AMD Finally Comes To The Table with a NEW 6 Core CPU!

Graphics and other notes courtesy of AMD and Tom’s Hardware.

AMD is launching two Phenom II X6 processors: the 1090T and 1055T.

Both models are architecturally identical. That is to say they’re monolithic hexa-core designs with 128KB L1 cache per core (64KB instruction and 64KB data), 512KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 6MB L3 cache. See graphic below…

This is, of course, a different approach than Intel’s. With Intel’s six-core Gulftown design, Intel increased the size of its shared L3 in order to maintain what its architects considered an optimal ratio between cores and cache. Because AMD isn’t also shifting to a smaller manufacturing process, it really can’t follow suit and keep the Phenom II economically viable at the same time. But as we’ll see in the benchmarks, simply increasing core count is enough to give the X6 a significant boost in threaded apps.

AMD  is maintaining the 45 nm core as a result, die size increases from 258 square millimeters to a whopping 346. The NEW Thuban design is closely related to existing hexa-core Istanbul-based Opteron CPUs. From that, we can safely assume the count lands around 904 million, up from approximately 758 million. That’s not as large an increase as Intel’s six-core design because Gulftown’s L3 is transistor-heavy. So, you can argue that AMD is getting the best return for the added complexity.

Though AMD won’t comment directly, we know through a handful of motherboard vendors that there will be Thuban-based quad-core CPUs following in the wake of the 1090T and 1055T. They’ll likely be armed with Turbo CORE as well, and apparently it’ll be possible for certain lucky buyers to unlock the two disabled cores.

	Clock Frequency	Price	HT Speed	Lith. Node	Total L2 Cache	Shared L3 Cache	TDP	Voltage	Max. Temp.
Phenom II X6 1090T	3.2 GHz (3.6 GHz with Turbo)	$285	4 GT/s	45 nm SOI	3MB	6MB	125W	1.125-1.4V	62 C
Phenom II X6 1055T	2.8 GHz (3.3 GHz with Turbo)	$199	4 GT/s	45 nm SOI	3MB	6MB	125W	1.125-1.4V	62 C
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition	3.4 GHz	$185	4 GT/s	45 nm SOI	2MB	6MB	125W (w/ rev. C3)	.825-1.4V	62 C

New Tech, New Names

In a world where every piece of technology-turned-marketing needs to be rolled into the name somehow, AMD follows in Intel’s footsteps by tacking another letter onto its product naming scheme.

Intel has the Core i7-980X, which, dissected, means absolutely nothing informative.

AMD’s new Phenom II X6 1090T and 1055T. At least the II is indicative of a second-generation Phenom family. The X6, of course, tells us that these processors are hexa-core—that’s fairly easy for most folks to figure out. The 1090 and 1055 are arbitrary performance indicators, and the T tells you these CPUs are Turbo CORE-enabled.

The 1090T runs at 3.2 GHz by default (down from the Phenom II X4 965’s 3.4 GHz). When Turbo CORE is active, it can hit speeds of up to 3.6 GHz, though as our experimentation on the next page shows, this isn’t something  seen on a regular basis. It sports a 2 GHz (4 GT/s) HyperTransport interconnect and is rated for a 125W TDP.

The 1055T operates at 2.8 GHz by default and runs at up to 3.2 GHz in Turbo CORE mode. It also boasts a 125W TDP, along with the same HyperTransport connection able to move up to 16 GB/s bidirectionally.

Both CPUs should be able to handle a fair amount of overclocking and unlike the Intel’s I have worked on. AMD is always easy to overclock.

As a avid AMD user living in an office of mixed systems including a dual quad Core MAC PRO, my dual dual core AMD 6400 Black Edition have been really struggling. It’s been 2 years and although I feel very happy with the CPU performance of my rig. I have to say I am sick of all the  Intel systems lately. I have been missing AMD. I am pretty sure even Intel is missing AMD at this point. SO FINALLY AMD IS KICKING ASS AGAIN! And for less than half of the price of an Intel 6 core!!! If you could use it – I highly recommend checking them out.

Week 17 Distance Learning Project Part 2

Hello again, Its been about a week since I got back from NYC and it took me this long to write a new post because I got stuck writing the technical specifications and requirements down for out partners in other parts of the country. I have to say, even with a few setbacks that we initially experienced I am pretty impressed with this system so far. It’s almost working too well.

Picture below is a sample of what we are working with. Here is a example of a classroom below on the right watching an instructor on the left in a remote location. In the photo on the right above the displays you can see we are using a Canon HD video camera hooked up to the LifeSize system via Component Video cables. On the left we are using one of the LifeSize PTZ cameras to capture the video image. If you could see that handsome guy at the podium is me. This was just for the purpose of the photo as I am not one of the instructors.

For me, I like to keep my tests as straight forward and simple as possible. Often, letting me recreate a scenario if I run across any errors. I like to separate all the pieces and add in additional parts one at a time to better understand problems that come from the changes that are made. This also allows me to double check each graduation of building the system while isolating the problem component to make adjustments when possible.

The big questions are;

1. 1. Does LifeSize deliver what they promise? So far yes followed by a tiny depends… Yes it delivers exceptional frame rate and smooth HD video quality to multiple remote locations at a time for a minimal cost using minimal bandwidth. Isolating the system components one at a time though revealed a problem that is common across all the brands that I have seen. The problem is the camera that comes with the system. In our testing the camera is the weak point and calls for very specific lighting to get the best picture quality. Also like other PTZ cameras from other video conferencing systems the camera can only do one function at a time. In other words to move from corner to corner of a set, you have to pan first, than tilt. Fine for small rooms or for standard corporate conferencing. But, not good for large classrooms.
2. 2. Is this the best deal for the money (ROI)? At this point yes, without a doubt LifeSize has the best price point, versatility, expandability and compatibility we could find.
3. 3. How is the endurance or “How much of a beating can they take?” Well the longest we ran them continually was about six hours. During this time we had only three additional sites up and running conferencing on our Room 220 screens using the built in multipoint bridge. We tested the remote cameras and sound in the other locations. We tested the constant frame rate with lots of movement in at least one of the other locations. We were able to run multiple cameras in multiple locations in full 1080p / 30 frame HD on a single call for about six hours. However these systems may be asked to be running more than seven hours a day with six or seven additional callers on one call. So further endurance testing will be required.

As you can see from the questions above, one of the biggest problems we faced during testing was using the LifeSize PTZ. For a larger classroom we wanted to have a PTZ that can zoom more than 4X and work better in lower light situations. Luckily for us the LifeSize codec was so robust it can take just about any camera input and with minimal time we plugged a HD Canon HFS 21 camera into the system. (We recommend using Component video as the HDMI signal interferes with the remote control characteristics of the camera). The Canon camera has a 10X optical zoom lens with a super clean 200X digital zoom. It shows amazing clarity when compared to any other PTZ and best off it plugs write into the system. I even made a PTZ controller for it. I will send the specs along with photos in the next blog post. As for now, it looks like we have a pretty solid solution going in place.

Back to NYC, Distance Learning Project part 1 – week 14

Good evening everyone, I am going back to NYC for week 14 of the big distance learning project. We are just entering the second stage of testing and about to run the true system BETA. It’s exciting to see a plan start to come to fruition. I will be blogging over the next few days about the project, the people at the agency I work with and all the issues we come across.

The system we have decided to go with is the LifeSize HD units. We didn’t make this decision on a whim, we researched the standard systems from Cisco, Polycom, Tandberg and LifeSize. I can’t say enough about the cooperation that I got from my friends at Cisco who basically told me that the latest from Cisco is not up to par. HMM… Cisco people telling me about Cisco weaknesses. Polycom just didn’t have the HD system we were looking for at the moment, however they are finally going HD. Tandberg seems to be the 800lb Gorilla in the corner of the room. The reseller reps and engineers from Tandberg were exemplary. I really enjoyed the show and the talks with Tandberg. When all was said and done the winner was LifeSize.

HOW could this happen you ask? How in the world can a Cisco person who bleeds CISCO ever choose anything but Cisco? Well, let me tell you. I have been fighting the MAN for a long time and although I prefer Cisco service, long term functionality etc… In the end I have to recommend the very best bang for the buck, both in the short term and full ROI. LifeSize had all the capability we were looking for. At about 1/3 the price. Also most interestingly it uses about 1/3 the bandwidth to have a TRUE HD (720p . 60) conversation only takes 1.1MB up/down. With Cisco / Tandberg you need a minimum 3.5MB up/down for it’s best 720p. 30. What advantages and disadvantages do you get from Lifesize vs. the competition.

The answer and review of tests will be coming…