vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

GIGABYTE slips clock speeds for AMD hexa-core Thuban CPUs

by Parm Mann on 18 March 2010, 10:07

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qawoa

Add to My Vault: x

Intel has already kicked off a generation of hexa-core computing with its wicked-fast Core i7 980X processor, but for those who don't have the best part of a grand to spare, you might be waiting for the cheaper, less-potent AMD alternative.

Thought to be arriving next month, AMD's first six-core CPUs will arrive in the form of Phenom II X6 parts codenamed Thuban.

Whilst we know they're en route, and likely to be a whole lot cheaper than Intel's first six-core part, we haven't yet had a clear indication of clock speeds - until now. Jumping the gun, motherboard manufacturer GIGABYTE temporarily updated its CPU Support List with two new additions; the Phenom II X6 1055T and Phenom II X6 1035T.

GIGABYTE has since pulled the listing, but AMD's yet-to-be-announced parts have been revealed to be clocked in at 2.8GHz and 2.6GHz, respectively, and despite featuring a total of six physical cores, will be built on the same 45nm process and come equipped with 6MB of L3 cache and 512KB of L2 per core.

There's no mention of a TDP for AMD's upcoming parts, unfortunately, but recent rumours have suggested that both the Phenom II X6 1055T and Phenom II X6 1035T will come in at 95W. Sounds reasonable, considering the seemingly-conservative clock speeds.

Conjecturing somewhat, the rumour mill has also hinted at a 3GHz hexa-core part dubbed the Phenom II X6 1075T. It's said to feature a 125W TDP, and should be arriving late April.

The good news is that all of AMD's Thuban processors are backward compatible with socket AM3. If you're looking to get in on the world of hexa-core computing, one of the above-mentioned CPUs is certainly going to be the cheapest route.



HEXUS Forums :: 15 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Yeah, this is where I'll be heading, the 2.8GHz part joined with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz and Crossfire 5870s… I reckon it'd be a more than capable system
GageC
Yeah, this is where I'll be heading, the 2.8GHz part joined with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz and Crossfire 5870s… I reckon it'd be a more than capable system

i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.
borandi
i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.

I concur.
IF an application can take advantage of the additional cores then any quad core CPUs will be significantly slower.

if the amd architecture would be only half as fast as intel's then your statement would be true, but as long as this is not the case…. :P

and on the other hand, for gaming even an athlon 2 (clocked between 2.6-3Ghz) provides more than enough performance for GPUs like the 5870.

I believe that the i7's performance “advantage” does not justify the added costs, not even remotely.
borandi
i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.

Wrong on every count.