# AMD Phenom II x6 Thuban



## ScOuT

Wow...I completely missed this one...AMD has a 6 core processor that will be backwards compatible with AM2+ and AM3 sockets. That would be an awesome media chip...the video encoding and photo editing would be great. 

SMP client? Imagine the possibilities 

There is a few release dates floating around...everywhere from Q2 2010 to Q4 2010...we'll see I guess.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/its_official_amd_confirms_hexacore_thuban_cpu


----------



## Ethan3.14159

I'm very excited about this. AMD has had 6 core CPU's out for servers for a few months now. They cost multiple arms and legs though. Intel is supposedly releasing their 6-core for LGA 1366 around Q2 as well. This should be interesting. Even though I'm switching to Intel, I have to route for AMD here.


----------



## aviation_man

:O Nice find.... I can't wait  Although it would probably run for about $300  
I can't wait for it!


----------



## StrangleHold

Yeap, people thought it would be a lower bin MHZ. since its a X6. But from what I have heard the first one will be clocked at 2.8GHZ. to keep it at a rated 140W, not bad for a X6 at 2.8. If you have atleast a 10 phase power setup board this puppy might clock as good as a X4.

I'm waiting for Bulldozer though.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

StrangleHold said:


> Yep, people thought it would be a lower bin MHZ. since its a X6. But from what I have heard the first one will be clocked at 2.8GHZ. to keep it at a rated 140W, not bad for a X6 at 2.8. If you have atleast a 10 phase power setup board this puppy might clock as good as a X4.



If this six core processor is 140 Watt running at 2.8 gigahertz that isn't too bad.  The Phenom II 965 is a 140 Watt Quad-Core.


----------



## zer0_c00l

ya i seen them on newegg about 2-3 months ago


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> If this six core processor is 140 Watt running at 2.8 gigahertz that isn't too bad. The Phenom II 965 is a 140 Watt Quad-Core.


 
From what I understand they are dropping a bunch of Phenom IIs in the next few months and going with a newer stepping and replacing them with lower wattage models



zer0_c00l said:


> ya i seen them on newegg about 2-3 months ago


 
Yeah they released the server version a few months ago. The Opteron Istanbul X6.


----------



## maroon1

From the reviews I've seen Istanbul X6 often lose against i7 based Xeon even in multi-threaded application. Thuban is simply the desktop version of Istanbul

Unless Thuban have high clock speed like the current Phenom X4 (3GHz and above), I don't expect that it will do will even against mainstream i7

The worse thing about Thuban it have big die size because it made on 45nm process. So, selling these at low price may be a bad thing for AMD as a company



Ethan3.14159 said:


> I'm very excited about this. AMD has had 6 core CPU's out for servers for a few months now. They cost multiple arms and legs though. Intel is supposedly releasing their 6-core for LGA 1366 around Q2 as well. This should be interesting. Even though I'm switching to Intel, I have to route for AMD here.



AMD is probably releasing Thuban to compete with Intel i5 and i7, not with Intel 6-core

Intel 6-core is more that just adding two cores. It will have 12MB L3 cache, 32 nm die shrink, new set of instructions (AES) which should improve performance in encryption and decryption

Also, server processors are always expensive. Thuban should be much cheaper than Istanbul


----------



## StrangleHold

maroon1 said:


> AMD is probably releasing Thuban to compete with Intel i5 and i7, not with Intel 6-core


 
Oh bull, no there not. They are just releasing it because of Intel X6 coming out. Not to compete directly with it, but just to say they have one too. AMDs not going to compete against the i5/7 till Bulldozer is released.


----------



## G25r8cer

It would be nice once windows catches up to the hardware. Windows and games still dont fully utilize quad cores.


----------



## Motoxrdude

g25racer said:


> It would be nice once windows catches up to the hardware. Windows and games still dont fully utilize quad cores.



Yeah they do..... Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Shane

g25racer said:


> It would be nice once windows catches up to the hardware. Windows and games still dont fully utilize quad cores.



+1

what processors we currently have is overkill...your still good to go if you have a high clocked dual core imo.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Linux Ubuntu 9.04 utilizes my Phenom 9550 Quad-Core Processor.  Windows Vista only seems to really use two cores of my processor.  How come Windows 7 doesn't utilize quad-core processors?


----------



## G25r8cer

2048Megabytes said:


> Linux Ubuntu 9.04 utilizes my Phenom 9550 Quad-Core Processor.  Windows Vista only seems to really use two cores of my processor.  How come Windows 7 doesn't utilize quad-core processors?



Win7 utilizes some of the cores on a quad core but not the full potential of the quad. As for games, most only utilize 2 cores.


----------



## Motoxrdude

g25racer said:


> Win7 utilizes some of the cores on a quad core but not the full potential of the quad.



I definitely disagree with that. Windows definitely does use all 4 cores, i mean how doesn't it? All my multithreaded apps utilize all cores no problem.


----------



## ganzey

Motoxrdude said:


> I definitely disagree with that. Windows definitely does use all 4 cores, i mean how doesn't it? All my multithreaded apps utilize all cores no problem.



also, with a quad core you can run about twice as much stuff as a dual core, if you also have the ram to support it. but i thought that was pretty self explanatory. but honestly, i think they are just making these to compete with intel.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Were not talking about apps were talking about Windows (os) itself

An OS and a Hard Drive are always gonna be the #1 bottleneck in a system


----------



## ganzey

^^isnt it a good thing that the os doesnt use 100% of the resources?^^ if all it needs it 2 cores, then so be it.


----------



## G25r8cer

You got it all wrong

Not uses 100% but, CAN use 100% of the proc

No windows can right now


----------



## ganzey

but if it can use 100%, isnt that bad, if it used 100% you wouldnt be able to do anythingcasue the os would hog all you resources.


----------



## G25r8cer

Your like talking to a brick wall LOL J/k

I am basically saying that an OS cant fully utilize every part of a quad core 

I am NOT saying that Windows uses 100%


Edit: Why wouldnt you want an OS/Games to utilize all of the proc? The more it can use the more you got for your money.


----------



## ganzey

what im tryin to say is that wouldnt it be better for an os to only use like 5% so that you have 95% left for apps?


----------



## G25r8cer

Yes it would but, you are still stuck on the fact that you think im talking about it actually using 100%. When, I am saying that it should have the ability to use 100% 

NVM Can someone else explain it to him? He's a tough cookie to crack


----------



## ganzey

oh ok, i thought u meant it would be good for windows to use 100% and im really tired. night everyone


----------



## Motoxrdude

g25racer said:


> Your like talking to a brick wall LOL J/k
> 
> I am basically saying that an OS cant fully utilize every part of a quad core
> 
> I am NOT saying that Windows uses 100%
> 
> 
> Edit: Why wouldnt you want an OS/Games to utilize all of the proc? The more it can use the more you got for your money.



That's like saying a disk defrager can't use 100% of your video card, lol.


----------



## Gooberman

Yeah, ganzey was totally thinking about CPU usage


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Not really iimpressed with this. First it has 2 less threads than an i7 so it's behind already and when the i9 with it's 12 threads comes out AMD will really be lagging behind.


----------



## 87dtna

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Not really iimpressed with this. First it has 2 less threads than an i7 so it's behind already and when the i9 with it's 12 threads comes out AMD will really be lagging behind.



Ehh, if eventually some apps actually utilize 6 cores I think it will be better to have 6 cores/thread than 8 threads w/only 4 cores.

The Thuban is a Phenom II with basically just 2 extra cores stuck on there, so it should be an AM3 processor and hopefully it will only require a Bios update on AM3/AM2+ boards to run one.  Bulldozer will probably be a completely different socket, but who knows.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ I hope as I just got done building this pc


----------



## StrangleHold

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Not really iimpressed with this. First it has 2 less threads than an i7 so it's behind already and when the i9 with it's 12 threads comes out AMD will really be lagging behind.


 
This processor was never meant to compete with those. AMD is just releasing it just to say they have a X6. Its nothing but a Deneb with 6 cores. 

AMD is not going to try to compete with the i series till Bulldozer is released. Brand new architecture at 32nm.


----------



## 87dtna

StrangleHold said:


> Its nothing but a Deneb with 6 cores.



yup.  IMO it's gonna be a waste of money for anyone to buy it.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I am for cores that have more processing power versus more cores on a processor.  Most software just is not programmed to utilize more and more cores.


----------



## ScottALot

Why have I not heard of Bulldozer? The only computer-oriented Bulldozer I know of is the computer case: GMC Bulldozer... GMC THE MAKER OF TOAST!


----------



## ganzey

ScottALot said:


> Why have I not heard of Bulldozer? The only computer-oriented Bulldozer I know of is the computer case: GMC Bulldozer... GMC THE MAKER OF TOAST!



hmm, a little off topic? but thats not even the gmc bulldozer, this is it.View attachment 3397


----------



## G25r8cer

ganzey said:


> hmm, a little off topic? but thats not even the gmc bulldozer, this is it.



Has to be the ugliest case I have ever seen


----------

