Skip to navigation
Login|Register
Log In

Remember me

RSS Feeds

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition review

  • AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
  • AMD Phenom II X6 1090T die

Verdict:

Far cheaper than Intel's first six-core effort, but it's still too expensive given its all-round performance.

Review Date: 27 Apr 2010

Price when reviewed: £240

Buy it now for: £247
(see more store prices)

Supplier: http://www.scan.co.uk

Reviewed By: Seth Barton

Our Rating 3 stars out of 5

Having witnessed the awesome processing power of the Intel Core i7-980X, we were stuck with just one problem – its equally awesome asking price of £800. Now only weeks later, AMD may have ridden to the rescue of those requiring six-core performance, but who can't afford to spend the price of a whole new PC in a single chip.

The Phenom II X6 1090T is the first and most powerful of AMD's six-core line up. Despite this it only costs a fraction of the price of the 980X, at £240 inc VAT. As the Phenom II name suggests, though, this chip has a very similar architecture to the company's current range of processors.

It still uses a 45nm manufacturing process, compared to the 980X's more efficient 32nm process. Of course there are two extra processing cores here, each with its own L2 512KB instruction cache. However, the shared L3 cache remains at 6MB, the same as on Phenom X4 chips. This means there's less cache per processor, though the shared nature of the cache should mean that this isn't a huge handicap when dealing with the kind of parallel processing tasks that multi-core chips excel at.

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T die

One key new feature is AMD Turbo Core Technology. This works in a similar manner to Intel's Turbo Boost, introduced on its LGA1156 Core i3/i5/i7 processors. The AMD version is less flexible, however. It runs at its listed clock speed when using all six cores, but can boost clock speeds by up to 400MHz by disabling three of these. This is a less dynamic system than Intel's, which can boost with any number of cores, balancing out the boost between all the cores as long as overall heat is kept within specified limits.

In our testing, unfortunately, we never saw any evidence of Turbo Core at work – despite trying with two different motherboards, playing with BIOS settings and consulting other publications at Dennis. We tried a number of programs to monitor the clock speed but it didn't budge above the usual 3.2GHz.

Keeping in mind the lack of Turbo Core, benchmark results were about what we'd expect. It was roughly as fast as the fastest Phenom X4 in our single-threaded image editing test; but pulled away in multi-threaded apps like our video encoding test with an impressive 139, compared to the Phenom X4 955's 123.

It's powerful then, if given the right task, but even in video encoding it's beaten by some of Intel's quad-core chips. A Core i7-860 for example scores 164 in that test, thanks partly to its Hyper-Threading which doubles the number of addressable cores the operating system can see, but yet costs less at around £220 inc VAT. An overall score of 125 doesn't justify the X6's price when compared to other processors either. A Core i5-750 can be bought for under £150, and scores 139 overall in our tests.

If you have a 7-series AMD board, then you'll need to check with the manufacturer to see if a BIOS update is available. If so, and you need more parallel multi-core processing power, then an X6 chip would be a hassle free upgrade. However, you're not going to get a lot more performance overall, and even in multi-core tasks it's not that much quicker than far cheaper X4 processors.

If you need to buy a new motherboard to go with your X6, then forget it. In this case we'd recommend switching to Intel and building a Core i5 or i7-based PC instead, as it will be faster and cheaper.

Prev Next

Best Prices

Price comparison powered by Reevoo

£247
£247
£247
< Previous   Reviews : Processors Next >
Sponsored Links
User comments

Expert Review - never!!

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Could I suggest you visit Anandtech for a PROPER review of this processor. (And it doesn't need a series 8 chipset)

By tapanul on 27 Apr 2010

Not a regular reader, eh?

@tapanul - Can I assume you're not a regular reader of expertreviews? Rightly or wrongly, nearly all ER reviews only take up a page - you'll never get a 8-10 page Tech Report or Anandtech review here.

Expertreviews seems to be aimed strictly at the casual tech user. And sometimes it's a relief not to go through 10 pages of multi-threading benchmarks to find out the final verdict.

May I suggest lowering your reviewing expectations, to avoid further disappointment ;)

By pbryanw on 29 Apr 2010

@pbryanw

tapanul has a point. it isn't about being a "proper" review in length, it's about getting your facts straight and not ruining a CPUs reputation on account of that fact.
Mr. Barton just pummelled the 1090T into the dirt because of pricing and the fact that you need to get a new motherboard to use it?! Are you kidding me? The fact that you can drop this processor into motherboards as "ancient" as AM2+ systems and not spend a penny more... that's REAL value.

Of course, if you want to compare it to a £999 processor like the 980X, yeah, the 1090T won't compete... but for £240?? where does Intel even begin competing there?

By JeanChevreuil on 29 Apr 2010

Motherboard compatibility

At the time of writing AMD's release materials only mentioned 8-series compatibility - you can draw your own conclusions as to why that is. Motherboard manufacturers have confirmed wider compatibility, as we originally expected and mentioned in our own review for the Gigabyte 890GPA-UD3H.

We've edited the review appropriately, but the score remains, as Intel's hyperthreaded quad-core processors still outperform this chip across all our tests, and are a better buy for those building a new PC. If you're determined to make an AMD processor upgrade, then a fast X4 chip is far better value for money.

By sethbarton1 on 29 Apr 2010

@JeanChevreuil

As we say in the review, and I think you'll find every other review site agrees, if you don't exclusively run multi-threaded apps then Core i3/i5/i7 processors offer better value for money. There's nothing here that can compete with the i5-750 if you want a cost-effective yet powerful processor for numerous tasks.

By sethbarton1 on 29 Apr 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.

(optional)

advertisement

Award-winning Processors

AMD A6-3500 review

AMD A6-3500

Category: Processors
Rating: 4 out of 5
Price: £64
Intel Core i7-3960X review

Intel Core i7-3960X

Category: Processors
Rating: 3 out of 5
Price: £840
AMD FX-8150 review

AMD FX-8150

Category: Processors
Rating: 3 out of 5
Price: £195
AMD A6-3650 review

AMD A6-3650

Category: Processors
Rating: 4 out of 5
Price: £78
AMD A8-3850 review

AMD A8-3850

Category: Processors
Rating: 5 out of 5
Price: £105
Intel motherboard buying guide

Intel motherboard buying guide

Find out all you need to know about choosing the right motherboard.

Read more

 

advertisement

Also in this category...
 
Computer Shopper

advertisement


advertisement


 
 

Expert Reviews Printed from www.expertreviews.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.