOS and flash for using this chip. Previous BIOSes (0905 and 1005) gave me problems with higher HT and NB clocks, but this one gave 2400 MHz stable as you can see in the screenshot above.

Benchmarking the Beast

First up, let’s check out 3D Performance. We’ll be assisted today by one gaming benchmark – Stalker: Call of Pripyat – and two 3DMarks – 06 and Vantage. Enough dilly dallying, there’s a Stalker behind you!

Stalker: Call of Pripyat Benchmark

Stalker: CoP - 1280x1024, Ultra Detail, No MSAA

Stalker: CoP - 1280x1024, Ultra Detail, No MSAA

Stalker: CoP - 1280x1024, Ultra Detail, 4x MSAA

Stalker: CoP - 1280x1024, Ultra Detail, 4x MSAA

These tests were run at 1280 x 1024 with Ultra detail and MSAA both off and at 4x. The 1075T had a strong showing, barely edged out by the 1090T and the i5 655K. The i7 870 jumped a bit ahead here but with only a 4% advantage. With MSAA turned on, the results for the 1075T were stunning. Take these with a grain of salt though. The third test, “Rain” is what accounts for this anomaly. I ran this test at least six or seven times. The benchmark was uninstalled and all references to it (even registry keys) obliterated, then reinstalled again. It gave the same result every, single time. To prove I’m not crazy, here’s a screenshot.

Stalker: CoP - 4x MSAA Screenshot

Stalker: CoP - 4x MSAA Screenshot

Your guess is as good as mine. These numbers are simply reported as performed. I would expect actual results to mimic the 1090T, which are right on par with the Intel offerings.

3DMark06 and 3DMark Vantage

We’ll examine both the full benchmark and the scored CPU element of both of these. Oldest first!

3DMark06 Overall Score

3DMark06 Overall Score

3DMark06 CPU Score

3DMark06 CPU Score

In overall score, the i7 870 rules the roost with the 1075T coming in second. This is a surprise considering its CPU score was bested by the 1075T and the 1090T with the latter just barely edging out the 1075T. Surprisingly, it seems bus speed (which includes an increase in HT & NB clocks) has little to do with the outcome of the CPU test. Now for the new(er) kid on the block.

3DMark Vantage Overall Score

3DMark Vantage Overall Score

3DMark Vantage CPU Score

3DMark Vantage CPU Score

The 1075T comes in a very respectable second place here. While Vantage clearly likes its cores and HT, the hex-core AMD processors still show some spunk. So while 06 seems to prefer physical cores, Vantage is equally content with virtual ones.

Moving on, let’s check out 2D performance.

Cinebench R10 and Cinebench R11.5

These are the two most ‘real-world’ tests we’ll see in the review. These direcly correlate with how productive you can be if you are using your computer for productivity akin to rendering (i.e. audio / video / photo editing and, you know, rendering).

Cinebench R10

Cinebench R10

Cinebench R11.5

Cinebench R11.5

This was a very tight race. The i7 870 squeezed out a win in R10, but both Thubans pushed it aside in R11.5, with the 1075T even beating the 1090T by a nose. I’d call rendering a draw between the toughest competition. Considering the i7 870 carries a $45 premium over the 1075T, I’d be looking in the red direction.

SuperPi 1M and 32M

SuperPi has long been a favorite of mine. Unfortunately it is no favorite of AMD in general as most people know. Here’s how they ended up comparing.

SuperPi 1M

SuperPi 1M

SuperPi 32M

SuperPi 32M

Make no mistake, they’ve come a long way, but they still lag behind Intel when using this metric. SuperPi performance is still squarely on the side of the blue team. It’s still a blast to run to compete AMD vs AMD though, and versus its own kind, the 1075T was the top performer.

PiFast

Hold on just a minute though – we have one more single core benchmark to go!

PiFast

PiFast

Now the red team has something to smile about. The 1075T was number one in the AMD camp, but not only that – it tied the i7 870 and only lost to the 500 MHz-higher-clocked i5 655K. Obviously these two benchmarks are coded differently, but it’s nice to see AMD keeping up with a single-core bench.

WPrime 32M and WPrime 1024M

Now we come to this processor’s bread and butter – multi-core benching. As far as my favorite benchmarks go, WPrime is second only to SuperPi.

WPrime 32M

WPrime 32M

WPrime 1024M

WPrime 1024M

Ahh yes, that’s nice. The 1075T beat out all of the competition except the i7 870. Even then, it was within spitting distance of its nemesis. Definitely a solid showing by a very stout CPU.

Pushing the Envelope

Now we get to the fun part. Everyone knows that AMD processors love cold; they thrive on it, eating close to absolute zero temperatures (think liquid helium) for breakfast. Unfortunately, not every overclocker has that ability. In the future, I hope to bring something sub-zero to this CPU, but for right now we’ll satisfy ourselves with a little air-cooled goodness. Note stability wasn’t even an afterthought with any of these benches; if it ran them, it was stable enough!

After pushing some reasonable voltage, it turns out this CPU is quite happy giving up 300 extra MHz with a little pushing. It ran SuperPi1M, PiFast and WPrime 32M effortlessly.

SuperPi 1M - 4.3 GHz

SuperPi 1M @ 4.3 GHz

WPrime 32M @ 4.3 GHz

WPrime 32M @ 4.3 GHz

PiFast @ 4.3 GHz

PiFast @ 4.3 GHz

Definitely throwing up some strong numbers, and on air no less!

AMD has also come a long way with their IMCs (Integrated Memory Controllers). After running these tests with RAM rated far in excess of what most IMCs are capable of, it felt like a good idea to see just how far it would go.

Maximum Memory Clocks

Maximum Memory Clocks

Again, there is nothing even remotely stable about this. It was just an experiment to see how far the IMC could be pushed and still run MaxxMem. That said, WOW, I’m thoroughly impressed with how far it got. Not only did the CPU make it to DDR3-2111, it did that at 7-9-7-24! It blew me away, far exceeding what I was expecting. Three cheers for AMD’s new IMCs!

One important note about memory clocking: There is a trade-off. It seems you have a choice with the Thuban IMC – a) high memory clocks combined with lower HT / NB frequencies or b) lower memory clocks (presumably with tighter timings) combined with higher HT / NB frequencies. Which you go with will be determined by what works best on your particular setup, but now you know of the decision you’ll have to make.

Of course, it’s never enough to just run SuperPi 1M and other benches at a certain overclock. That just means you can run SP1M higher. How high?

SuperPi 1M @ 4.4 GHz

SuperPi 1M @ 4.4 GHz

4.4 Ghz, that’s how high! Good show 1075T, you exceed my expectations here too.

Now, what’s a good overclocker without a goal that feels silly? Well, it’s not a very good overclocker, that’s what! After running SuperPi 1M at 4.4 GHz, I got it into my head that I’d get a higher validation out of this thing if it killed me. My mind was set on 4.5 Ghz. After more than an hour of booting, pulling up CPUz, trying to save a validation and take a screenshot, crash, rinse & repeat, it finally happened. Here it is, complete with the voltages used.

4.5 (that's FOUR point FIVE) GHz

4.5 (that's FOUR point FIVE) GHz

1075T - 4.5GHz - CPU-z

1075T - 4.5GHz - CPU-z

Yay!

Final Thoughts & Conclusion

Whew, what a ride. This processor was a blast to benchmark and overclock. 4.5 GHz on air was just icing on the cake. Competitive through 3D testing, real-word rendering testing and 2D tests, the entire experience was a romp through a field of silicon goodness.

Are there negatives? Sure, there always are. It’s not the fastest six-core CPU on the market. Intel holds that crown and AMD isn’t trying to dispute it. Where AMD wins out though is price-for-performance. The Phenom II x6 1075T has an MSRP of $245. That’s less than a third of what Intel’s cheapest hex-core CPU costs. While there unfortunately isn’t one here to bench, I daresay this CPU performs more than one-third as well as its Intel competition.

Speaking of competition, as you have seen, this processor is in a dead heat with Intel’s i7 870. Considering the i7 is $45 more than this chip, I’d call the 1075T the clear winner.

It’s also not a 1090T (obviously). It’s not supposed to be either. It’s an additional Thuban to help mould AMD’s offerings to your specific budget. For the frugal overclocker, this is a great CPU for the money. You can save a bit of cash over the 1090T while losing very little, gain an ever important multiplier over the 1055T and put the extra savings toward another component.

With the 1075T, you get what you pay for and – as you can see – a whole lot more. I wouldn’t hesitate a moment to recommend this CPU to anyone in the market, especially if you run heavily multi-threaded applications. The Phenom II x6 1075T is undoubtedly, indubitably, 100% (all together now!) Overclockers Approved.

-Jeremy Vaughan (hokiealumnus)

Tags: , , , , ,

54 Comments:

mdcomp's Avatar
Excellent review!
QuietIce's Avatar


Excellent clocks for the vCore - I couldn't believe 4.0 GHz with only 1.37v!


BTW - Most if us think of 1.30-1.35v (not 1.25v) as being stock voltage for most chips with the exception of the low power ('e') offerings ...
The Coolest's Avatar
Great review, but I have two comments:
First, the not-to-scale graphs are confusing. Even though it's stated in the article, it still gives the impression of a huge performance gap between the processor when the gap is not very big.

Second, I recommend you to update to the latest Core Temp, as 0.99.5 is long out of date.
ScrewySqrl's Avatar
a related review of the 1075t got a successful overclock of 4.15 GHz, exceeding the4.0 max of the 1090t

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=9
hokiealumnus's Avatar
It was about 1.416 Vcore loaded. The Crosshair IV Formula overshoots by ~.04-.05 V with LLC on.
As I mentiond, 4.0 was not the max I could go 24/7. Indeed, it did that at only 46 C. It could have easily exceeded 4.0, but that was the number I chose to use for 24/7 operation.
I was torn on the data. The graphs for things like everest & 3DMark with scores in the tens of thousands just looked silly with bars the same length. The express purpose for mentioning that was so people didn't get confused. Worked for you, hope it worked for everybody.

Roger that on the CoreTemp update, thanks!
Dolk's Avatar
Ahh thats why you kept bothering me trying to overclock a "1090T"
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Ahh, but I never said a 1090T. I said a Thuban and never specified a model or any details; and you didn't ask.

(Thanks much for your help. Dolk rules everybody!)
EarthDog's Avatar
Excellent review as usual Jeremy!!!
Dolk's Avatar
I can see that this is going to be a good CPU for the $600-800 computers.

Hokie I'll expect something in the mail
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Thanks ED!

Agreed Dolk. ...and what's that you expect? I can send a thank you note if you want.
Dolk's Avatar
Exactly what I was expecting
Marshmallow64's Avatar
Good review, too bad its not black edition.
Khan's Avatar
Great review, its so good to see AMD gaining some ground again.

I've supported them from the day I built my first pc on a socket A and I honestly feel that if it wasn't for them, Intel would not have felt compelled to make better processors and just sell mediocre performance for a premium price.

maybe I should get one of these new thubans, damit, always so many things to upgrade ><
Dark-Asylum's Avatar
The cpu in this review is definitely cherry picked...I just picked up a 1075t from frys that wouldn't even post 4.0 @ 1.5v...sad. I played with timings, dividers, HT frequency, multipler down fsb up, increased CPU NB vid, northbridge vcore, ram vcore, and NOTHING would get the cpu to post even past 3805 mhz...

this chip has such a low voltage range for OCing headroom. I could get to 3600mhz @ stock vcore, but i pretty much have to kick the vcore up to 1.45 before it will post @ 3.8 and then 1.475 to stabilize. any clocks higher and no matter what i push to it, it doesn't post.

weak chip!!!!!
QuietIce's Avatar
to OCF!


I'm sure it couldn't be the RAM, motherboard, or PSU holding your overclock back ...
EarthDog's Avatar
This is more likely than OCF having cherry picked one I would imagine. Its nice to have your experience in this thread to show the good and bad though. But who knows, maybe AMD cherry picks all their CPU's for reviews (if we even got it that way???).
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Just to clarify, your chip was weak, not all chips are weak. I've had an i7 860 that wouldn't stabilize at 4.0GHz with 1.45Vcore and one that did just fine at 4.0GHz at 1.32Vcore. Every model of every chip has strong ones and weak ones.

I did come from AMD, and I can't speak to what happened to it from production until I got it. I doubt it's worth it to them to cherry pick however many they send out for review. Cost / Benefit just isn't there.
Dolk's Avatar
Dark

If you truly believe that you cannot get the 1075T to go past 3.8ghz boot up, than don't bother reading this.

Otherwise, message me and I'll show you a couple things.
Dark-Asylum's Avatar
I was mainly posting out of frustation, since then i've returned the 1075t for the i5 760(mainly because I am more interested in the fantastic GTX 460 SLI scaling performance gains).

I will shoot you a PM mainly because I would like to know what you're talking about.
QuietIce's Avatar
Blatant Intel ad in the middle of an AMD review.

What is the problem with some Intel owners???
EarthDog's Avatar
Now now QI.... LOL....
ChanceCoats123's Avatar
Nice write up. I would look at the pifast graphs though... It says the 4ghz 1075 got a 21.xx and then just below that it says a 4.3ghz 1075 got a 26.xx. Now I know the architectures are different, but with a highly tweaked system and a benching OS, I pull right around 27 (27.06ish) on my 720 just below 4ghz. So the 21.xx at 4ghz is a bit out of the ball park.
bda1967's Avatar
Nice review Jeremy! I'm pleased with the performance compared to the 1090T and i7 870 so if I ever go hexa core, I'll probably save some cash and get this one.
MIAHALLEN's Avatar
Very nice write-up Jeremy But I'm not so convinced in AMD's price/performance ratio.....it may be competative with Intel, but it's not a clear cut victory.

Nevertheless, I just got my hands on my first AMD chip (1090T) since my socket 939 Opteron in 2006 I'm looking forward to the new challenges and fun
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Interesting Miah. I actually agree that AMD has a pretty clear victory in the hex-core game, to me. If AMD can give me six cores in a single package and bring competitive performance to the table for less than half the cost that Intel can do it, I'm going to buy my hex cores from AMD. If multicore workloads aren't what I'm using and having the fastest chip for gaming is what I want, I'd scale back the number of cores and look at buying something from intel.

If you absolutely positively need those extra few ticks of power, then $900 for a 980X makes good buying since, but otherwise most people would be happy and well served by an AMD hexcore for $300 or so. Amd does not take the performance crown, but they are selling a great product at a very attractive price that is likely to work for many peoples budgets.
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Nope, the graph is correct. I had dropped HT & CPU-NB clocks to push frequency as far as it would go without worrying about having to get them stable too. IIRC, they were < 2000 MHz in the 4.3GHz run, but were at 2400 MHz in the 4.0GHz run. Just goes to show how important HT & CPU-NB clocks really are to benching results!
I completely agree, this is the one I'd go for too. Unless you need the BE multiplier flexibility (i.e. if you're going sub-zero), this one is a great choice and will likely do anything most people need with ambient cooling.
Thanks, and congrats on your AMD purchase! See if Giga will spring to get you some helium now.

As far as the cost-benefit, IMOG said it better than I could - though I will note he said less-than-half the cost...it's more like less than a third.
MIAHALLEN's Avatar
Obviously you're correct with a hex to hex comparison....but I was specifically looking at Lynnfield VS Thuban according to the article. It's a give and take in performance from what I can see....and the price is only slightly different. Plus if you took both CPUs to their individual limits (which Jeremy did not claim to do) I think you'd find the Intel would edge out the Thuban in all but a select few tests.

I'm not saying the Intel would be better price/performance....just that it's not a clear cut victory for AMD.

To put it simply....I think they are both competitive in the midrange segment

Thanks man....but Gigabyte provided the goods. I'm going to try to get back into the game well enough to write a guide for AMD overclcoking
ChanceCoats123's Avatar
Wow! That's a great result!
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
/me breaks out the godfather impression

"Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me."

I've been asking for someone to write the AMD guide here for what seems like a decade now. Seeing as how we are pointing people to your newest Intel guide on techreaction from our most popular article and a news post on the topic... Maybe you could publish your AMD guide in tandem here at Overclockers.com? It's asking a lot, I know... But it would be a nice way to give a little back for the chunk of traffic and link juice we are sending your way every day!

One more article for old times sake! haha
MIAHALLEN's Avatar
You have lots of talent here Matt....they can feel free to use my guide (if/when I write it) for inspiration

My thoughts of writing one have bee a long time coming (partially spurred by you)...but being part of TechREACTION and wanting it to succeed is THE reason I've decided to do it.

BTW - I have been watching....and I am very grateful for the linkage...you guys are still very much in my thoughts
ChanceCoats123's Avatar
I would suggest DOLK. I would do it myself, but being as I've only ever used one chip, it's a bit lopsided. Also, AMD and intel run totally different. If you look back at Jeremy's A64 guide, almost none of it still applies to today's Amd chips where as the 775 guides are still semi-useable do to the similar nature (in bus clocking). The fact that Amd chips offer unlocked multipliers at extremely low (comparatively speaking) prices means that there is a whole other dimension to overclocking and Amd chip. That takes a much longer guide than three steps to find the optimal setup. On intel, it's the bus, then the ram, then the extras. Amd could be bus then ram then extras, but with the multiplier, you might want to find a max with the multiplier, then a max with the bus, then max out your ram, and then find a correct balance between the two, and then finally tweak the extras. Also, when I say extras, I mean cpu-nb (uncore), HT Link, etc.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Ya, I've knocked on a lot of doors, shaken a bunch of trees, and pounded the drum... Pretty much done everything someone under-qualified to write it themselves can do to coax some people who are qualified to write it. We have some good guides on the forum, but they aren't the distilled, simplified, straightforward caliber we encourage for the frontpage - a frontpage guide needs good structure for the reader to follow, and a clear progression. Essentially its taking the same ingredients we already have, but through better composition giving things a better presentation thats more palatable to the masses... A lot of readers are not forum rats interested in digging to research for the answers. A really good guide has a huge audience, as Miah's 3 step guide demonstrated. There are a lot of forum members here now due to the way that article wetted people's appetite for overclocking and eased the introduction.

It can be done for the AMD side of the house also, but someone with good first hand experience and understanding of the fundamentals would need to step up and make it happen. Doesn't have to be an expert either.
bmwbaxter's Avatar
nice review the results might have been more interesting if the i7-875k had have been used instead of the 655k. Might have been a bit more fair since it was a dual core against quad and hexa cores.
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Thanks for the compliment. However, the i7 870 was right there in the results. It's just an 875K with a locked multiplier.

By the way everybody, the 1075T is on Newegg now for $245.99. Fortunately for those with a few extra dollars, the 1090T is close on its heels at only $269.99!
Dolk's Avatar
IMOG, I talked to ED the other day about the same thing.

I'm a bit bogged down with school right now. I have my entire guide in Research Paper format, so it won't take me to long to transfer it over to article format. I'd imagine that the Editors will need to work on it a lot to make it worthy of the front page though.

I may have some spare time this weekend to get it done. I do want to add a couple things before I post it up. i.e. add an athlon section to the guide.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
If you can stage the content in wordpress from the research paper format, even if its just a raw copy and paste, I'll edit it like a rabid dog. I'm not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing, or if thats even a meaningful metaphor, but if I don't have time to do it I just won't sleep. I've been waiting and wanting this for a long time for the site.

We can hold off publishing still until you add what you'd like to add, however I'd like to get something in the backend so we can start paring it down to the guts of the matter. Get it going, and when I see you at the benching meetup this November, drinks are on me.
Dolk's Avatar
Alright I'll see what I can do


Dude! Edit the above btw. SHHHHHHHHH
hokiealumnus's Avatar
If you do a copy/paste from Word, don't forget to use the word paste button (middle row, clipboard with a "W" on it). If not Word but another editor, use the text paste button (next to word paste, but is a clipboard with a "T" on it), which will de-format everything so it doesn't mess up the HTML.
EarthDog's Avatar
LMK when its up there and I can take a stab at editing it as well... Leave the menial stuff to the minions guys. Thats why we are here. And since my well seems to have run dry as far as articles goes, I will have some time over several days to lop off some fat and such leaving the details in tact.
Dolk's Avatar
guwahhh I just went through it. I forgot I had not reflected the changes I made on the forum version. So there was a lot of stuff to update. Still need to re-write the introduction and conclusion. I Also need to add the DDR3 information Non-BE Thuban information, and update the CPU-NB section.

bmwbaxter's Avatar
duh.. had a brain fart :P don't know why i didn't clue in on that sooner.
Deathhorse's Avatar
I was trying to upgrade in the near future and this little monster seems like a chip i could afford. I was thinking the i7 but your review has shed some light on a dark subject that i don't know much about. thanks
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Thanks for the kind words! Let us know which route you go and how you like it.
Peeved Kitten's Avatar
Awesome review, big props to mentioning Dolk's guide, as a recent addition to the overclocking flock it helped me more than you can know!
RADIO_ACTIVE's Avatar
AMD's upgrade path is insanely awesome!
hokiealumnus's Avatar
From what it looks like they're going to break it with Bulldozer though, reportedly moving to AM3+. I will say their sockets last a heck of a lot longer than Intel's....and they only have one at a time, which Intel should pay attention to IMHO.
Peeved Kitten's Avatar
Then the intel Mobo market would dry up lol
xoke's Avatar
No doubt...that stuff is confusing.

Can't really be too mad at AMD...if the Dozer is the massive change it's cracked up to be then a new socket is probably a necessary evil.
Gix10000's Avatar
its an interesting CPU tbh!
i dont quite understand why its needed though as you could just get a 1055t and bump it up a lil bit real easy!
QuietIce's Avatar
Easy to "bump it up a lil bit" IF the board can handle it. A lot of boards peak out around the 260 MHz mark leaving you at 3640 for the 1055T. A 1075T with the same board would hit 3900 MHz ...
Shiggity's Avatar
Hm that motherboard is pretty expensive, do you guys think 4ghz would be doable on a budget board (150$ish)?
hokiealumnus's Avatar
Most definitely! Check out the Biostar TA890FXE. $150 and just look through this thread at what it's capable of.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
*cough* ahem *cough*

Or check out this review on the frontpage:
http://www.overclockers.com/biostar-...rboard-review/

The consensus is out though, that board is great for overclockers on a budget if the feature set meets your needs.
QuietIce's Avatar
A "budget board" at $150??? You must be used to Intel board pricing.

For AMDs $150 is pushing high-end, <$200 will get you anything except the extreme boards, which are kind of a waste unless you're going with extreme cooling (below 0C) ...
Leave a Comment