Phenom II X4 955 or core I5 2.6GGHZ

From what I just read, the 2.66Ghz I5 out performs a 3.4Ghz Phenom II in most tasks while consuming less power. It'll destroy the Phenom II when overclocked.

Where did you read this? As far as I know the 965 is superior to the 750 at stock clocks... This is obvious since the 965 is almost 700Mhz faster.....

As far as testing goes the 955 and i7 920 trade blows in almost every benchmark... The 750 is not superior to the 920 so your statement makes no sense....

At stock clocks? How is this possible? I can understand if both CPU's were at the same clocks...

Would be nice to see some comparison charts......

a little thing called ipc, lol

ummm yeah, and i would always believe a poster in the forums over a well done article in Anandtech.

I don't see where they are neck to neck.... the 750 is ahead in 90% of all tests....

I mean like the advantage is pretty small :-\

The CPU itself will last longer... the platform PROBABLY will but we won't know until it happens

I`m not sure if the CPU would last longer. Physically, sure, but it`s biggest advantage comes from `Turbo`, and that`will have less of an impact as apps become more multithreaded.

If you're overclocking there's no reason to get the P2 965BE, the P2 955BE overclocks to the same level. One thing i am curious about is the lack of benchmarks that compare an overclocked i5 750 to an overclocked P2 955/965. I've looked at about 8 different sites now and none of them have shown those benchmarks. Even here at Toms they haven't released their overclocking article yet, they've only shown benchmarks of the i5/i7 with turbo enabled against stock clocked P965s

I really wasn't talking extreme overclocking or even using water, just a good quality air cooler.

not where i live P2 > i5

another tyypical c0ck, not everyone lives where you live, there are other countrys outside yours!, where i live the PII is a hell of alot cheaper $345 compares to the i5 750 at $445, so stop being a troll fool, where i live the P II is cheaper!!!!

and at for an i5 oxer an X4, is that why an X4 955BE has the tghird highest overclock in history!

HAHA...

This reminds me of the good old days when people would argue over which was the better performing car a Ford Mustang, Chevy Camero or Dodge Charger. And just like cars, computers = the more $$$ you spend, the better the engineering and the right configuration, the better the performance. And just like an engine if everything is matched up… it runs like a bat out of hell…
So don’t knock the manufacture, knock the driver… because all the computer in the world will not help the “Leeroy Jenkins” out there.
But if you screw up bad enough you might become famous!

PS: I've seen very nice configuations run like shite, and a completely stock configuation run like, well, they should not run that good... Sometimes it just the luck of the draw.

Well, i guess we should all care... btw I own a PII x4 955 and do not like Intel and after this little bit of info I don't think Intel knows how to play fair:

If you cannot win fairly there is always the cheating method…

Here's something you probably don't know, but really should - especially if you're a programmer, and especially especially if you're using Intel's compiler. It's a fact that's not widely known, but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.

Agner Fog details this particularly nasty examples of Intel's anticompetitive practices quite well. Intel's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set (SSE2, SSE3, etc.). The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly; the CPU dispatcher, as it's called.

"However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."

It turns out that while this is known behaviour, few users of the Intel compiler actually seem to know about it. Intel does not advertise the compiler as being Intel-specific, so the company has no excuse for deliberately crippling performance on non-Intel machines.

"Many software developers think that the compiler is compatible with AMD processors, and in fact it is, but unbeknownst to the programmer it puts in a biased CPU dispatcher that chooses an inferior code path whenever it is running on a non-Intel processor," Fog writes, "If programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler. Who wants to sell a piece of software that doesn't work well on AMD processors?"

In fact, Fog points out that even benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself. Agner found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!

In other words, this is a very serious problem. Luckily, though, it appears that the recent antitrust settlement between AMD and Intel will solve this problem for at least AMD users, as the agreement specifically states that Intel must fix its compiler, meaning they'll have to fix their CPU dispatcher.

The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Intel too, and it is also seeking a resolution of the compiler issue, but the FTC takes it all a step further than the Intel-AMD settlement. Since the latter only covers AMD, VIA could still be in trouble. Consequently, the FTC asks that Intel do a lot more than what's described in the AMD settlement:

Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler" ), as described in the Complaint:

a. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
b. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
c. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

Fog also offers up a number of workarounds, such as using GNU GCC, whose optimisations are similar to that of Intel's compiler, "but the Gnu function library (glibc) is inferior". You can also patch Intel's CPU dispatcher - Fog even provides a patch to do so in "Optimizing software in C++: An optimization guide for Windows, Linux and Mac platforms".

This is a particularly nasty kind of anticompetitive practice, as it really requires deep knowledge of matters in order to find it out. God knows how many benchmarks have been skewed in favour of Intel simply because people unknowingly used Intel's compiler in good faith. Intel's compiler is seen as the cream of the crop and delivers superior performance, but apparently only if you stick to GenuineIntel.

.......

So who is really fastest in a fair test?

BS. Simple, nice, and deep piercing to the hearts of fanboys.

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey