# 1055T or i5 750?



## dhdude (Jun 29, 2010)

Hey Guys, so I finally (albeit reluctantly) sold my Q9550 and my 6GB worth of 1066 Dominators (covered in another thread.)

So basically I'm looking to buy some a new mobo, CPU and RAM. I'm on a pretty tight student-friendly budget of up to £375-£400, and am wanting it mainly for games, and maybe the odd foray into VMs.

I play a lot of BFBC2 and am looking at buying GTA4 & Crysis 2 when its released (which point I'll buy a dx11 gfx card, but will prob stick with the 260 for the time being.)

So I guess I'm really asking which CPU is better value for me; the i5 750 (or soon to be released 760?) or going down the AM3 hex core route? I know both are due to be replaced in the next year, but I really cant be without a decent gaming/multitasking rig for long 

Any advice or alternative solutions appreciated


----------



## dhdude (Jun 29, 2010)

BTW the system needs to last me at least 3 years thru uni, so whether or not the 1055T might be a better option due to the extra 2 cores for longevity's sake is something to consider


----------



## r9 (Jun 29, 2010)

I would go for X6. I think that has more value for money. PII x4 vs i5 was tough to choose PII x6 vs i5 I think it is no-brainer. Even do many would argue about performance when running single threaded applications.


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 29, 2010)

Only in *some* multithreaded test did the X6 really flex it's core muscles over the 750.  In most test, especially gaming, the i5 750 came out on top.  

If longevity over performance is what will really float your boat then I'd go with an X6 and 890 chipset board.  Reason being is supposedly Bulldozer will be compatible with the newer AM3 chipsets but again I say supposedly.


----------



## ebolamonkey3 (Jun 29, 2010)

Well, I think going with the 890FX *platform* over the P55, is a better choice for you because it supports SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 natively and gives you that many more PCIe lanes. Also, there is a fair chance that Bulldozer would be compatible with the AM3 socket.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jun 29, 2010)

I'd get a 1055T, its more future proof and has a great price tag on it.


----------



## BraveSoul (Jun 29, 2010)

i would wait for bulldozer, but if u have to get now go the hex route
_____________________________





Antec1200 filter project


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 29, 2010)

the 1055T compares to core i7 870


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 29, 2010)

Go with the x6 for longevity purposes. What everyone else said is true regarding the platform if you ever wish to change over to 32nm parts aka "Bulldozer". 

Also why did you choose the i5 750? Why not go i7 9x0? Would last you quite a while so you wouldn't have to really worry about socket changes.

Once you need to upgrade again there would be a new socket out anyways.

EDIT:

What's the specs of the Dominators?


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 29, 2010)

@JrRacinFan
core i7 860 is better than core i7 920


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 29, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @JrRacinFan
> core i7 860 is better than core i7 920



Why? cause its 200mhz faster stock? I doubt he will be keeping it stock anyway. Also they both hit 4ghz fairly easy, the x58 chipset has tri channel over dual and full 16x pcie lanes for crossfire or SLI not 16 + 8x or 8 + 8x etc. And for the price the 920 is cheaper. 

Though I'm inclined to stick to the original question and say go for the thuban, will be getting one myself very soon


----------



## dhdude (Jun 29, 2010)

Thanks for all the responses 



JrRacinFan said:


> Go with the x6 for longevity purposes. What everyone else said is true regarding the platform if you ever wish to change over to 32nm parts aka "Bulldozer".
> 
> Also why did you choose the i5 750? Why not go i7 9x0? Would last you quite a while so you wouldn't have to really worry about socket changes.
> 
> ...



I'd love to go 1366 but I simply dont think I can afford it  Sounds like Thuban is the route to go then, I havent had an AMD machine since an Athlon 1.2ghz Thunderbird I had back in 2001, although I recently built an X2 550 machine for a relative.

The Dominators were PC2-8500 5-5-5-15 @ 2.1v with DHX Fan btw JrRacingFan


----------



## dhdude (Jun 29, 2010)

As you can see in my system specs, I currently run a RAID 0 setup, I heard Intel's southbridges had better RAID performance than AMD's, is this true? and if so is it a noticable difference?
I ask as I'll be keeping my hard drives in my next build, along with my case, PSU, ODD, monitor and X-Fi in my next build


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Jun 29, 2010)

dhdude said:


> Thanks for all the responses
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From what your upgrading from.

a 6-core, efficient architectured, 6mb L3 cache'd, 45nm processor will be so dam fast it will be like a week of nights to a day.

a e2000 processor vs a 1055t is completely unfair. Your PC should be so fast from what your used to, your experience in windows surfing will be 10 times better alone. You will notice crisp, smooth, fast programs. Some programs that used to bog will be rock smooth.

And if you overclock it.

Games will be like night and day to.

That e2000 is such a bottle neck to a high end quad core. I had a e5200 at 4.0Ghz, Yeh i played games decently. But it was actually bottle necking my GTX 260 so bad. Once a put the q9550 in, slammed crysis in, and i went from 40 fps to 65-80fps everywere on the map.

A e2000 to a fast as hell 1055t architecture will really show what your card can do.  

Have fun, get that 1055t!!!!!!


----------



## crush3r (Jun 29, 2010)

3volvedcombat said:


> From what your upgrading from.
> 
> a 6-core, efficient architectured, 6mb L3 cache'd, 45nm processor will be so dam fast it will be like a week of nights to a day.
> 
> ...



He's upgrading from a Q9550. E2000 is temp.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jun 29, 2010)

i would go with amd x6 but i would wait a little for the 95w version http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/processors/processors/amd-readies-95w-six-core-thuban


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 29, 2010)

dhdude said:


> Thanks for all the responses
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I'm trying to understand to keep the upgrade more cost effective is why you sold the Dominators. Could have easily ran the x6 with ddr2.


----------



## DanTheMan (Jun 29, 2010)

The GTA4 should perform better on the 6 core


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 29, 2010)

i5 750... much quicker once clocks are matched in games, lower power consumption, and overall a better balanced processor.  Both easily OC to 4Ghz, and at 4Ghz the i750 is faster (there is a review of this out there) and it consumes wayy less power, has a better IMC and memory, and has better FPS in games.  The six core hype is just that.

dont get x6 for "futureproofing" because by the time that you will need it to be "futureproofed" your socket will be outdated and your chip will be slow as balls compared to everyone else.  Unless you're folding, then you might be better off.  Gta 4 is coded for a 3 core processor, so the extra 3 cores won't do much over a quad.

*http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-overclocking_7.html*
_
"However, if you are not limited to the specific processor socket type, then the situation may be different. In this case quad-core Intel processors from the same price range often outperform six-core Phenom II. Core i5-750 is the most dangerous rival to the new Phenom II X6 1055T, as it can also be overclocked to 4.0 GHz and runs just as fast as the six-core AMD processor in most applications, but consumes considerably less power. In fact, AMD solution is ahead of Intel only in those applications that can load any number of cores to the maximum by splitting the processes into parallel threads."_

If you are going to be getting the 1055 get a good board... one that can hit a decent Base Clock/FSB since NB speed does affect 1055's gaming performance.


----------



## erocker (Jun 29, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> dont get x6 for "futureproofing" because by the time that you will need it to be "futureproofed" your socket will be outdated and your chip will be slow as balls compared to everyone else.



Bulldozer will be on skt AM3. 1156 is being replaced by 1155. 1156 is now a dead end and if he would want to upgrade his CPU in the future. With a 1156 socket it will cost more. Look at s775 for example.


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 29, 2010)

@phanbuey
Don't tell me 1055T is just like GTX470 and 1090T is like GTX480.
Than core i5 750 is like 5850 and core i7 860 like 5870


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @phanbuey
> Don't tell me 1055T is just like GTX470 and 1090T is like GTX480.
> Than core i5 750 is like 5850 and core i7 860 like 5870



I am not sure what analogy you are trying to concoct but the only difference with the 1055T and 1090T is the default clock speed and the unlocked multi. Generally speaking most half decent motherboards can still allow for a good overclock via FSB so the 1055T is often the better all around CPU price/performance.

BTW, Aleksander Dishnica didnt I answer like loads of your threads a few weeks ago regarding you upgrading and buying components. Weeks later has this upgrade of yours materialised :shadedshu


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 29, 2010)

@Dent1
No problem about upgrades, cuz i got the hitachi 1 TB hdd, sempron 3000+ (months ago), 21" CRT and the new CM cooler.
I just want to upgrade my graphic card, but i am waiting for the 6xxx series. Who knows what i do in the future 
About the analogy: gtx series uses much more wattage than ati 5xxx series. That is why i did the analogy about the processors.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> @Dent1
> No problem about upgrades, cuz i got the hitachi 1 TB hdd, sempron 3000+ (months ago), 21" CRT and the new CM cooler.
> I just want to upgrade my graphic card, but i am waiting for the 6xxx series. Who knows what i do in the future
> About the analogy: gtx series uses much more wattage than ati 5xxx series. That is why i did the analogy about the processors.



Do not wait for technology, if you wait for the 6xxx series you will never upgrade, upgrade when you need to based on the hardware which is out now. The only time I would wait for hardware is if the components were being released in the short distant future. i.e. in a month or less. 

With your mentality when the 6xxx series comes you'd say "actually I am going to wait for the 7xxx series" and nothing happens.


----------



## Champ (Jun 29, 2010)

I read at Tom's Hardware, that's not point in buying a chip stronger than i5-750 for gaming.  I'm guessing most games can't use the full power of x2 chips let alone a x4 or x6.


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 29, 2010)

@Dent1
Ahahahaha.... No!!!
I just need more money to upgrade the system, to ensure usage of the 6xxx card i will buy, so in theory i will make the money when the 6xxx series have come out 
Probably i want the 6770!!!!!!


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 29, 2010)

The crazy thing is, for the cost of one 6xxx video card on its release date, you could probably buy a midrange motherboard, CPU and video card today.

The way I look at it is, shoot midrange get a cheap AM2+/AM3 mobo, DDR2/DDR3, ATI 4670, Athlon II X3/X4 and overclock the hell out of it and it'll perform well for a good 2 years. You will be having 2 years of gaming fun at medium to high settings or you can keep your aged system for another 2 years not playing games or being unable to run applications well until the 6xxx is released!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 29, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> the 1055T compares to core i7 870



please just see reviews u find i7 860 not 860 is even better than 1090t


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 29, 2010)

Go with the AM3 platform bro


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2010)

hayder.master said:


> please just see reviews u find i7 860 not 860 is even better than 1090t



In multi-threaded enivironment. Evidence!


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> The crazy thing is, for the cost of one 6xxx video card on its release date, you could probably buy a midrange motherboard, CPU and video card today.
> 
> The way I look at it is, shoot midrange get a cheap AM2+/AM3 mobo, DDR2/DDR3, ATI 4670, Athlon II X3/X4 and overclock the hell out of it and it'll perform well for a good 2 years. You will be having 2 years of gaming fun at medium to high settings or you can keep your aged system for another 2 years not playing games or being unable to run applications well until the 6xxx is released!



The good thing is: I just finished Assasin's Creed 2 with all settings low, enjoying every second of it 
Anyway i got a deal about a 8800GTS here in TPU for 65$, is it a good shift?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> In multi-threaded enivironment. Evidence!




sure use multi thread this the most advantage point with core i7, and u can see also  how is the games run better with core i7 860 than 1090t in our reviews 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1090T/10.html


----------



## JTS (Jun 30, 2010)

When overclocked, either route will serve you well.

Both have their own equal strengths and weaknesses - go for the cheapest 'base system' that allows for decent upgrade options.

ie choose a 'good' Overclocking (USB 3.0/SATAIII) mobo then upgrade CPU,RAM, CARD as time/money allows.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2010)

hayder.master said:


> sure use multi thread this the most advantage point with core i7, and u can see also  how is the games run better with core i7 860 than 1090t in our reviews
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1090T/10.html



Most of those games are not multi-threaded unfortunately.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Most of those games are not multi-threaded unfortunately.



right so put BC2 with the tests


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2010)

Thuban is dead on with i7 w/HT on clock for clock in multi threaded tests. Gaming is not the only thing to test. The Thuban is the OVERALL faster cpu than the 750. 

Yes, 750 wins in some games, but it loses in converting dvds, or any other multi threaded apps like that.

For the $200 range, 1055T is the only way to go.

Now, if you up the budget, Thuban becomes less attractive. The 1090T is not worth the money, when you can have i7 w/HT for that. The Intel platform is more versatile in terms of multi-graphics choices.


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 30, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Thuban is dead on with i7 w/HT on clock for clock in multi threaded tests. Gaming is not the only thing to test. The Thuban is the OVERALL faster cpu than the 750.
> 
> Yes, 750 wins in some games, but it loses in converting dvds, or any other multi threaded apps like that.
> 
> ...



+50 to that bro


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> In multi-threaded enivironment. Evidence!



I cannot be bothered to look for evidence, probably because I don't actually care that much who/which is right, however, as you quoted "in a multi-thredded envoirnment"  i would have thought the 8 threads of the 860 would be better than the 6 threads of the 1055/1090?  This is precisely why i would take the hex over the 750, however in the unlikely event that i could pick up an 860 for a similar price I would probably go for that, even on a more "budget" orientated board such as the lower end Gigabyte's, they still overcock well.

All in all, I think the AMD route is the best all round upgrade path for the OP's budget IMO.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> I cannot be bothered to look for evidence, probably because I don;t actually care that much who/which is right, however, as you quoted "in a multi-thredded envoirnment"  i would have thought the 8 threads of the 860 would be better than the 6 threads of the 1055/1090?



Nope, they are almost dead equal. You figure 4 of those i7 threads are HT, therefore not full power. 4 real + 4 fake Intel apparently = 6 real AMD.


----------



## hat (Jun 30, 2010)

People have been shouting multi-core longevity for years, ever since the release of the Q6600 in 2007. Dual core was nice when it first came out, since running one intense application like a video game could gobble up a whole core for itself and the OS would be shoved off to the other core, however, with the release of quad core, the game would be using just the one core still, and the OS would be loaded on another, but what about the other two? The only things that see a real performance boost with quad core are programs that are actually engineered to do it, and those come few and far between. The only things I know of that can take advantage of this are DC projects like WCG and FAH, video encoding apps, and very few games. The only ones I know of are Supreme Commander, BF Bad Company, and Crysis is supposed to.. but even this is a poor implementation, since certian tasks are offloaded to certian cores, so the workload isn't truly shared...


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Nope, they are almost dead equal. You figure 4 of those i7 threads are HT, therefore not full power. 4 real + 4 fake Intel apparently = 6 real AMD.



Hmmmm, I have read loads of stuff showing that even in some apps that can utilise all 6 cores of the 1055, it still gets beat by a 750 never mind an 860, not many granted but some such as x264 HD and TMPG enc etc.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> Hmmmm, I have read loads of stuff showing that even in some apps that can utilise all 6 cores of the 1055, it still gets beat by a 750 never mind an 860, not many granted but some such as x264 HD and TMPG enc etc.



Need to look again. In X264, the 1055T matches the 860, let alone the 750.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Need to look again. In X264, the 1055T matches the 860, let alone the 750.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6



Really? This is what i read a few weeks ago......

http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T-and-1055T/page7.html


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Need to look again. In X264, the 1055T matches the 860, let alone the 750.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6



one benchmark... for the rest of that review the phenoms get their ass kicked by slower clocked Intel processors.  

plus he's building a general purpose gaming rig.  Its hard to recommend the phenom over the i5.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> one benchmark... for the rest of that review the phenoms get their ass kicked by slower clocked Intel processors.



Yes but are rest of the benchmarks multi threaded applications? The fact that 90% of the review is not multi threaded shows that the review was meant for AMD to fail, some people would call that bias.



phanbuey said:


> plus he's building a general purpose gaming rig.  Its hard to recommend the phenom over the i5.



Are you serious, putting the hexacore aside the Phenom II X4 consistently beats out the i5 in most reviews, the low end i5 (5xx/6xx) even get beat out by the athlon II X4.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 30, 2010)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/

This shows you that that CPU keeping up with i7 920 and i7 860

And over here it costs $100 less then a 920, so for me it was a no brainer


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Yes but are rest of the benchmarks multi threaded applications? The fact that 90% of the review is not multi threaded shows that the review was meant for AMD to fail, some people would call that bias.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious, putting the hexacore aside the Phenom II X4 consistently beats out the i5 in most reviews, the low end i5 (5xx/6xx) even get beat out by the athlon II X4.



the i5 750... as per the OP not the i5 duals. 

also 90% of applications are not taking advantage of the phenom X6 - dont get me wrong, its a good chip, but bang/buck unless you're a cruncher or a video content creator, this chip will get outmatched in general purpose and gaming.

as the OP states "S_o basically I'm looking to buy some a new mobo, CPU and RAM. I'm on a pretty tight student-friendly budget of up to £375-£400, *and am wanting it mainly for games, and maybe the odd foray into VMs.*_

i5 is faster for games than 1055T, especially when both are at 4Ghz+.  And you can get the chip and a $70 mobo with some crap ddr3.

if the OP said "i want to crunch, encode, and do a ton of video content creation and some gaming"  then i would say 1055T all the way.


----------



## Champ (Jun 30, 2010)

With my next build, I was planning on going i5-750.  I heard it is the best gaming processor (i7 excessive for gaming I guess) and could OC really well in water.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Yes but are rest of the benchmarks multi threaded applications? The fact that 90% of the review is not multi threaded shows that the review was meant for AMD to fail, some people would call that bias.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious, putting the hexacore aside the Phenom II X4 consistently beats out the i5 in most reviews, the low end i5 (5xx/6xx) even get beat out by the athlon II X4.



That might just be because of the several thousand games and apps out there, only probably about 5-10% of them are multi threadded, the OP has made it clear that he predominantly wants a gaming machine, I am not aware of any of the few multithredded games available of any of them that actually use more than 4, I could be wrong there of course.

Either way, as I mentioned earlier, I would probably go for the 1055T certainly over the 750, however, if I was really only going to use core 5 and 6 for 5% of my usage (if that), I may be tempted to go for lower power draw etc.

What Wile E said earlier makes sense to me about the 2 "HT" being roughly equivilent to one core although despite his linkky, one or two other reviews suggest differently, perhaps not the majority, I have certainly only looked at a couple so am not read up on it.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jun 30, 2010)

Easy way to answer this. If all you do is game, i5 750. If you do a lot of things like encoding, decoding, extracting, creating zips/tars/rars, etc., get the 1055t. Keep in mind, the 1055t runs much cooler, thats another plus.


----------



## dhdude (Jun 30, 2010)

Thanks for all the replies guys, I can see its a bit of a hot topic. Ive read lots of reviews of both CPUs, and you guys seem pretty split over whats best.
Im just wondering if, as games become more multi-threaded (ie BC2) whether or not the X6s will start to shine more over the i5 750s as time goes on?
Again, thanks for the all the replies, its been most insightful


----------



## dhdude (Jun 30, 2010)

Also I think I read somewhere that DX11 has native multithreading? If so, does that mean that any game natively coded for DX11 in the future will automatically use the extra cores?


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2010)

dhdude said:


> Also I think I read somewhere that DX11 has native multithreading? If so, does that mean that any game natively coded for DX11 in the future will automatically use the extra cores?



In all honesty... between these two processors you will not run into any speed issues for a long long time.  No one can say exactly what will happen to the software but the variations will be so small, especially with an overclock, that you will not go wrong with either one.  

Back in 2008 everyone thought that the extra 2 cores on the q6600 will futureproof their system over a higher-clocked dual core... even to this day that is not so clear cut but games are and will continue to be so graphically bound that it will not matter.

If you really want to future-proof, now that I think about it - it will come down to the Mobo. Get the AM3 with dual x16 2.0 ports (750 will be limited to x8 x8, unless you pay out the ass) if you plan on being ATI only or Nvidia only.  And bulldozer, as erocker pointed out will be out soon, and will most likely be competitive.

If you want to have options of SLI/CFX - which is a great way of getting cheap perf, get the 750 but be limited to dual x8 2.0 slots (5% or so slower at really really high rez).


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 30, 2010)

dhdude said:


> Im just wondering if, as games become more multi-threaded (ie BC2) whether or not the X6s will start to shine more over the i5 750s as time goes on?



Yes, as time goes on the X6 will be a more consistently better performer than the i7 as multi threaded applications will become the norm.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Yes, as time goes on the X6 will be a more consistently better performer than the i7 as multi threaded applications will become the norm.



Your right.... but we have been saying that for 3 years, I do think AMD is his best bet though, especially over the 750 as an all round chip.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> one benchmark... for the rest of that review the phenoms get their ass kicked by slower clocked Intel processors.
> 
> plus he's building a general purpose gaming rig.  Its hard to recommend the phenom over the i5.



In some gaming benchmarks, the 975 beats a 980X too. Gaming is a terrible measure of cpu power. Any modern quad core or better will max today's games. The differences are irrelevant, as they all pretty much achieve smooth gameplay.

But, when you look at cpu intensive multithreaded tasks, the 1055T beats the 750 more often than not. X264 was just the one I know the best, as I use it a lot (via Handbrake and MediaCoder). I just don't know much about the others.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Wile E said:


> . Gaming is a terrible measure of cpu power. Any modern quad core or better will max today's games.



I agree, because the thing that people have to realise is that some of the benchmarks they read about a particular processor can become invalid in gaming benchmarks because they are often not reviewed on the same day or date. Often they'll have the i7 results collected from months or weeks before and then they'll review the X6 which will be featured on a completely different set of hardware i.e. with a different video card brand or GPU model and hence the gaming reviews can bring about distorted results. However encoding reviews and general work related tasks focus on mostly just the raw power of the CPU and hence it is a more accurate measurement of performance as it isnt distorted by the different GPU combinations.

Also, to the OP, whether you buy a Intel i3, i5, i7, Athlon II X2/X3/X4, or Phenom II X2/X3/X4/X6 you will achieve at least 60 frames per second on high settings as long as your video card is adequate, so instead of focusing on what you'll get out of the processor today, think about what you'll get out of the processor in the short distant future, which is multithreaded applications.


----------



## DanTheMan (Jul 1, 2010)

Great review comparing the two showed up today!


----------



## Champ (Jul 1, 2010)

All these different opinions still have me lost.  I guessing the x6 processor is "future proof", but I've seen the i5-750 hit like 4.3 on air and could probably hit 4.5 or higher on good liquid, which I thought would shoot away the 6 core advantage.  I was AMD before and want to try Intel now, but I dn't know


----------



## btarunr (Jul 1, 2010)

i5 750, 100-ish quid motherboard, 4 GB memory. Call it a day. i7 750 overclocks like a champ, is faster clock-for-clock to AMD K10, and reviews show it to outperform X6 1055T at games.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 1, 2010)

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1055T/8.html


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 1, 2010)

1055T FTW, 750 is a great processor, its just the platform has no upgrade path that puts it off


----------



## Champ (Jul 1, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> 1055T FTW, 750 is a great processor, its just the platform has no upgrade path that puts it off



That is very true, but it has the OC potential to last a last time.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 1, 2010)

Nah, right now i5 750's upgrade path is just as long as that of 1055T.

With i5 750, your gaming rig is set for the next 2~3 years. There's ample upgrade path for LGA1156 with i7 875K (an unlocked processor) for "cheap", i7 880, i7 890, etc. Intel will release new chips for this socket till late 2011. 

Around that time, AMD too will have a new socket. Thuban is one of the last AM3 chips you'll find. Core i7 800 series processors with HyperThreading easily match up to Phenom II X6 in multithreaded performance, and outperform them in <4 threaded applications clock-for-clock. OC headroom is higher, too.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 1, 2010)

Champ said:


> All these different opinions still have me lost.  I guessing the x6 processor is "future proof", but I've seen the i5-750 hit like 4.3 on air and could probably hit 4.5 or higher on good liquid, which I thought would shoot away the 6 core advantage.  I was AMD before and want to try Intel now, but I dn't know



They said a dual core was future proof in 2007, they still brought out quads in late 2007/2008....... I have always wondered what "Futureproof" really means (I think it's simply a term us enthusiasts use which does not even apply to many of us as we tend to swap out components far too rapidly anyways), many gamers still use dual cores as most games are single thredded still, some multithredded games should actually be called dual thredded as they can only use 2, for the handfull of games that use 3or more, at the end of the day, in a "typical" (Read single or dual thredded) game, what would give you the better graphics performance (read no bottleneck) using say an HD5870, a Dual core E8500 Wolfdale at 4.2gig or a 1055T at 3.8gig? (I am talking 24/7 speeds here) Since the game will use the same amount of cores on either chip, some would say the Wolfdale......... now is that futureproof, possibly not, unless you only play predominantly games.

IMO a decent quality quad core with a bit of overclocking headroom, coupled with some other decent hardware is pretty much going to see anyone out for a fair while, whichever option you choose, you will neither be right or wrong in your choice.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

btarunr said:


> with HyperThreading easily match up to Phenom II X6 in multithreaded performance, and outperform them in <4 threaded applications clock-for-clock. OC headroom is higher, too.



I dunno, in reviews in multi threaded performance (non gaming) the X6 are in a league of its own and dominated the i7s with exception to the extreme editions which have 12 threads.



Champ said:


> That is very true, but it has the OC potential to last a last time.



The overclock headroom will not make any difference, a 4 GHz overclock is considered about normal on a 1055T via FSB, at best you'd get an extra 200M-300MHz with the i5 or i7 which isn’t enough to drastically close the performance gap.

Also, remember a few years back, people were yelling to shoot for a high end core 2 Duo over the Core 2 Quad, those people that didn’t listen and bought a Q6600 still own a Intel processor that’s can still contend with the top 10 CPUs, those that got the E7xxx and 8xxx are upgrading to quads after realising that their gaming requirements have outgrown their CPUS i.e. Battlefield BC2 and GTAIV.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> I dunno, in reviews in multi threaded performance (non gaming) the X6 are in a league of its own and dominated the i7s with exception to the extreme editions which have 12 threads.



Not really.. the i7 975 (8 threads) beats the 1090T lol.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Not really.. the i7 975 (8 threads) beats the 1090T lol.



In multi-threaded applications? Maybe so but the 975 is an extreme edition and costs $1,000.

My point is that those people with quad cores (Q6xxx/9xxx) on socket 775 are in secure positions even now, whilst those on dual cores are planning their quadcore upgrade as their worrying about bottlenecking their next GPU.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> In multi-threaded applications? Maybe so but the 975 is an extreme edition and costs $1,000.
> 
> My point is that those people with quad cores (Q6xxx/9xxx) on socket 775 are in secure positions even now, whilst those on dual cores are planning their quadcore upgrade as their worrying about bottlenecking their next GPU.



Yeah in multi-threaded apps.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/6
http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T-and-1055T/page7.html

Thanks to Tatty and Wile for the links


P.S: I wasn't questioning your knowledge. Just pointed out that its possible for an intel EE quad to beat a AMD 6 core.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 1, 2010)

Ok look (bad car analogy warning)

Do you need a Hemi Pickup truck? or do you need a sports car?

both have more than enough HP but they're used for different sh*t... sports car for fun, pickup for heavy loads.  He don't need the pickup because he wants a fun car.

i5 750 beats the 1055T pretty handily in games, no denying that.  When both are at 4 ghz it beats it decisively.  OP wants a gaming rig.  Who the F*)( cares what this chip does in extremely-multithreaded apps?  He is not building a crunching workstation.  He's building a rig that can play games the best bang/buck.

I keep reading these "but it can encode faster" comments... who cares? its for a gaming rig.  and the other chip gets whooped in gaming. "... but encod-" NO! nobody is f*($&( encoding anything.  Mutlithreading and HT dont even belong here because HT hurts gaming, and 6 threads is about 3 too many for games.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

mdsx1950, fair enough a 8 threaded 975 extreme edition can outperform a X6, but its still $1,000. 



phanbuey said:


> Who the F*)( cares what this chip does in extremely-multithreaded apps?  He is not building a crunching workstation.



You are missing the point slightly, he might not be building a crunching workstation but he is buying an investment. These multi-threaded discussions seem irrelevant now but it has to be discussed and through about as an option because this is the direction that gaming is heading, so its early preparation.




phanbuey said:


> Mutlithreading and HT dont even belong here because HT hurts gaming, and 6 threads is about 3 too many for games.



This is 100% true not enough games support 6 threads, but when they do (and will) only 1 of the two CPUs in question is prepared. If multi threading is irrelevant we may as well quit whilst we are ahead and recommend a single or dual core CPU instead.




phanbuey said:


> I keep reading these "but it can encode faster" comments... who cares? its for a gaming rig.  _and the other chip gets whooped in gaming._ ".



Again you are missing the point, it doesn’t matter which CPU is faster in gaming because both CPUs are overkill in gaming, they both achieve above 60FPS without bottlenecking the GPU. Its irrelevant whether the X6 gets 90 FPS and the i5/i7 gets 102FPS, they both can get above 60FPS and hence both CPUs are overkill for gaming. Although both CPUs are overkill in gaming today, only one CPU will still be overkill in gaming tomorrow...


----------



## GSquadron (Jul 1, 2010)

@dhdude
This review will clear up your mind:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1055T/


----------



## ucanmandaa (Jul 1, 2010)

You should also mention p55 chipsets shortcomings when comparing these two processors. AMDs 8 series chipsets got native sata 6gb support up to 6 ports i think. Number of sata 6gb ports on newer P55 boards are only two and on some motherboards you lose pci express bandwidth when using sata 6gb and usb3.0 at the same time.
If multi gpu setups, sata 6gb and usb3.0 are not important then i5 750 is a great choice
I just ordered a 1090t and a crosshair iv just for the reasons above.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 1, 2010)

when it comes to multi threaded apps Id say a Hex will obviously be better than a quad especially when it comes down to price selection. HT to me is just like P4, not really anything special.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Again you are missing the point, it doesn’t matter which CPU is faster in gaming because both CPUs are overkill in gaming, they both achieve above 60FPS without bottlenecking the GPU. Its irrelevant whether the X6 gets 90 FPS and the i5/i7 gets 102FPS, they both can get above 60FPS and hence both CPUs are overkill for gaming. Although both CPUs are overkill in gaming today, only one CPU will still be overkill in gaming tomorrow...



Right but there is a noticeable difference when its not 60 fps but 40 FPS and 45 FPS with the same gfx card.  Multi threaded games that use more than 4 threads will not be out for a long time, and those that ARE out (like Anno 1404) are faster on the i5.

"Anno 1404 makes the most of multi-core processors and shows a gain of 15.8% when you go up from 4 to 6 cores: we’re a long way off the 50% theoretical maximum, but Anno 1404 does nevertheless stand out compared to most other games! The Phenom II X6 1090T cannot however compete witth the quad core Core i5/7s here. It falls between the QX9770 and the Core i5-750, while the 1055T is at the same level as the Q9650 and the Core i5-670."

-http://www.behardware.com/articles/789-10/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t.html

i5 has much faster memory access and lower latency, it is a better gaming proc than the phenoms for various reasons, even in multithreaded games.  1055T can match it in a best-case scenario, but it also costs more and eats more juice.  I highly doubt that the 1055T will be substantially better even in multi-threaded games. if and when they ever come out.














Also, take the Overclocked power consumption into account.  the top bar is stock... the bottom is OC'd.  So yeah... when he gets his gtx 480 used cheap, he can put it in to the OC'd 750 system without having to have a beast of a PSU.  less money on PSU more money on beer and hookers.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 1, 2010)

eidairaman1 said:


> when it comes to multi threaded apps Id say a Hex will obviously be better than a quad especially when it comes down to price selection. HT to me is just like P4, not really anything special.




Not to mention LGA1156 is a dead-end. LGA1366 and AM3 on the other other hand will only be a gen old when they put out the new socket. Its going to be easier to get your hands off the 1055T when you upgrade than the i5-750.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 1, 2010)

TBH ddude I would go with wat you would be happy with more, as you can see with all the info everyone has given you, they are both good choices so really you can't loose either way


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

phanbuey,

That chart just proves my point, in Crysis both the Phenom II X6 and i5/i7 are capable of driving today's modern games, both CPUs got between 70-100 FPS, whether the i5 got 5, 10 or 20 FPS more than the X6 at a threshold of 60+ it really doesn’t matter. But what does matter is which CPU is going to maintain that 60+ threshold when games become more demanding?

Also as for the CPU load power consumption chart, the X6 has two physical cores on the chip and at 100% load all 6 chips are active. However X6 has a lower idle usage and moderate usage power consumption than the i5/i7 because 3 of its cores sleep. This is great for people like me as I can leave my PC on 24-7 without worrying about the electricity bill.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> phanbuey,
> 
> That chart just proves my point, in Crysis both the Phenom II X6 and i5/i7 are capable of driving today's modern games, both CPUs got between 70-100 FPS, whether the i5 got 5, 10 or 20 FPS more than the X6 at a threshold of 60+ it really doesn’t matter. But what does matter is which CPU is going to maintain that 60+ threshold when games become more demanding?
> 
> ...



1. Current multi-threaded games than can use 4+ threads are faster with i5.  Even the ones that pull 35FPS at low rez (such as GTA IV, ANNO etc etc.) are faster with i5.

2. that power graph is at STOCK... he will OC and when that happens the power consumption goes up exponentially and you need a strong PSU to handle the spikes with a fully loaded system.  The 1055T at 4ghz sucks a ton more juice.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> 1. Current multi-threaded games than can use 4+ threads are faster with i5.  Even the ones that pull 35FPS at low rez (such as GTA IV, ANNO etc etc.) are faster with i5.



Perhaps, I haven’t seen any reviews with X6 and i5 on the same chart benching GTA IV and ANNO so I'll take your word for it.



phanbuey said:


> 2. that power graph is at STOCK... he will OC and when that happens the power consumption goes up exponentially and you need a strong PSU to handle the spikes with a fully loaded system.  The 1055T at 4ghz sucks a ton more juice.




I agree that you'd need a beefier PSU to handle peek power consumption and that OC'd results have to be taken into consideration, but I was just pointing out that a PC generally speaking is not at 100% load all day, it might be at 100% load for short intervals, 1-2hrs whilst gaming but for the rest of the day it will be in a low powered state for a longer duration and hence the X6s power efficiency advantages come in to play. But definitely you are correct the OP needs to look into whether his PSU is up to the task whichever CPU he picks.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, you have said some valid points I must admit but we have different views (which isn’t a bad thing) but I believe the OP has got enough information from our balanced arguments and interpretations to make the right decision.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Perhaps, I haven’t seen any reviews with X6 and i5 on the same chart benching GTA IV and ANNO so I'll take your word for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Amen to that...

ANNO
http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/28/IMG0028849.png

GTA IV
http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/28/IMG0028848.png

Its actually amazing how good the Athlon X4's perform... just got a 630 and im loving that chip


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> Amen to that...
> 
> ANNO
> http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/28/IMG0028849.png
> ...



Full review:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/789-1/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t.html

Interesting results, I didnt want this to drag on any more longer than it had to, but one thing about these types of reviews is the database scheme they used. They never say when or how the data for the other CPUs were gathered. i.e. those i7 and i5 results could of been gathered a week later on a system with a different type/brand of video card or memory quantity/bus, ideally if a review is going to compare processors they should be benchmarked on the same day and similar hardware. But interesting still.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 1, 2010)

yah you know, all reviews have that fatal flaw... not to mention alot of them don't use a timedemo and the average FPS changes from run to run in all cases.

still some interesting stuff in that graph - like the Athlon x4 performance... for the money those are fast little f*)(ers.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 1, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> still some interesting stuff in that graph - like the Athlon x4 performance... for the money those are fast little f*)(ers.



Indeed, I was actually involved in a little debate a week back where me and a few other people from this community were debating whether the Athlon II X3/X4 has better value for money than the Phenom II X2. 

What came about was me creating a thread in the attempt to find out. If you are interested feel free to have a read.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=125044
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=125059


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 1, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Full review:
> http://www.behardware.com/articles/789-1/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t.html
> 
> Interesting results, I didnt want this to drag on any more longer than it had to, but one thing about these types of reviews is the database scheme they used. They never say when or how the data for the other CPUs were gathered. i.e. those i7 and i5 results could of been gathered a week later on a system with a different type/brand of video card or memory quantity/bus, ideally if a review is going to compare processors they should be benchmarked on the same day and similar hardware. But interesting still.



Actually they don't need to be benched on the same day, any day will do but the hardware and software need to be identical, most do it that way anyways..... rarely have I seen a review site use different CPU/Mobo/Memory/OS/Gfx card configurations etc to compare 2 items, pointless really.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 2, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Not to mention LGA1156 is a dead-end. LGA1366 and AM3 on the other other hand will only be a gen old when they put out the new socket. Its going to be easier to get your hands off the 1055T when you upgrade than the i5-750.



AMDs next Logical step is the Bulldozer/Bobcat arch due in 2011, Id say 2/4/6/8 core CPUs are due in. I think it would be in AMDs best interest to look at their old Product map during the K7 days- Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP.  Just have Athlon and Return Duron.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Not to mention LGA1156 is a dead-end. LGA1366 and AM3 on the other other hand will only be a gen old when they put out the new socket. Its going to be easier to get your hands off the 1055T when you upgrade than the i5-750.



AM3 is also a dead-end. In fact AM3 will die before LGA1156 does. AMD's APUs launch before Intel Sandybridge, and use a different socket. LGA1156 will last longer.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 2, 2010)

btarunr said:


> AM3 is also a dead-end. In fact AM3 will die before LGA1156 does. AMD's APUs launch before Intel Sandybridge, and use a different socket. LGA1156 will last longer.



I sort of agree with you. Even Socket 775 (C2D, C2Q) have lasted for a long time. Though the socket is outdated, it has lasted for a long time. But since AM3 has support for 6 core processors, it might last for quite some time unlike LGA1156. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming future.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> I sort of agree with you. Even Socket 775 (C2D, C2Q) have lasted for a long time. Though the socket is outdated, it has lasted for a long time. But since AM3 has support for 6 core processors, it might last for quite some time unlike LGA1156. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the coming future.



Core i7 800 are highly competitive against six-core AMD chips.


----------



## ebolamonkey3 (Jul 2, 2010)

I thought bulldozer will use AM3 socket? I know the Llano will have a different socket because of the APU, but wasn't bulldozer going to be compatible with AM3 or has something changed?


----------



## Mathragh (Jul 2, 2010)

AM3 will probably still be usable if you're planning on using Bulldozer:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/processors/bulldozer-zambezi-edition-to-use-am3-r2
however it appears not be for totally clear yet.

Only if you plan to use a fusion APU you will need a totally new socket:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/processors/desktop-llano-uses-socket-fm1


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 2, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Core i7 800 are highly competitive against six-core AMD chips.



Thats true. The i7 860/875 are powerful chips. But the AMD six-core has other benefits like the chip being really low temps. Well its a 50-50 chance that one will get outdated before the other one. IMO when only having a comparison of the 1055T and i5 750, i think the i5 750 will be outdated before the 1055T but things can change.


----------

