Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs. Intel core i5-750

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2009 3:05:26 PM

Which of these processors is the best one?
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 3:14:31 PM

dantoshi said:
Which of these processors is the best one?


It depends on what you are using it for, so what are you using it for? Also I would avoid the 965 and go with the 955; it’s the same as the 965 except it is cheaper.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 3:25:03 PM

Pro Llama said:
It depends on what you are using it for, so what are you using it for? Also I would avoid the 965 and go with the 955; it’s the same as the 965 except it is cheaper.



but the 955 is dual cor isn't it???
quad core is better for gaming
and i'm going to use it for gaming
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 3:30:25 PM

The Phenom 955 is a quadcore, the X4 moniker tells you that, a dual core would be X2.

As for which is faster, well the Core i5 750 is slightly faster, but nothing all that noticeable.

Since you do a lot of gaming you have to ask yourself whether you need the ability to SLI or not. If so then the i5 750 uses the P55 chipset which can allow for both SLI and Crossfire, something no AM3, for the Phenom, board can. If not then flip a coin.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 3:52:19 PM

The next question is what graphics card are you going to use and if you plan on using sli or crossfire. If you are going with a HD 5850 or something like that I would go with the 955 because it will be cheaper and you will not need sli. If you already have cards that you want to do in sli then you may want to go with the i5 because the 955 boards that support sli are hard to find and put the price up closer to the i5 set-up.

If you are just looking for a cheap gaming computer that you are going to use one card with go with the 955 you will save about $60 which can be put towards a better card. If money isn’t important go with which ever you like better.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 4:41:43 PM

The 955 is the same as a 965, except it's 200MHz slower and $20 cheaper. Using AMD Overdrive, you can just turn up the multiplier a notch to change the speed to 3.4GHz, making it the exact same. And FYI, quad-core isn't "better" for gaming, as games don't fully utilize all four cores. For current games, a good dual-core processor will net you performance very similar to a quad-core. Regardless, quad is still the way to go, as they're much better for non-gaming applications. For gaming, the i5 or a 955 is definitely the way to go.

Knowing the following would really help:
- What you plan on using your PC for
- If it's for gaming, which games and at what resolution?
- What are your other specs? (video card, RAM, PSU, etc)

Both are excellent processors and will easily last you 3-4 years without even overclocking. For gaming, they're both pretty even, sometimes with the 955 coming out on top by 1-2 FPS. In Ubisoft games, usually the i5 has a larger lead. For professional applications such as programs for video encoding, ripping, compression, etc - the i5 will generally finish tasks about 5-10% faster, which will save you anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes depending on the length of the task.

In terms of overclocking, both are good. At higher frequencies, the i5 is a bit faster clock for clock, so it generally has overclocks that are more powerful. You'll easily hit 4.0GHz with either processor, assuming you get the C3 version of the 955. The AM3 platform is probably a little more stable and will support new CPUs for another year or two. The 1156 platform isn't quite as developed since it's much newer, but it still appears to be fairly solid (putting aside the Foxconn socket issue). The future of the 1156 socket is really unknown - but honestly, I can't imagine you needing or wanting to upgrade either of these processors in the next couple years. Note that the P55 sockets for the 1156 platform have had burning issues with higher overclocks, though it supposedly has been fixed.

An i5 platform will cost you about $50-$60 more, but will also save you $10-$20 per year on energy cost, assuming you leave your PC on 24/7. The cost will probably even out over a few years. The i5 is more power-efficient, but also gives off much more heat and as a result, probably is a tad bit louder.

Basically - both are damn good.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 5:46:26 PM

I posted the same question a few days ago and this is what I learned. It all pretty much comes down to what you want. They are both basically equal in performance. I chose the i5 simply because I have never had an AMD cpu and because the turbo boost seems like a pretty cool feature.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 5:50:57 PM

Time for eternal debate again!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 6:05:22 PM

I did the research between the X4 955/965 and the Intel i5-750 also. There's also LOTS of debate on these forums between the two.

In general, the i5-750 is the superior processor between the two. However, for gaming purposes alone there doesn't seem to be a major difference between the two. The i5-750 does however, excel with other software (Photo shop, video editing, etc).

There are a lot of factors with gaming that the two are fairly close. However, from a purely statistical standpoint the i5-750 I find is the better of the two. It will typically cost a little bit more money though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 6:52:27 PM

The i5 750 is 5% faster than the 955 and 5% slower than the 965. It is very slightly slower than both phenoms in gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 7:05:40 PM

Like I said, there's debate. LOL Look up i5-750 reviews and Phenom II X4 955/965 reviews and see how they benchmark compared to one another with applications or games that appeal to you. That's honestly the best way to decide.

Then compare prices, etc. (When I say prices, I mean prices on the CPU, Motherboard, and RAM. Not just CPU alone)

You'll find lots of debate here on the forums.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 8:07:42 PM

Can we go one day on the forum without a new thread with the same question?

And leave it to jenny to just make up numbers or just fail miserably at math once again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 8:20:54 PM

Actually I took my numbers from the owner of Lost Circuits, who incidentally has benchmarked both systems a number of times.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 8:38:11 PM

Link to exactly where you got those numbers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 8:50:38 PM

How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 9:00:02 PM

jennyh said:
How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.


Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:01:52 PM

No. I looked on LC and did not see it. Your math is always wrong. I want to see how you come to the conclusion that the i5 is 5 percent faster than the 955 and 5 percent slower than the 965. Show me how a 200mhz speed increase on the two AMD cpus results in a 10 percent swing.

You stated this numbers. You show it.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:09:23 PM

keithlm said:
Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)


No. This user has proven that she is terrible at math or just makes up numbers. And thats whats goes on over at the zone. Except they ban you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:15:02 PM

keithlm said:
Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)


Yep I'm aware of that...however my sheer determination will eventually break them down and they'll come to see reason.

I'm gonna start with someguy7, who surely will want to get to the truth?

Start here someguy - http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

Take every one of those benchmarks and tell us how much faster or slower the 965 BE is compared to the i5 750. For a maths wizard, that should be easy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:20:32 PM









PII-965 lost in 3 out of 4 games.

In the game PII-965 leads i5, it is 1.5 FPS better which is substantial.

In addition, i5 beats 965 by 4FPS, 18.9FPS and 1.9FPS in other 3 games which are insignificant at all.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:24:13 PM

i5 can't keep up with PII-955 at all in gaming.

jennyh, you are so right.

Keep up the great work!
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 9:39:18 PM

Just an FYI for future reference, Anand's Far Cry 2 benchmark isn't gameplay. It's an artificial stress test using the FC2 engine that simulates how the game would play if each core was at 100%. Using the in-game benchmarking for actual gameplay, both an i5 and a 955 will net 90+ FPS with a GTX280.

Regardless, a 955, an i5, or an i7 will get you the same performance in gaming. As a matter of fact, P2's and 1156 CPus will be better in gaming than the 920 due to tighter framerates. Outside of games, an i5 will net you ~5-10% additional performance in non-gaming applications over the Phenom II, with the exception of a select few applications.

For games, the 955 and the i5 are excellent and will remain excellent for years. You would never notice a difference.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:46:37 PM

Medium quality gaming benchmarks fail horribly, especially when the totals are in the 100's. In short, those anand gaming benchmarks are a joke.

On the other hand, if anybody cares to work out the lostcircuits benches?

Ah hell let me tell you how it ends up. The Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750...that is with me being as generous as possible to the i5 by including the SSE4 V-Dub benchmarks which scores a 15% swing in the i5's advantage. Not to mention cinebench, yet another synthetic that favours intel.

Also, if I had worked out the average fps totals of the end gaming benchmarks and added them to the phenom II score, the 965 BE would probably have ended up 15% faster.

So yes I was wrong, it's not 5% its more like 15% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:47:26 PM

And right about now someguy7 is going to confirm those results. Right someguy?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:47:33 PM

Atranox said:
Just an FYI for future reference, Anand's Far Cry 2 benchmark isn't gameplay. It's an artificial stress test using the FC2 engine that simulates how the game would play if each core was at 100%. Using the in-game benchmarking for actual gameplay, both an i5 and a 955 will net 90+ FPS with a GTX280.

Regardless, a 955, an i5, or an i7 will get you the same performance in gaming. As a matter of fact, P2's and 1156 CPus will be better in gaming than the 920 due to tighter framerates. Outside of games, an i5 will net you ~5-10% additional performance in non-gaming applications over the Phenom II, with the exception of a select few applications.

For games, the 955 and the i5 are excellent and will remain excellent for years. You would never notice a difference.

No, you are terribly wrong!

There is huge difference between i5 and 955.

The 955 is much better and will last for 10 years compared to merely 1 year on i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:49:24 PM

jennyh said:
Medium quality gaming benchmarks fail horribly, especially when the totals are in the 100's. In short, those anand gaming benchmarks are a joke.

On the other hand, if anybody cares to work out the lostcircuits benches?

Ah hell let me tell you how it ends up. The Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750...that is with me being as generous as possible to the i5 by including the SSE4 V-Dub benchmarks which scores a 15% swing in the i5's advantage. Not to mention cinebench, yet another synthetic that favours intel.

Also, if I had worked out the average fps totals of the end gaming benchmarks and added them to the phenom II score, the 965 BE would probably have ended up 15% faster.

So yes I was wrong, it's not 5% its more like 15% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.


Are you kidding?! It IS 45% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 9:49:57 PM

Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking. At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.

For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.

For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same. Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:50:17 PM

jennyh said:
And right about now someguy7 is going to confirm those results. Right someguy?

No need!

They are wrong as jennyh said they are wrong.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:50:45 PM

No its about 10-15% in reality. That's the real reality not your warped reality andy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:51:54 PM

Atranox said:
Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking. At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.

For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.

For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same. Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.

Rubbish!

i5 is about 45% WORSE in non-gaming applications.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:52:42 PM

Atranox said:
Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking. At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.

For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.

For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same. Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.


I just worked out the lostcircuits benchmarks and the 965 BE is 8% faster at the very least. If the synthetic cinebench and SSE4 v-dub benchmarks were removed, the 965 BE would be more like 15% faster overall.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:52:53 PM



Ah and just when we had Jenny speaking the truth...

The i5 750 and the Phenom II 965 trade blows in every benchmark, but the i5 750 comes out slightly ahead if you factor in that the i5 750 is faster clock for clock. At the end of the day both the Phenom II 965 and the i5 750 are totally equal with some imperceptible gains in the i5 750's favor.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:57:18 PM

Truespace 5.1

i5 = 55
p2 = 63

i5 is 13% faster

Truespace 7.5

i5 = 157
p2 = 144

p2 is 9% faster

Cinebench 2003

i5 = 1935
p2 = 1708

i5 is 12% faster

Cinebench r10

i5 = 11320
p2 = 11096

i5 is 2% faster

MainConcept H.264

i5 = 50.2
p2 = 43.68

p2 is 13% faster

Dvdshrink 3.2

i5 = 167
p2 = 159

p2 is 5% faster

Nero 9 recode

i5 = 422
p2 = 402

p2 is 5% faster

V-dub non sse4

i5 = 16
p2 = 15

p2 is 6% faster

v-dub sse4

i5 = 17
p2 = 20

i5 is 15% faster

DIEP chess

i5 = 863563.4
p2 = 948604.1

p2 is 9% faster

Crysis

i5 = 170.5
p2 = 177.8

p2 is 4% faster

UT3

i5 = 147.0
p2 = 139.0

i5 is 5% faster


Overall

i5 wins =

13
12
2
15
5

= 47

p2 wins =

9
13
5
5
6
9
4

= 51

Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750 on those alone.

That is being as generous to the i5 as I possibly can be. Btw I stopped before the end gaming benchmarks which (taken on average) would have scored the phenom II 965 BE even higher.

By being generous to the i5 I mean I included the cinebench benchmarks (synthetic favouring the intel), and the SSE4 V-Dub benchmark which frankly is a joke but there you go.

Argue with those numbers, anybody.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 9:59:41 PM

Just stop arguing, now. You know it's going to end up nowhere.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:00:58 PM

@jennyh

No need to argue. You rule the world!

And no PC benchmark needed as the results given by your imagination/make up is the best.
m
0
l
December 28, 2009 10:04:03 PM

You can't base your conclusions off of one review. While I'm sure lostcircuits is very accurate, there are numerous variables that go in to benchmarking. You can have 3 different people run the same benchmarks with identical setups, and I can almost assure you that each would get different results. For every site that has the 955/965 winning, there are two that has the i5 winning. You can safely assume from that, that the i5 is slightly faster than a Phenom II for non-gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:09:48 PM

Atranox said:
You can't base your conclusions off of one review. While I'm sure lostcircuits is very accurate, there are numerous variables that go in to benchmarking. You can have 3 different people run the same benchmarks with identical setups, and I can almost assure you that each would get different results. For every site that has the 955/965 winning, there are two that has the i5 winning. You can safely assume from that, that the i5 is slightly faster than a Phenom II for non-gaming.

NO!

jennyh > anything
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:09:49 PM

Atranox the point which seems to be lost on a great many people is, the i5 is winning the *synthetic* benchmarks not real world apps.

If Cinebench was removed the Phenom II would be a country mile ahead. When looking at benchmarks you have to look at what is being benched and when it's an actual program the Phenom II wins more than it loses.

Look at my numbers and you'll see a huge 'win' in cinebench for the i5. It's not a real program it's a bloody benchmark! Then check out the SSE4 V-Dub result and read what they say about that on lostcircuits.

If it wasn't for those the phenom II would be an absolute mile ahead. It is a better cpu and the benchmarks prove it if you know what you are looking at.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:12:00 PM

Andy what exactly are you contributing to this thread except utter garbage?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:13:18 PM

I made immense contribution as I agree with you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:14:20 PM

You know my phenom II 940 at 3.8ghz is faster than your i5 at 3.6ghz right?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:14:30 PM

jennyh said:
Actually I took my numbers from the owner of Lost Circuits, who incidentally has benchmarked both systems a number of times.

Allright...

jennyh said:
How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.

Naw you're the one making the positive claim. You ought to substantiate your claim with evidence.

keithlm said:
Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)

A single link?
The "beliefs", if you can call them that, on this forum are based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence. If you have 10 Objective Websites telling you one thing and a single 1 telling you something else... who would you be more prone to believe?

someguy7 said:
No. This user has proven that she is terrible at math or just makes up numbers. And thats whats goes on over at the zone. Except they ban you.

I agree with your statement.

jennyh said:
Yep I'm aware of that...however my sheer determination will eventually break them down and they'll come to see reason.

I'm gonna start with someguy7, who surely will want to get to the truth?

Start here someguy - http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

Take every one of those benchmarks and tell us how much faster or slower the 965 BE is compared to the i5 750. For a maths wizard, that should be easy.

I have noticed that since I have arrived here at Toms Hardware, that you have begun to use my wording. "Reasoning and Rationality" were never part of your vocabulary prior to my return. An interesting observation. Here is a test to see if you truly are "reasonable".

Your data: http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

Vs. Contradicting data:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410....
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_lynnfie...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_c...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-87...
And MANY MANY more.

So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?

That my dear is called Reasoning.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:16:02 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Allright...


Naw you're the one making the positive claim. You ought to substantiate your claim with evidence.


A single link?
The "beliefs", if you can call them that, on this forum are based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence. If you have 10 Objective Websites telling you one thing and a single 1 telling you something else... who would you be more prone to believe?


I agree with your statement.


I have noticed that since I have arrived here at Toms Hardware, that you have begun to use my wording. "Reasoning and Rationality" were never part of your vocabulary prior to my return. An interesting observation. Here is a test to see if you truly are "reasonable".

Your data: http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

Vs. Contradicting data:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410....
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_lynnfie...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_c...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-87...
And MANY MANY more.

So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?

That my dear is called Reasoning.


jennyh > And MANY MANY more
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:17:32 PM

randomizer said:
Just stop arguing, now. You know it's going to end up nowhere.



Thank God I am not the only one sick of all this nonsense.

@OP The numbers are here. Study them and make up your own mind.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:17:42 PM

There is not a single benchmark that is reliable except the famous "jennyh" benchmark.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:19:44 PM

BadTrip said:
Thank God I am not the only one sick of all this nonsense.

@OP The numbers are here. Study them and make up your own mind.

I didn't want to join the debate too.

However, I can't tolerate seeing other peoples saying the so right jennyh is wrong. Hence, I joined it once again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:24:08 PM

http://www.lostcircuits.com/
Hanging on one no name web site = fail
His testing methods : For comparison purposes, all benchmarks were run in WinXP 32
Mentions: Intel Turbo is cheating= final fail
Compare to Guru3d, Anand, THG , Tweaktown, PC World FGS !

What the i5 750 did to AMD pricing in 2 months.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:26:37 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Your data: http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com...

Vs. Contradicting data:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=363...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410....
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_lynnfie...
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2909/intel_lynnfield_c...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-87...
And MANY MANY more.

So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?

That my dear is called Reasoning.


The xbitlabs article doesn't have an i5 750. The tweaktown article doesn't have a 965 BE. The hardocp article doesn't have a 965 BE.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2009 10:27:56 PM

And please, everybody knows THG and Anand are intel shills.
m
0
l
!