discussion AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition Six-Core Processor Review

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: 3DMark06 / 3DMark Vantage

Gaming Benchmarks: 3DMark06 / 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

3DMark06 v1.1.0
Graphic Settings: Default
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

The Futuremark 3DMark series has been a part of the backbone in computer and hardware reviews since its conception. The trend continues today as 3DMark06 provides consumers with a solid synthetic benchmark geared for performance and comparison in the 3D gaming realm. This remains one of the most sought after statistics, as well as an excellent tool for accurate CPU comparison, and it will undoubtedly be used for years to come.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage v1.0.1
Graphic Settings: Performance Preset
Resolution: 1280X1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3Dmarks
Comparison: Generated Score

3DMark Vantage is the follow-up to the highly successful 3DMark06. It uses DirectX 10 exclusively so if you are running Windows XP, you can forget about this benchmark. Along with being a very capable graphics card testing application, it also has very heavily multi-threaded CPU tests, such Physics Simulation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it a good all-around gaming benchmark.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2

Crysis

Crysis v1.21
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: High
Global Settings: DX10 / 64-Bit

Test 1: Ice benchmark_CPU2 demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Still one of the most hardware intensive game on the market today, Crysis has been chosen for its obvious ability to be able to showcase the differences between platforms and to showcase just how far one will need to go in the quest for maximum performance. The game also features the renowned CryEngine, the power behind the incredible graphics, which is expected to be foundation of future titles.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 1.02
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: Very High
Global Settings: DX10 Enabled

Test 1: Ranch Long Demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Far Cry 2 is the hot new new first-person shooter from Ubisoft's Montreal studio, and the first game to utilize the new visually stunning Dunia Engine, which will undoubtedly be used by numerous future games. Using the included Benchmarking Tool, we ran the Long Ranch demo in DX10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings set to very high.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead (Latest Update)
Resolution: 1680x1050
Filtering: 4X MSAA / Anisotropic 8X
Graphic Settings: High
Shader Detail: Very High
Test 1: HWC Custom Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Left 4 Dead is the latest disorienting, fast-paced zombie apocalypse mega-hit from Valve. L4D uses the latest version of the Source engine with enhancements such as multi-core processor support and physics-based animation. We test here at 1680x1050 with in-game details set to their highest levels, with MSAA 4X and AA 8X. For benching, we used a pre-recorded 20 minute timedemo taken on the No Mercy campaign during The Apartments mission.

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
Default
Comparison: Particle Performance Metric

Originally intended to demonstrate new processing effects added to Half Life 2: Episode 2 and future projects, the particle benchmark condenses what can be found throughout HL2:EP2 and combines it all into one small but deadly package. This test does not symbolize the performance scale for just Episode Two exclusively, but also for many other games and applications that utilize multi-core processing and particle effects. As you will see the benchmark does not score in FPS but rather in its own "Particle Performance Metric", which is useful for direct CPU comparisons.

Although more of a tech demo than anything else, VPSB demonstrates the type of performance gains that can be had in games that support 6+ threads.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Street Fighter 4 / World in Conflict

Gaming Benchmarks: Street Fighter 4 / World in Conflict

Street Fighter 4

Street Fighter 4 Demo
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 0X
Graphic Settings: High
Test 1: Built-in Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Street Fighter IV is a 2008 arcade game produced by famous developer Capcom, that has finally been released on the PC platform. This game has not been 'ported' since the Street Fighter IV arcade machines actually have PC internals, with circa 2005 components. As a result, the version of the game released on the PC is considered the definitive version. With fully multi-threaded engine and an astounding hybrid 2D/3D graphics style, this game is sure to please all fans of the Street Fighter series.

Can anyone say "GPU bottleneck" ?

World in Conflict

World in Conflict v1.010
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 4X
Graphic Settings: Very High
Test 1: Built-in Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

One of the most visually stunning real-time strategy games in recent history, World in Conflict can really push systems to the brink, which is what we attempt by running the game in DirectX 10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed out. For this test we used the in-game benchmarking tool.

 

[MAC]

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption

For this section, every energy saving feature was enabled in the respective BIOSes and the Windows Vista power plan was changed from High Performance to Balanced.

For our idle test, we let the system idle for 15 minutes and measured the peak wattage through our UPM EM100 power meter.

For our CPU load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, measuring the peak wattage via the UPM EM100 power meter.

For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in full screen mode.

As you can see, our X6 1100T sample had roughly the same power consumption as the the two other X6 chips we have tested. The idle consumption decreased a little because of the fact that the chip has a lower idle voltage (1.188V vs. 1.212V) than our 1055T and 1090T, and its CPU Load figure increased a bit since its default vCore is a little higher (1.298V vs. 1.260V). Overall though, we are still impressed that AMD have managed to keep power consumption close to Phenom II X4 levels despite having added 50% more cores and 50% more cache to Phenom II X6.

Temperature Testing

For the temperature testing, we used both the stock AMD CPU cooler and a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme (TRUE). The system was left to idle for 15 minutes, and then we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs for 15 minutes. The ambient temperature was 23°C/73.4°F. Keep in mind that the thermal sensors in most modern processors are not really accurate at measuring idle temperatures, hence the very small delta between the room temp and the idle results.

First and foremost we have to restate the fact that it is difficult to get accurate temperature readings from AMD Phenom II X6 processors since their internal diodes are way off the mark. Using trusted programs like Core Temp or RealTemp will show sub-ambient temps at idle and full load temps that never reach 40C. Thankfully, AMD's OverDrive utility does have a 'CPU Temperature' reading in the 'Board Status' section, which is much more accurate than the individual core temperature readings in the 'CPU Status' section. In our opinion, the above temperatures are still probably 10-15C lower than actual. Nevertheless, these six-core processors are cool running chips, and the new X6 1100T is no different.

 

[MAC]

Overclocking Results

Overclocking Results

In our original attempt at overclocking the Phenom II X6 1090T, we were severely time-constrained, so although we achieved an impressive CPU core frequency it absolutely wouldn't have passed our rigorous stability testing gauntlet. Thankfully, in our later Gigabyte 890FXA-UD7 motherboard review, we finally had time to sit down and really probe the X6 1090T's overclocking capabilities.

This time around, we dedicated quite a bit of time to squeezing every last megahertz from this new X6 1100T. Below you will find our modest achievements, which were all accomplished with up to 1.45V vCore, up to 1.35vNB, and up to 1.66Vdimm. We elected for relatively modest voltages since we wanted these frequencies to represent realistic and safe 24/7 overclocks. Obviously, some samples will be better than ours and some will be worse. Overclocking is a game of chance, although skill helps a little bit too.

Highest Stable CPU Overclock


Click on image to enlarge​

4.1Ghz at 1.45V stable for 6 hours of Prime 95 Blend and 20 runs of LinX is pretty darn good in our opinion. It is about 100Mhz more than the highest stable frequency we were able to achieve on the X6 1090T. Temperatures topped out at around 57°C thanks to our venerable Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme + Thermalright 1600RPM 120MM fan cooling combo.

Highest Stable CPU Northbridge Overclock


Click on image to enlarge​

As satisfied as we were with the above overclock, the northbridge overclocking proved to be fantastic. Most Phenom II X6's have a northbridge that can handle between 2600-2900Mhz, so being able to achieve 3066Mhz at 1.35V, once again stable for 6 hours of Prime 95 Blend and 20 runs of LinX, is most impressive. There are significant performance gains to be had from such a high northbridge frequency. However, unless AMD have really managed to improve yields, which is quite possible given how relatively 'recently' this sample was manufactured, we think this overclock might be outside of the norm for X6 1100T's.

No Highest Stable Bus Speed Overclock you ask? Why bother. With the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition's unlocked multipliers you really don't need more than 270-280Mhz to max out all the frequencies, and we have yet to encounter an X6 that can't reach that level.

 

[MAC]

Conclusion

Conclusion

If you already own an AM2+/AM3 system and are looking for improved multi-threaded performance, buying an 1100T or any other Phenom II X6 is a no-brainer decision. For $180 to 265, you can have a new six-core chip that can fairly easily hit about 4.0Ghz , and will chew through absolutely any type of workload that you put in front of it. As we stated in our original launch article, these chips are a mainstream power user's dream. Having said that, make sure that your applications can harness this processor's capabilities. There are relatively few consumer applications and only a handful of games that can make use of more than 4 threads, so don't bother upgrading your Phenom II X4 just yet since you likely won't be too impressed with the additional power. If you have an original 65nm “Agena” quad-core Phenom processor, I absolutely wouldn’t have any qualms about recommending an upgrade to the X6 1100T. Not only would you be getting a healthy clock-for-clock performance gain, but superior multi-threading capabilities, lower power consumption, lower operating temperatures, and significantly improved overclocking headroom.

Speaking of overclocking, the Phenom II X6 1100T is a Black Edition model, which means that it comes fully multiplier unlocked. Enthusiasts and novice overclockers alike can really use this feature to great effect, since it allows for easy circumvention of bus bottlenecks and ultimately the best possible overclocks. Realistically, all Phenom II X6’s can achieve between 3.8Ghz to 4.1Ghz with a reasonable vCore increase. However, it is much more difficult to have the Core Clock, Northbridge Clock, Memory Clock in sync at their highest possible values without the unlocked multipliers. For us this makes the X6 1100T (or even 1090T) a worthwhile purchase over the locked variants, since we don’t like leaving extra performance on the table. The general public seems to agree with us, since from what we can tell, the X6 1090T’s have been notably outselling the X6 1055T’s in the retail channel.

If you are building a new system from scratch though, the picture gets a little muddy. The quad-core/eight-thread $284 Intel Core i7-870 is simply a more well-rounded processor, it doesn’t have any performance weaknesses at all. It is extremely fast in lightly-threaded applications, secondly only to the Core i7-980X, and more often than not it will tie with the Phenom II X6 1100T in multi-threaded applications. LGA1156 is a dead-end platform though, so you have to keep that in mind. When compared to LGA1366 chips like the Core i7-920 or 930, the X6 1100T is much more competitive, and it generally wins the benchmark battle much more often than it losses. The newly price-slashed $295 i7-950 is a different story though, since it does outperform the X6 1100T across the board, give or take. The down side of going the LGA1366 route is obviously the price premium on the motherboards and triple-channel memory kits. We aren't even going to bother comparing the X6 1100T to the lightning-fast Core i7-980X, since at four times the price it is a totally different class of processor.

As we hypothesized in the introduction, adding a 100Mhz to the Phenom II X6 1090T was not going to create a chip that drastically reshapes the CPU landscape. However, it has allowed the Phenom II X6 1100T to more effectively compete with the likes of the Core i7-870 and i7-920/930. Sometimes it wins, sometime it loses, but generally speaking we are talking about performance differences that most users would be oblivious to on a day-to-day basis. In the end, this is a very good chip that we have no problems recommending, and that should appeal to quite a few users...at least until January.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...100t-black-edition-review-comment-thread.html​