Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Processors arrow AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBRBOX

AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBRBOX E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors
Written by David Ramsey   
Tuesday, 07 December 2010
Table of Contents: Page Index
Features and Specifications
Testing and Results
CINEBENCH R11.5 Benchmarks
SPECviewperf 11 Tests
SPECapc Lightwave Test
PCMark Vantage Tests
AIDA64 Tests
Video Gaming Test
PassMark PerformanceTest
Video Transcoding Tests
AMD Black Edition CPU Overclocking
AMD X6-1100T Final Thoughts
HDE00ZFBK6DGR Conclusion

AIDA64 Extreme Edition Tests

AIDA64 Extreme Edition is the evolution of Lavalys' "Everest Ultimate Edition". Hungarian developer FinalWire acquired the rights to Everest in late November 2010, and renamed the product "AIDA64". The Everest product was discontinued and FinalWire is offering 1-year license keys to those with active Everest keys.

AIDA64 is a full 64-bit benchmark and test suite utilizing MMX, 3DNow! and SSE instruction set extensions, and will scale up to 32 processor cores. An enhanced 64-bit System Stability Test module is also available to stress the whole system to its limits. For legacy processors all benchmarks and the System Stability Test are available in 32-bit versions as well. Additionally, AIDA64 adds new hardware to its database, including 300 solid-state drives. On top of the usual ATA auto-detect information the new SSD database enables AIDA64 to display flash memory type, controller model, physical dimensions, and data transfer performance data. AIDA64 v1.00 also implements SSD-specific SMART disk health information for Indilinx, Intel, JMicron, Samsung, and SandForce controllers.

All of the benchmarks used in this test— Queen, Photoworxx, ZLib, hash, and AES— rely on basic x86 instructions, and consume very littlr system memory while also being aware of Hyper-Threading, multi-processors, and multi-core processors. Of all the tests in this review, AIDA64 is the one that best isolates the processor's performance from the rest of the system. While this is useful in that it more directly compares processor performance, readers should remember that virtually no "real world" programs will mirror these results.


Queen and Photoworxx tests are synthetic benchmarks that iterate the function many times and over-exaggerate what the real-world performance would be like. The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores.

Here we see the $159 AMD 965 Black Edition handily beating the $185 Intel Core i5-750, while the $199 AMD 1075T and $229 AMD 1090T run just behind Intel's $280 Core i7-930. The overclocked 11100T beats everything except the i7-980X, which runs away from the pack with results 39% better than the next closest competitor.

Like the Queen benchmark, the Photoworxx tests for penalties against pipeline architecture. The synthetic Photoworxx benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem. Due to the fact that this test performs high memory read/write traffic, it cannot effectively scale in situations where more than two processing threads are used. The AIDIA64 fPhotoworxx benchmark performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:

  • Fill
  • Flip
  • Rotate90R (rotate 90 degrees CW)
  • Rotate90L (rotate 90 degrees CCW)
  • Random (fill the image with random colored pixels)
  • RGB2BW (color to black & white conversion)
  • Difference
  • Crop

The Intel processors dominate these results, with every Intel CPU doing substantially better than every AMD CPU. Since this test cannot effectively use more than two threads, the hexacore processors have no advantage over quad-core processors. AMD 965 Black Edition is the best performer in the AMD camp, outperforming even the overclocked 1100T. The worst performance is turned in by the stock-clocked Phenom-II X6-1100T, and the best, as usual, by the 980X.


The Zip Library test measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. ZLib is designed as a free lossless data compression library for use on virtually any computer hardware and operating system. The ZLib data format is itself portable across platforms and has a data-independent footprint that can be reduced at some cost in compression. The AES integer benchmark measures CPU performance using AES data encryption. It utilizes Vincent Rijmen, Antoon Bosselaers and Paulo Barreto's public domain C code in ECB mode and consumes 48 MB of memory. Both of these tests are much more applicable to the "real world" than the previous tests.

The results of the Zip compression test scale almost linearly with processor clock speed on the quad-core Intel side, but there's some threading going on as can be seen with the Core i7-980X results, where two extra cores and an extra 530MHz or so virtually double the performance of the i7-930. Extra cores help on the AMD side, too, with all of the hexa-core CPUs handily outperforming the 3.4GHz quad-core 965 Black Edition.

The AES encryption test is utterly dominated by the Core i7-980X, whose performance is 6.7x better than its closest competitor. The reason is Intel's Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions (AES-NI), which dramatically accelerate AES code. AES-NI aside, the AMD processors uniformly perform better than the Intel processors without this feature. Other than this, we see a nice, even progression as processor clock speed and number of cores increases. Note that the very high score for the Intel 980X visually diminishes the performance differences among the other processors.


AIDA64's Hash test is new (it wasn't in Everest). The 64-bit hash benchmark measures CPU performance using the SHA1 hashing algorithm. Written in assembler code, the Hash benchmark is optimized for every popular AMD, Intel and VIA processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate MMX, MMX+/SSE, SSE2, or SSSE3 instruction set extension.

The Intel results are a little uneven, with the 2.66GHz, non-Hyper Threaded Core i5-750 beating, by just a little, the 2.8GHz Hyper-Threaded Core i7-930. On the AMD side, we see a very smooth progression and clock speed and number of cores increase. In fact, the scores of the four hexa-core processors scale in perfect lock-step with their frequencies.



# RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRDoug 2010-12-06 22:46
A very comprehensive review. I would have liked to see an OCed 920 clocked at 3.8Ghz too, however, since we're talking about cost to performance ratio.

It's good to see Big Green as strong as Intel again, or close enough to be called such. It's taken 6 years, but AMD is back. I bought one of the first AMD x64s (4800) back in 2004 and loved it. I gave it to my nephew and it's still going strong.

I doubt any processor maker will ever deliver the knock out blow to its competition that AMD did with the first x64s to Intel. But you never know.

When I needed more power than the old x64 4800 had, I was stuck because Intel still wasn't putting the north-bridge controller on the chip, and I hated that for performance and heat reasons, and in 2008, AMD just didn't have the power I wanted. Then the Core ixx series came out. I couldn't beleive my eyes when I saw the OC potential of those CPU's.

The Core i-series processors are incredible, and even though AMD is the cost per clock ratio winner, if you want the best dollar to performance ratio, it's hard to beat the i7 920 clocked to 3.8Ghz on air.
Report Comment
# Big Green as strong as Intel again?Toeringsandthong 2010-12-07 04:59
Big Green as strong as Intel again???IN YOUR DREAMS MAYBE it IS! and i dont want to hear about this is cheaper the intels i7 extreme ,duh we all know this !BUT if you want to compare prices ,then lets go for it !My friend is a AMD FANBOY like yourself and went and bought this 6 core cpu last week,we both have very similar hardware except the cpu of course,and we ran some bench marks oc'd both to same speeds and clock for clock my old core 2 beats this into the ground! its pretty sad when my old core 2 qx9850 that i bought off ebay for $150 bucks smokes this AMD especially in games crysis! enuff said ! keep trying AMD keep trying !
Report Comment
# RE: Big Green as strong as Intel again?Olin Coles 2010-12-07 08:25
I call BS. The giveaway was claiming 'your friend' bought this processor last week, when it just launched public today.

Also, comparing CPUs for gaming performance is like comparing race cars for seating comfort... FAIL.
Report Comment
# RE: Big Green as strong as Intel again?Doug 2010-12-07 14:45
LMAO. Comprehension is your friend. If you could comprehend what you read, you would have no reason to post this. If I were an AMD fanboy, I would have bought an AMD not the Core i7. I buy the best product for the money, which at the time I bought my 920 was from Intel. So after you get done "smoking" AMD processors with your Core 2, smoke my #. --sorry MODS I just couldn't resist!

What's really funny is that the Core i7 920 is so popular now that it's selling for 25 dollars more than it did two years ago, up from 270 to around 300USD. If I were buying today, I might go with AMD since I do TONS of heavy multitasking, such as having Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop, split tab browsers with 20 tabs each open, Eve online, Team Speak, Winamp streaming, video software for my outdoor cams, etc. so the more threads the better.
Report Comment
# Crysis for CPU Benchmarking, Outstanding.Hank 2010-12-07 16:39
Your core 2 beat this processor a week ago in Crysis benchmarks? Wow, that's amazing...

L2 benchmark, then come back.

I bet my Athlon-II X2-260 can get great FPS on Crysis. Oh, could it depend on GPU?
Report Comment
# yeah who's the fanboy?someone 2011-09-09 08:21
Funny your friend got a processor last week that was just released the day before you wrote this. I would have to call BS on it. I think we have a Intel fanboy here. Dollar for Dollar this is one of the best processors out today. I'm not a intel or amd fan boy. I'm a performance to cost fan.
Report Comment
# Thanks, good reviewRealNeil 2010-12-07 04:53
I liked the final "percentage" chart you posted. The fluctuations between the AMD and Intel Hex-Core goes all over the place. I know that you really have to compare the two, but while it's a rompin' stompin' CPU, the Intel Hex-Core's pricing is not an option for many of us. The fact that we can afford these AMD Hex CPU's is what makes them compelling to me.
Being in the market for a CPU and Mainboard right now, I have to say that I'm looking hard at these while holding out to see what value Sandy Bridge brings to the table. I'm glad to be looking at buying parts now, and not a year ago. So much has changed,........
Report Comment
# RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRChris 2010-12-07 07:45
A solid review as always. Is there any real reason to get this over the 1090T? It overclocks about as well.

I think that at this point, the fight is between the 1100T, the i7 930, and perhaps the i7 860. I'll be waiting until next year though, to upgrade my current q6600 to either the Fusion or X68 platform.
Report Comment
# or...resere 2010-12-07 09:38
when new platforms arrive buy the flagship of the previous one ;)
sometimes i do that.

good review.
i don't give a f**k about biases. these are somehow inebitable in time, i have mines too, but: the most important thing is: NO MONOPOLY!
retards like Toeringsandthong can't understand that.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRDavid Ramsey 2010-12-07 13:41
As I noted in my conclusion, the 1075T/1090T/1100 are all the same processor, only with different multipliers and (in the case of the latter two) unlocked multipliers. So no, especially if you plan to overclock, there's no reason to get the 1100T over the 1090T.
Report Comment
# Pretty DecentBanzai 2010-12-08 05:38
AMD may not be the best against Intel currently, but they still remain cheap with decent performance. I'm still running my overclocked Athlon II and find it to be fine for what I need. I don't plan to upgrade the cpu segment until bulldozer releases, but I think these hexaphenoms are decent in both price/performance.
Report Comment
# MismatchChiz 2010-12-08 09:36
Quote: "System Memory: Corsair TRX3X6G1600C8D (6GB 1333MHz CL8-8-8-24)"
Am I reading it right that the test for the I7's are using triple channel. How about another test with the I7 running on dual channel.

Overall I like the article.:-)
Report Comment
# RE: MismatchOlin Coles 2010-12-08 09:51
X58 Isn't intended to operate at dual-channel, although it can be downgraded from triple-channel. Why should we test using configurations not intended for the platform?
Report Comment
# MismatchChiz 2010-12-08 12:27
Intel takes advantage of CPU to memory. And with three channels to process instructions, applications are able to finish their task quicker. That's why I called a mismatch. AMD on the other hand takes advantage of CPU to NB to Output. With the Bulldozer having support for triple channel "hopefully" then we'll see some difference in results. Then again Intel would be supporting quad-channel by that time.... Round and round it goes...
Report Comment
# RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRBryan Ischo 2010-12-08 16:27
Why on earth do you make so many charts where you compare an un-overclocked 980X with an overclocked 1100T and talk about performance-per-collar comparisons? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Anyone willing to overclock the AMD part would be willing to overclock the Intel part so you should only compare overclocked results against overclocked results and non-overclocked results against non-overclocked results.

It's not that I am a fan of Intel over AMD (as if I have to even prove myself, which is ridiculous - but for what it's worth I own a 1075T which, un-overclocked, is just about the best performance per dollar that money can buy for the work loads that I encounter), but I would really appreciate seeing meaningful comparisons rather than meaningless comparisons, regardless of which processor comes out on top.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGROlin Coles 2010-12-08 16:45
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: the stock and overclocked results are both there, but you want to complain about having more information than you personally care for? If that's the case, I have a solution: ignore the overclocked results.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRDoug 2010-12-08 22:21
Sure wish you would have OCed the 920 to 3.8Ghz and tossed that it. I mean it's a 3 year old CPU still fast enough, OCed, to outrun a stock 980--lol. Yes, the 920 is just an underclocked 980, true, true.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRBryan Ischo 2010-12-09 11:10
Yes, you understand correctly. You spent alot of verbage - all throughout the article and pretty much the entire last page as well - talking about the value proposition of the overclocked 1100T in comparison to the non-overclocked 980X. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that the OC'd 1100T information was just appended to graphs and not otherwise a focal point of the review.

You want eyeballs on your reviews and hits on your advertisements, then you need to work to have high quality reviews worth visiting. I'm not saying this review was bad, I read all the way through it because it was interesting, but you need to take my point seriously rather than trying to dodge it. Not overclocking the 980X made all of your comparisons against the overclocked 1100T meaningless, and if you think people are going to return to read more reviews if you keep it up, think again.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGROlin Coles 2010-12-09 12:03
Bryan Ischo: I don't know how they do things in San Jose, but around my parts we actually address our complaints with the correct party. We also don't do them anonymously.

I didn't write this article, evidenced by the 'written by' credits listed in bold on every page. So when you repeatedly tell me what it is I should be doing, you should be careful not to make claims that I'm dodging your points.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRBryan Ischo 2010-12-09 14:26
Sorry, I misinterpreted what I read; I thought that you were the author of the article. My mistake.

Not sure what you mean about addressing complaints anonymously though; my name is right there. And since there are no other Bryan Ischos on the entire planet, I should be pretty easy to find (as you have noticed).
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRDavid Ramsey 2010-12-09 15:57
Hi Bryan, I'm the author of the article. Each reviewer has their own ideas of the information articles of this type should contain, so here's my rationale for the way I did it: (1) The article was about the 1100T, not the 980x (2) It can take quite a while to tweak any given processor to its maximum stable overclock. With 7 processors in this article, there simply wasn't time to overclock them all. Just running the full set of benchmarks for each processor took a couple of hours per CPU (3) Since overclocks are never guaranteed, comparing the performance of multiple overclocked processors across different platforms is a dicey proposition at best. (4) One of the main rationales for overclocking is to enable a less expensive part to approach the performance of a more expensive part. People overclock Thubans to get more bang for their buck. People overclock 980xs for bragging rights and to win overclocking contests. IOW, I disagree with your assertion that not comparing the overclocked 1100T to an overclocked 980x made the comparison "meaningless", and I challenge you to find an 1100T review that did.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBK6DGRBryan Ischo 2010-12-09 17:38
Well despite my tone I did appreciate and enjoy the article, so no worries there.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion you came to for (4). I would expect that anyone willing to overclock would be willing to overclock whatever processor they buy so I don't know why you categorize 1100T overclocking differently than 980X. And, I think the real point that should shine through here is that the 980X was the wrong processor to compare the overclocked 1100T to. You should have compared it to an overclocked i7 that is approximately the same price as the 1100T.

In terms of the amount of time it takes to benchmark these processors, I think that is a good reason to have left the 980X out of it altogether. I think that an overclocked i7 of the same cost as the AMD would have been more interesting in place of the 980X.

And - there are no shortages of reviews putting the 1100T through the standard set of benchmarks. I got here from the front page and the list of reviews just for the 1100T was like 20 long. I picked your site's review to read because I like the site name :) My point being, that you can "challenge" me to find an 1100T review that compared against an overclocked 980X, but challenging me to find a review that is tangibly different than yours doesn't really seem to have made your time in making the review worth it. Meaning, if what you're saying is that you don't do anything different than the other guys, then why are you bothering to repeat what has already been done over and over again? Comparing against an oc'd i7 of the same cost would have been different and interesting.
Report Comment
# If you just can't stan to look at it....BruceBruce 2010-12-08 16:51
Just ignore the 1100TBE OC results. The results for the non-overclocked processor is right next to it, and you can easily compare apples to apples.

Forget about oranges to oranges: there are so many random influences on overclocking performance, that it is a risky proposition to compare OC to OC results between competing products. Yeah, you can get results, but no two people are going to get the same results, so the individual data is of little value.

The best you can really do, is to compare the one product under test at stock speeds and overclocked. Then you can see how far the reviewer was able to overclock the one processor they have, with the equipment they have, their OC knowledge and experience, and some measure of their risk tolerance. That's about all you can glean from the single-sample testing that every site performs. If you want to go out and get 100 of each processor and test them in a half dozen environments to get a true statistical understanding of the processor's overclocking potential, the world will laud your efforts and your diligence. Oh wait, that's not right. Someone else will be duty-bound to come onto your site and tell you you did it wrong. Oh, well....

Exceptions are out there, sure. The NVIDIA GTX 460 is a good example; they ALL overclocked like mad. Very consistent results were obtained across the population for that one product, but that's not the norm.
Report Comment
# RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....Bryan Ischo 2010-12-09 11:13
It's hard to ingore the 1100T oc'd results when most of the article focused on comparisons between the 1100T oc'd vs 980X un-oc'd. And the article would have been much more interesting had a comparison between oc'd and non-oc'd processors for BOTH the 1100T and 980X were done. Actually, to be honest, I think the 980X inclusion is only vaguely interesting because its price is so far beyond the other parts; I think that an OC'd i7 in the $250 range, whichever one that is, would have been the most interesting thing to compare the oc'd 1100T.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....David Ramsey 2010-12-09 16:09
I compared the results of the OC'd 1100T to the 980x simply to show how close a $265 processor could come to the performance of a $1,000 processor; I thought it was an interesting point, and most of our readers did, too. As I noted in my other reply, a test comparing multiple overclocked processors might be fun to read, but I think it would be of limited real-world value since so many uncertainties would be introduced. For example, I could have tried overclocking the 930, but it's a fundamentally different proposition from overclocking the 1100T since the AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier and the Intel processor does the overclocking results of the 930 would be very dependent on the motherboard, RAM, and to some extent the power supply used.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....Bryan Ischo 2010-12-09 17:49
Well you make a good point; since the 980X is so far out of the price range of the 1100T, it's not like someone would really be choosing between the two when making a purchasing decision. Trying to make the 1100T look better by overclocking it really doesn't change that factor as I think anyone making this purchasing decision will realize that the non-overclocked 980X is not what they'd be buying anyway; they'd be buying a 980X that would be overclocked and thus produce different numbers than in your charts.

For what it's worth, here are the things that I find I most want to see in benchmark reviews that so often are left out or overlooked:

- Comparisons only between processors at similar price points
- Ideally, taking into consideration the overall cost of the processor + motherboard if possible
- Comparisons only of oc'd versus oc'd or non-oc'd versus non-oc'd parts
- Inclusion of compiler benchmarks (i.e. benchmarks of parallell compilations of very large software code bases)
- Investigation into the compiler optimizations used for 'standard' benchmarks. I always get the feeling that many benchmarks that favor Intel highly often do so in part because the compiler that was used to compile the benchmark program favors Intel. I think that the gcc compiler toolchain is fairly agnostic and usually Linux based benchmarks show a different picture than Windows based ones because of this. I really would like to see a site explore this issue further, especially because 99% of the software I run is compiled by gcc and so gcc-compiled code is what I really care about.

A site that answered some or all of these questions would definitely get my loyal readership!
Report Comment
# Point takenOlin Coles 2010-12-09 17:59
Bryan: I understand your point, and I also understand why the X980 wasn't overclocked. After all, which matters more to consumers: an overclocked $265 1100T, or an overclocked $1100 980X? I'm pretty sure readers are more interested in getting $1100 value at $265 than the other way around.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....David Ramsey 2010-12-09 18:04
* Comparing only processors at similar price points is silly. Seeing how processors compare to others at different price points is valuable information.
* Which motherboard? There are dozens available for each chipset. X58 motherboards alone range in price from $179 to $699. You seem to think that we have access to every possible processor and motherboard, and we don't: we only have what vendors send us to review.
* I explained before why comparing multiple overclocked processors wasn't feasible given the time frame for the article. As I explained earlier I'm still unconvinced it's ever a good idea.
* Compiler benchmarks? As a programmer, I might find them interesting, but I think most of our readers could care less.
* Investigation into compiler optimizations: Now, this is a good idea, but it's beyond the scope of a simple processor comparison; it needs its own article. While 99% of the software you run may be compiled by gcc, 99% of the software most other people run isn't.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....Doug 2010-12-10 00:34
And a site that only compared CPUs at similar price points would be the laughing stock of the computer review industry. As stated a million times, and as an axiomatic matter, CPUs of lower price points are compared to CPUs of higher price points because OCing the CPU of the lower price point shows people that for 250USD you can, for example, have the same performance as an 1100USD CPU. And that's useless information for people who don't overclock, and all sites that compare overclocked CPUS to stock but expensive CPUs are for the non OCer worthless information. Obviously this essay was not intended for people who are not interested in OCing. Therefore, comparing OC'ed 250USD CPUs to stock 1100CPUs is in every way useful.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....Bryan Ischo 2010-12-10 09:51
I start with the premise that someone willing to overclock would be willing to overclock any processor they buy. I think this is a valid premise.

I also include the premise that people generally have a target price range that they are willing to pay for individual components of their system. Now this is a little less solid of a premise because I can certainly see people saying "I'd like to spend $200 on a processor, but if there is a processor for $300 that is twice as fast, I'd seriously consider it". However, if that person was willing to go up to $300 to pay for the twice-as-fast processor, then they'd probably also want to consider all of the other $300 processors available to see if there is an even better processor at that price point. In either case, the most useful comparison to make is for processors in the same price range, because whatever dollar figure a system builder ends up at, they would want to make sure they're getting the best deal at that price; or at the very least, that they're not passing up a much better processor should they be willing to stick with a slightly slower part for other reasons (brand loyalty, already owning compatible components, etc).

Given those two premises, I see the most useful information to someone looking to purchase a processor being comparing similarly overclocked processors (i.e. not overclocked, or overclocked with the same effort and cost put into it), at similar price points.

Now, not every article has to be about this type of value comparison - an article can certainly be about something less practical like "how far do you have to overclock an 1100T - costs be damned - to match the performance of a stock 980X", but this was not that article. This article attempted to make lots of value comparisons while violating both of the premises I set forth previously.

Hence, my conclusion that the comparisons were meaningless (for someone who is actually considering buying either processor). If you accept my premises, they were. If you are just looking for comparisons in the abstract without any value considerations, then the article was fine - except that in that case it wasted too much verbage actually making value comparisons that were not the point of the article.
Report Comment
# This could be your article someday...Olin Coles 2010-12-10 09:55
Bryan: you should consider writing for Benchmark Reviews. :)

We can't please everyone, and with the time constraints for most projects we aren't afforded the opportunity to dig as deep as we'd like.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you just can't stan to look at it....Doug 2010-12-10 15:55
Your conclusion is invalid because you make the argument in this form:

If x, then meaningless. Meaningless means "has no meaning." Even if we take your premise as true, people may still get useful information out of the article, and thus your premises don't follow directly to the conclusion, and you have an invalid argument.
Report Comment
# RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBRBOXNoe 2010-12-10 01:43
David, thanks for another great review of new hardware.

I along with others are still awaiting a reply, to my comments/questions, on your review of the 1075T.
Could you please spare some time to answer my queries there, thank you.
Report Comment
# RE: RE: AMD Phenom-II X6-1100T CPU HDE00ZFBRBOXDavid Ramsey 2010-12-10 09:02
Now, I've answered the questions in the comments of the 1075T review.
Report Comment
# Missing AMD On TopJustin Germino 2010-12-30 10:25
I miss the days when AMD was on top, and I too have an AMD Athlon X2-64 processor right now and will be upgrading my Mobo and CPU in the next 3 months. I can't decide whether to get Intel or AMD, do they at least outperform Intel when comparing CPU against CPU in the same exact price range, like if I were to spend $300 on a cpu, would an AMD CPU for $300 outperform the Intel equiv at the same price? If so, then I am clearly still choosing AMD.
Report Comment
# Purchase/Performance = AMDHakan Karakas 2011-01-12 12:58
I like this amd!!!Without AMD, we still would have had to get Intel's expensive processors.My favorite cheap and performance in addition to being the best:)

Ty,From Turkey..
Report Comment

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews

Like Benchmark Reviews on FacebookFollow Benchmark Reviews on Twitter