How Much Will I Gain in Gaming When Upgrading from a Phenom II X4 965 to an X6 1090T?

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I bought a Phenom II X4 965 for my secondary, more portable gaming/multimedia machine (specs in sig). Tomorrow I will buy a second-hand Phenom II X6 1090T for $70 and wanted to know how much of an upgrade I can expect in games given that recent ones have started to take advantage of more than four cores, as you can see comparing the FX-4300 vs the 6300. The graphics card installed in that machine is a GeForce GTX 570, and just like the X4 I'll have the X6 overclocked to 3.6GHz and 2.4GHz CPU-NB.

 

[superccs]

Probably less than 10%.

If you are on an AMD platform and interested in gaming performance, you are a bit on your own.

I have a 1055T maxed to 4.0Ghz and am pretty sure its almost the fasted AMD chip available as far as gaming is concerned.

 

[guskline]

I bought a Phenom II X4 965 for my secondary, more portable gaming/multimedia machine (specs in sig). Tomorrow I will buy a second-hand Phenom II X6 1090T for $70 and wanted to know how much of an upgrade I can expect in games given that recent ones have started to take advantage of more than four cores, as you can see comparing the FX-4300 vs the 6300. The graphics card installed in that machine is a GeForce GTX 570, and just like the X4 I'll have the X6 overclocked to 3.6GHz and 2.4GHz CPU-NB.

I had an 1100T in rig 2 below and had it OC'd to 4 Ghz. It was a solid processor. You'll be pleased with the addition AND the price is EXCELLENT. The 1090T/1100T are niche chips with 6 true cores. Smart move. It will be smoother in multi-core gaming.

 

[superccs]

I had an 1100T in rig 2 below and had it OC'd to 4 Ghz. It was a solid processor. You'll be pleased with the addition AND the price is EXCELLENT. The 1090T/1100T are niche chips with 6 true cores. Smart move. It will be smoother in multi-core gaming.

Were you able to see any difference between your 1100T at 4 and your 8350 at 4.6?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I have a 1055T maxed to 4.0Ghz and am pretty sure its almost the fasted AMD chip available as far as gaming is concerned.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[OS]

yeah the new AMD FX is way faster than Phenom anything by now;

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2302954

 

[parvadomus]

Gaming wise, PD cpus walks over any other AMD cpu right now, not even talking about OC.

 

[inf64]

Yep, PD based FX are just better chips in games (among other things). Also they OC much higher than any X6 ever could.

 

[tweakboy]

I had an 1100T in rig 2 below and had it OC'd to 4 Ghz. It was a solid processor. You'll be pleased with the addition AND the price is EXCELLENT. The 1090T/1100T are niche chips with 6 true cores. Smart move. It will be smoother in multi-core gaming.

Yes 6 slow slow cores.... FX 8350 should be substantially faster...gl

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Gaming wise, PD cpus walks over any other AMD cpu right now, not even talking about OC.

Yep, PD based FX are just better chips in games (among other things). Also they OC much higher than any X6 ever could.

Seems to me like developers are simply intentionally crippling the Phenom II processors given the fact that their per-core, per-clock performance is higher, whether it be in integer or floating point. The Phenom II X6 1090T/1100T is faster than the FX-6300, so why would that be different in games?

Makes no sense when you look at the fact that the Phenom II X6 is a TRUE Six-Core design combined with the fact that it has higher single-threaded performance. You could say that in some workloads the FX-6xxx is a triple-core, and the same wouldn't hold true for the X6.

But meh. I won't complain, for $70 it's a steal.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

$70 is a steal, but the tide is turning somehow, because even the Zambezi is outperforming Thuban in games.

 

[guskline]

Were you able to see any difference between your 1100T at 4 and your 8350 at 4.6?

The 8350 feels faster. The 1100T is long gone. Originally replaced by a 8150 which is also now gone. I felt the 1100T was neck in neck with the 8150 and frankly a little faster. The 8350 at 4.6Ghz is clearly the fastest. Now if you were to ask if it is faster than my 3770k at 4.4Ghz ? NO WAY!:biggrin:

Bottom line is that a 1090T is a solid replacement for a 965BE and will add 2 cores and extend the life of his machine for only $70. That's a very good deal.

 

[Shephard]

sad real 6 cores loses to a fake 8 core.

 

[Dark Shroud]

sad real 6 cores loses to a fake 8 core.

There only fake depending on the process. But yes I can't wait for Excavator.

 

[Dadofamunky]

It's always fun to squeeze more life out of an old reliable. For a lot of things, if not necessarily games, that chip is still pretty respectable. I'm also glad to see the 8350 is competitive.

 

[ThePeasant]

Seems to me like developers are simply intentionally crippling the Phenom II processors

Why would they do that?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Why would they do that?

Because AMD still manufactures Phenom II processors and it wouldn't exactly show them in a good light if their much older processors were faster than their new ones, which we know is the case. Makes perfect sense when you look at the fact that Piledriver is, at most, a 5% IPC increase from Bulldozer. The 1090T/1100T often matched and beat the FX-8150 when it came out, including in gaming. When it came out the FX 2M/4T models, the 4100 in particular, were absolute dogs in gaming and now all of a sudden they're faster even though they have a lot less computational resources at their disposal? C'mon. Also, when they were both head-to-head the Phenom II X4 and 1st gen Core i5s were very competitive in gaming:

And now all of a sudden a 1st gen Core i3 walks over it when it was competing with the i5? Sounds to me like AMD are playing dirty planned obsolescence tricks.

More proof found in the FX-8150 review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

Even more in the FX-6100 review:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_6.html#sect0

It's simply inconceivable how the FX-6100, which runs at the same clock speed as the 1100T, is faster when it has both a slower architecture and on top of that you have a CMT penalty as well. How in the world does it end up faster when it has lower per-core and per-MHz performance? I'll let you figure out that one.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Looks like the "updated micro code, windows driver, magic bios" came through after all.


My bad, JFAMD.

 

[AtenRa]

It's simply inconceivable how the FX-6100, which runs at the same clock speed as the 1100T, is faster when it has both a slower architecture and on top of that you have a CMT penalty as well. How in the world does it end up faster when it has lower per-core and per-MHz performance? I'll let you figure out that one.

It is very simple,

When Bulldozer was launched, games and apps were not written for his architecture, new games and apps are, thus the performance is higher than Thuban.

No consiparicy here.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

It is very simple,

When Bulldozer was launched, games and apps were not written for his architecture, new games and apps are, thus the performance is higher than Thuban.

No consiparicy here.

Sure, LOL. The X6 1100T has anywhere from the same to slightly lower total computational performance compared to the FX-8150. It's not a matter of it "not being written for the architecture" when it's a FACT both the Bulldozer and Piledriver architecture are slower than K10.5 whether it's in IPC or in per-core performance. This demonstrates it plainly:

iTunes is completely single-threaded, and here you can see that despite running at a higher frequency and having a newer architecture, the FX-8150 has lower performance. And let's not forget that since this is a single-threaded test there is zero penalty from the modular architecture.

Now, the FX-6100 can address the same number of integer threads as the 1100T. It also runs at the same clock speed. Using a single-threaded program we just proved that the K10.5 architecture is faster than the Bulldozer architecture. Please explain to me in a coherent, rational manner how the FX-6100 performs faster than the 1100T in gaming when it has LOWER computational resources at its disposal. Could you also explain how the Phenom II X4 went from competing with the 1st gen Core i5 to being slower than a 1st gen Core i3 in gaming?

Planned obsolescence, that's what.

 

[2is]

I always base my conspiracy theories on an iTunes benchmark too

 

[Dark Shroud]

How did this sift from talking about Piledriver cores being better, which they are, to Bulldozer?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I always base my conspiracy theories on an iTunes benchmark too

Planned obsolescence is not a conspiracy theory. Also, if you don't understand the concept of single-threaded performance we're better off not getting into an argument. Single-threaded performance directly affects multi-threaded performance. And if iTunes doesn't sound fancy enough for you, here's LAME:

Same exact result. There is ZERO reason outside of planned obsolescence for the FX-6100 to be faster than the 1100T.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

How did this sift from talking about Piledriver cores being better, which they are, to Bulldozer?

Piledriver cores are only 1-5% faster than Bulldozer cores at the same clock speed. Piledriver was a mere small IPC and frequency improvement; nothing else.

 

[AtenRa]

IPC is application depended, you cannot take itunes/lame (which are older apps) and conclude that Bulldozer always has lower IPC than Thuban.