Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Phenom II X4 955 or core I5 2.6GGHZ

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:56:13 AM

^ not accurate. Check Anandtech for actual overclocking of the i5 750
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...

Quote from the article:
"We tried overclocking three different CPUs: the Core i7 870, Core i7 860 and Core i5 750. We overclocked using two different coolers: the retail low profile HSF and a Thermalright MUX-120 (the heatsink Intel is sending around to reviewers for high performance testing). I'll get one thing out of the way: the retail heatsink pretty much sucks for overclocking:"
a c 83 à CPUs
September 8, 2009 3:37:28 PM

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.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 3:39:55 PM

Depends on the budget and/or if there will be any overclocking whatsoever...
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 3:42:50 PM

loneninja said:
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....
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:00:08 PM

OvrClkr said:
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....


There's official reviews all over the net by now, and loneninja is correct - i5 750 matches up or exceeds the P2-965 in gaming and synthetics. 3 articles here on Tom's front page, Anandtech, Techgage, HotHardware, Extremetech, Guru3d, Techreport, Techspot, etc etc etc.

Intel stole the price/performance crown back from AMD. AMD will have to drop the 965 price to equal or lower than that of the i5-750...
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:10:18 PM

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 c 96 à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:34:11 PM

I hope this (and subsequent) weeks are not like this.

Could someone explain how 'Turbo' would effect benchie comparisons?

Let's say you look at CineBench single thread ---- would that be with turbo enabled?

If so would that be 'clock to clock' with a Phenom 955? Anand explained the 'single core' clock but it sometimes is very hard in some articles to figure the turbo thing out ...

Please don't flame me --- LOL --- I'd just like an explanation for an idiot like me.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 4:34:51 PM

a little thing called ipc, lol
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 5:02:38 PM

Wisecracker said:
I hope this (and subsequent) weeks are not like this.

Could someone explain how 'Turbo' would effect benchie comparisons?

Let's say you look at CineBench single thread ---- would that be with turbo enabled?

If so would that be 'clock to clock' with a Phenom 955? Anand explained the 'single core' clock but it sometimes is very hard in some articles to figure the turbo thing out ...

Please don't flame me --- LOL --- I'd just like an explanation for an idiot like me.


I saw one review where they disabled Turbo, but I've seen so many this morning I'd hafta spend an hour trying to find it again :) . However Turbo was enhanced with the i5 & i7-8xx CPUs - the 750 can jump up from 2.6 to 3.2GHz on one or two core utilization now, instead of 2.93 as with the i7-920. From the Anand review:

Quote:
Speaking of turbo, I'd say that Intel is definitely on to something here. The performance impact was small with Bloomfield, but turbo on Lynnfield is huge. My tests showed up to a 17% increase in performance depending on the workload, with most CPU-influenced scenarios seeing at least 9 or 10%. The turbo mode transitions happen fast enough to accelerate even simple actions like opening a new window. OS and application responsiveness is significantly improved as a result and it's something that you can actually feel when using a Lynnfield machine. It all works so seamlessly, you just always get the best performance you need. It's like Intel crammed the best single, dual and quad-core processors all into one package.

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:30:50 PM

ummm yeah, and i would always believe a poster in the forums over a well done article in Anandtech.
September 8, 2009 6:38:14 PM

With both the pII 965 and i5-750 giving their all (eg turbo enabled, everything at stock), they are basically neck to neck. I wouldn't give either the win. But for the OP, I would choose the i5. You could probably get it within $50 of a similar pII platform.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 6:42:25 PM

I don't see where they are neck to neck.... the 750 is ahead in 90% of all tests....
September 8, 2009 6:55:12 PM

Comparing the 955 Be and I5, which one is the better deal? reading alot of the benchmarks, i5 seems like the best deal being only 20+ more $, but which one is best for gaming? thx
September 8, 2009 7:00:25 PM

I mean like the advantage is pretty small :-\
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 7:00:26 PM

Both are good for gaming.... The i5 is overall better and IMO will last longer (future-wise) .....

September 8, 2009 7:02:13 PM

The CPU itself will last longer... the platform PROBABLY will but we won't know until it happens
September 8, 2009 8:25:52 PM

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.
September 8, 2009 8:57:05 PM

yea it be nice if i had a microcenter close to me, but like most people i can only get stuff from online. in this case whats the best deal then?
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 9:28:07 PM

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
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 9:35:21 PM

I would get the i5 regardless of overclocking or not....

The P2 955 has the third fastest CPU overclock in history.... the i5 750 has not seen more than 5.2Ghz to this date... We still have to wait a couple of weeks before we know what the i5 can achieve under AIR/WATER/DICE/Ln2 etc.......
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 9:49:49 PM

I really wasn't talking extreme overclocking or even using water, just a good quality air cooler.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 9:53:46 PM

i5 > P2 X4 Price/performance.

Fact. Hard.
September 8, 2009 11:22:34 PM

Raidur said:
i5 > P2 X4 Price/performance.

Fact. Hard.


not where i live P2 > i5
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2009 11:51:30 PM

He says that where he lives it is ALOT cheaper to buy an x4 than the i5....but I still don't know where he lives.....
September 15, 2009 12:15:08 AM

Quote:
And we should trust an online review why? :pfff: 




In Dreamland? I'll just throw it out there. If you go with an X4 over an I5 your just plain retarded


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!
September 15, 2009 2:09:21 AM

Quote:

In Dreamland? I'll just throw it out there. If you go with an X4 over an I5 your just plain retarded



Now that was just a stupid thing to say... prices vary WILDLY from country to country, even Canadian and British prices can be way out of whack in comparison to American... here in Canada, on Newegg, no less, the Phenom II 955 was cheaper than a Q8400 for several months. If he says a Ph2 is substantially cheaper where he lives, I'm inclined to believe him, and not call him "retarded".
December 15, 2009 11:11:23 AM

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.
December 15, 2009 1:53:41 PM

who the hell cares? sure, the i5 may be better, but by how much? For the average user and gamer, the Phenom II x4 is almost overkill for that purpose.

Sure, the i5 and i7 can do video encoding and other CPU intensive task better, but in real-time we're only talking about like 5 minutes saved compared to the Phenom II x4, and most of us wouldn't notice the time difference anyway.
March 11, 2010 10:18:02 PM

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?
a c 123 à CPUs
March 11, 2010 10:52:11 PM

OvrClkr said:
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......


For a while now the stock clock has meant near nothing. AMD proved this with the Athlon 64 series. A CPU can have a clock advantage and still not beat the competiton.

In this case a 2.66GHz Core i7 can keep up with a 3.4GHz Phenom II.

BTW FFXI_Abinadi, the amount of programs that actually use the compiler are very little. Most use Microsofts for better Windows performance.
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2010 9:37:04 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
There's official reviews all over the net by now, and loneninja is correct - i5 750 matches up or exceeds the P2-965 in gaming and synthetics. 3 articles here on Tom's front page, Anandtech, Techgage, HotHardware, Extremetech, Guru3d, Techreport, Techspot, etc etc etc.

Intel stole the price/performance crown back from AMD. AMD will have to drop the 965 price to equal or lower than that of the i5-750...

BS. Simple, nice, and deep piercing to the hearts of fanboys.
September 11, 2010 1:57:34 AM

yes, in many cases the i5 will (however slightly and not noticable) out perform the x4 955, but i LOVE ati card and ati cards seem to run smoother (for me) with amd chipsets and therefor i will always run amd... there is no one answer, let everyone make up their own mind.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 2:03:49 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!