Closed

The Truth: i5 750 vs Phenom II 965 -Updated

Hello
There has been a lot of heated debate and arguing on these forums about which is better, a Phenom II 965 or an i5 750. On both sides, everyone has failed to back up their point and have posted one or two links at best which is inadequate to answer such a question. I am here to answer that question. The scientific method tells us to do everything in, at least, threes. Three sources, three experiments, three variables, ect. Well I have compiled 8 different sources. None were picked and chosen except for the Lost Circuits article since it keeps getting thrown around.

I must remind everyone that this is a thread to inform those who are trying to choose between the two, I'm not here to settle any vendettas or disputes, I don't give a rats ass about that.

Alright let us discuss Turbo mode. Turbo Mode is where, with 1-2 cores under load, the CPU clocks those cores to 3.2 GHz and with 3-4 core under load the CPU clocks to 2.8 GHz. With Turbo mode enabled, which it is in all the below benchmarks, the i5 750 clocks at 2.8 GHz for most of the app benchmarks, which is 600 MHz (2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. In most games the i5 750 is clocked at 3.2 GHz or 2.8 GHz which is 200 MHz or 600 MHz (3.2GHz/2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. A reader must take this into account with the below results.

Links:
http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei5750_corei7870/
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/lynnfield/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=42

Note: No synthetics were listed here, though I think that they have some merit, the majority opinion is that they do not and therefor they are not included.

Here we go: (continued on next post)

2/24/2010 I have updated the pricing section and some facts. If I'm asked I will add some more articles that are more recent.
191 answers Last reply
More about truth phenom updated
  1. i5 750 is blue
    Phenom II 965 is green
    Results are red


    Techspot:

    Apps:
    Microsoft Excel 2007 (lower = > Lg/Sm): 13.14/2.15 11.10/1.44
    Phenom II 965 16%/33% = 24.5% faster
    WinRAR Compression (lower = > Win7 DVD/720p file): 9.52/42.50 13.44/63.48
    i5 750 29%/33% = 31% faster
    Adobe Photoshop CS4 (lower = > Smart Blur/Extrude): 47.2/66.3 41.2/66.9
    Phenom II 965 13%/-1% = 6% faster

    Games:
    Unreal Tournament 3 (FPS 1024x768/1920x1200): 268/162 263/164
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Street Fighter IV (FPS 1024x768 1920x1200): 236/166 226/167
    i5 750 4%/0% = 2% faster
    Far Cry 2 (FPS 1024x768 1920x1200): 97/71 88/70
    i5 750 9%/2% = 5.5% faster

    Anandtech:

    Apps:
    Adobe Photoshop CS4 (lower = >): 18.1 21.1
    i5 750 = 14% faster
    DivX 6.8.5 (lower = >): 39.4 42.5
    i5 750 = 7% faster
    x264 HD encode 1st pass (FPS): 72.9 77.7
    Phenom II 965 = 6% faster
    x264 HD encode 2nd pass (FPS): 21 20.3
    i5 750 = 3% faster
    Windows media encder 9 x64 (lower = >) 30 28
    Phenom II 965 - 6% faster
    3dsmax 9 (higher = >): 13.4 11.9
    i5 750 = 11% faster
    Blender 2.48a (lower = better): 59.9 69.5
    i5 750 = 14% faster
    POV-Ray 3.73 (higher = >): 2710 2706
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Microsoft Excel 2007 (lower = >): 20.1 23.8
    i5 750 = 16% faster
    Sony Vegas Pro 8 (lower = >): 206 238
    i5 750 = 13% faster
    Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation (lower = >): 127.7 134.6
    i5 750 = 5% faster
    PAR2 Archive Recovery (lower = >): 29.7 32.8
    i5 750 = 9% faster
    WinRAR - Archive Creation (lower = >) 96.2 105.7
    i5 750 = 9% faster

    Gaming:
    Fallout 3 (FPS): 86.2 87.7
    Phenom II 965 = 2% faster
    Left 4 Dead (FPS): 130.1 126.1
    i5 750 = 3% faster
    Crysis Warhead (FPS): 83.3 81.4
    i5 750 = 2% faster

    Lost Circuits:

    Apps:
    Caligari TrueSpace 5.1 Vases (lower = >): 55 63
    i5 750 = 13% faster
    Caligari TrueSpace 5.1 Ducati (^ same): 157 144
    Phenom II 965 = 8% faster
    MainConcept H.264 (lower = >): 50.2 43.68
    Phenom II 965 = 13% faster
    DVD-Shrink 3.2 (lower = >): 167 159
    Phenom II 965 = 5% faster
    Nero 9 Recode (lower = >): 422 402
    Phenom II 965 = 5% faster
    V-Dub/DivX 6.8 no SSE4 (lower = >): 16 15
    Phenom II 965 = 6% faster
    V-Dub/DivX 6.8 SSE4 (lower = >): 17 20
    i5 750 = 15% faster
    DIEP Chess (higher = >): 863563.4 948604.1
    Phenom II 965 = 9% faster

    Games:
    Unreal Tournament 3 (FPS): 147 139
    i5 750 = 5% faster
    Devil May Cry 4 (FPS scene 1/2/3/4): 86.36/148.85/80.81/115.46 92.82/126.08/85.19/117.5
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Far Cry2 Small Ranch (FPS high/avg/low): 73.49/32.37/21.96 56.96/31.89/22.69
    i5 750 22%/1%/-3% = 7% faster

    Guru3d:

    Apps:
    Video transcoding H.264 (lower = >): 12.92 12.96
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Kribi - Sponge Explode (FPS): 7.1 8.8
    Phenom II 965 = 19% faster
    AES Data Encryption (higher = >): 21428 24500
    Phenom II 965 = 12% faster

    Games:
    BiA: Hells Highway (FPS 1024x768/1280x1024): 91/83 77/75
    i5 750 15%/10% = 12.5% faster
    BiA: Hells Highway (FPS 1600x1200/1920x1200): 71/67 70/67
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Crysis Warhard (FPS 1024x768/1280x1024): 57/47 54/45
    i5 750 5%/4% = 4.5% faster
    Crysis Warhard (FPS 1600x1200/1920x1200): 37/34 36/33
    i5 750 3%/3% = 3% faster

    OverclocksClub

    Apps:
    Apophysis (lower = >): 27 21
    Phenom II 965 = 22% faster
    WinRAR ZIP (lower = > 100mb/500mb): 13/58 11/59
    Phenom II 965 15%/-2% = 6.5% faster
    WinRAR RAR (lower = > 100mb/500mb): 25/136 22/119
    Phenom II 965 12%/12% = 12% faster
    Office 2007 Excel (lower = >): 5.5 8.2
    i5 750 = 33% faster
    POV Ray 3.7 (higher = >): 2576 2778
    Phenom II 965 = 7% faster

    Games:
    Far Cry2 (FPS 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200): 65/58/51 69/63/55
    Phenom II 965 6%/8%/7% = 7% faster
    Crysis Warhead (^ same): 26/20/17 26/21/16
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Bioshock (^ same): 166/128/109 156/125/102
    i5 750 6%/2%/6% = 5% faster
    COD: WAW (^ same): 82/70/59 81/70/60
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Dead Space (^ same): 196/156/134 191/160/136
    Tie difference is less than 1%
    Fallout 3 (^ same): 83/81/78 80/76/75
    i5 750 4%/6%/4% = 5% faster
    Left 4 Dead (^ same): 118/98/83 117/98/85
    Tie difference is less than 1%
  2. CONTINUED:

    Neoseeker:

    Apps:

    Handbrake (lower = >): 217 211
    Phenom II 965 = 3% faster
    POV-Ray (higher = >): 2531 2818.54
    Phenom II 965 = 10% faster
    WinRAR (lower = > 100mb/500mb/1000mb) 10/46/118 8/34/88
    Phenom II 965 20%/26%/25% = 24% faster

    Games:
    Call of Juarez (FPS): 106 102
    i5 750 = 4% faster
    World in Conflict (FPS): 238 197
    i5 750 = 17% faster
    Lost Planet (FPS snow/cave) 261/113 280/112
    Phenom II 965 7%/-1% = 3% faster
    Left 4 Dead (FPS 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200): 127/107/90 126/108/91
    i5 750 = 1% faster
    Crysis Warhard (FPS ^ same): 47/39/32 47/39/33
    Phenom II 965 = 3% faster
    Bioshock (^ same): 182/150/118 197/148/122
    Phenom II 965 8%/-1%/3% = 3% faster
    Far Cry 2 (^ same): 68/60/53 77/68/59
    Phenom II 965 12%/12%/10% = 11% faster

    Tomshardware:

    Apps:
    Main Concept 1.6.1 (lower = >): 1.59 1.57
    Phenom II 965 = 1% faster
    iTunes v8.2.1.6 (lower = >): 1.24 1.38
    i5 750 = 10% faster
    TMPGEnc 4.7 (lower = > DivX/Xvid): 2.07/3.42 2.37/4.06
    i5 750 13%/16% = 14.5% faster
    Lame 3.98.2 (lower = >): 1.54 2.14
    i5 750 = 28% faster
    WinZip 12.1 (lower = >): 4.57 5.07
    i5 750 = 10% faster
    WinRAR 3.90 (lower = >): 1.06 1.26
    i5 750 = 16% faster
    3ds Max 2009 (lower - >): 0.32 0.35
    i5 750 = 8% faster
    AVG Anti-Virus 8.5 (lower = >): 2.20 2.13
    Phenom II 965 = 3% faster
    Photoshop CS4 (lower = >): 2.03 2.51
    i5 750 = 19% faster
    Bit-Tech:

    Apps:
    GIMP Image Editing Test (higher = >): 1197 1070
    i5 750 = 11% faster
    HandBrake Video Encoding (Higher - >): 1939 1816
    i5 750 = 6% faster
    Mutlitasking Test (higher = >): 1285 1003
    i5 750 = 22% faster

    Games:
    Crysis (FPS avg/min.) 34/27 31/23
    i5 750 9%/15% = 12% faster
    X3: Terran Condlict 83/40 75/37
    i5 750 10%/7% = 8% faster


    Totals:

    i5 750:
    Apps: 337.5% / 24 wins = 14.0625% average lead.
    Games: 96.5% / 15 wins = 6.4333% average lead.

    Phenom II 965:
    Apps: 205% / 18 wins = 11.3889% average lead
    Games: 26% / 6 = 4.3333% average lead.

    I understand those results can be confusing but you must look at them in this light, which wins the most and by how much? In both Apps and Games the i5 750 wins the most and by the most on average. What does this mean? The i5 750 is faster, even at lower clocks.

    So I know what you are asking yourself, "So the i5 750 is the better buy?" Well that depends. When comparing performance only then yes, definitely.

    To better answer that question we must list each solution's distinct benefits and explore them.

    i5 750:

    1. It is faster:

    Well, yes it is and we just proved it, but by how much? The results above can look pretty conclusive, but if you examine and read through each article (like I did :sweat:) then you will see that they are both VERY fast and VERY close. Some of those 10%, 20%, and 30% leads are just a hand full of seconds or a few FPS that won't alter gameplay noticeably. In the end I don't think either solution would disappoint any half-way realistic expectations. Each CPU is DAMN FAST and you really can't go wrong with either CPU and I guarantee you wont be disappointed by either.

    2. The P55 chipset can support both SLI and Crossfire whereas the AM3 chipset can only support one or the other:

    This is an interesting feature. I won't lie, it is the reason I went with i5 750 even though money was tight. I am using 2 8800 GTS 512mbs and I don't want another SHlTY nVidia motherboard. I also want the ability to crossfire at a later date as I don't have much faith in Fermi, but I digress. Enough about me what about YOU?! Well do you want or plan to use SLI? If so then your decisions easy, i5 750 it is. If not? Keep reading.

    3. Hyperthreading.... wait...

    Yes that is correct, the i5 750 DOES NOT have hyperthreading, but the i7 860 does at $80 more. That is kind of steep, but there is good news: the X3440. The Xeon X3440 drops into any and all P55 motherboards, even though it is technically a server chip, is better binned so overclocks just as well as the i5 750, and has hyperthreading for $30 more than the i5 750 and $50 less than the i7 860, a bargain for those who want hyperthreading.

    Now onto hyperthreading itself. Admittedly very few applications use it and its benefits are limited even then. However it does really benefit a user when they are using mutliple CPU straining tasks, like HD encoding, Zip-ing large files, and using photoshop all at the same time. If you do this a lot then hyperthreading is for you.

    Phenom II 965:

    1. It costs less:

    Update: The Phenom IIs have had a decent reduction in price. The Phenom II 965 sits at $180, $20 cheaper than the i5 750. The Phenom II X4 955 sits at $160, $40 cheaper than the i5 750.

    In addition, the Phenom II X4 925 sits at $130 and is a full $70 cheaper than the i5 750, $30 cheaper than the 955, and $50 cheaper than the 965. I recommend the 925 over the 955 and 965 as it can overclock to 3.6-3.8 GHz easily and 4.0 GHz if you are lucky. That is only slightly lower than the other Phenom II's overclockability, and the deficit does not justify the extra expense of the 955 and 965, and anything over 3.6 GHz is unneeded.


    Both the i5 750 and Phenom II 955 use the same exact RAM so you can't save money there.

    Update: With the addition of the H55/H57 and the Q57 LGA 1156 chipsets, the AM3 chipsets can no longer be considered cheaper and are on-par with LGA 1156 pricing.

    All in all, the price difference between the processors is still about the same.


    As you can see the Phenom II solution is a bit cheaper and can make or break a deal and can be the difference between a mid-high end GPU and a high end GPU.

    2. The future is certain:

    Don't get me wrong, there will be new CPUs coming to the LGA 1156 chipset, especially some nice 32nm quads, but the adoption of 6-core CPUs on LGA 1156 is still uncertain, and likely dependent on how AMD prices their 6-core processors. However, it is basically known that 6-core processors will be coming to AM3.

    How does this effect you? That depends on whether you need 6 cores or not.

    Update: It is now uncertain whether the 32nm 6-core AMD processors are going to come to the AM3 boards, but they will likely be backwards compatible still.

    3. Changed: Phenom II and GPUs


    Don't get me wrong, the LGA 1156 chipset will utilize any two single GPUs very well, and at times slightly faster than the AM3 equivalent. However, for 3+ GPUs (IE: 3 5850s, 2 5970s, or 4 5870s) the i5 750's 16-lane restricted bandwidth (IE: x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 or x4/x4/x4/x4) is less than ideal. For this some would recommend the i7 LGA 1366 chipset, but it doesn't provide anything in gaming that the AM3 chipset cannot.

    Do note that 3+ GPUs are ONLY for those who don't care about price v. performance and is not an optimal configuration 95% of the time or more, 2 GPUs is really where things should stop.

    So what does this prove?

    1. The i5 750 is faster in the end.
    2. Neither solution is a bad deal.
    3. I have too much time on my hands.

    In the end, if you are still undecided, I highly recommend the reader to take a piece of paper and a pen, or wordpad/notebook for you computer geeks, and list what apps and games you use the most. Then go and look at all 8 article's worth of benchmarks above and see which processor works best for your needs. The i5 750 and the Phenom II 965 DO have applications and games where they just plain work better.

    I hope this helps you, dear reader, and I hope it was worth 6 hours of my time. :cry:
  3. Good work. I haven't even tried to figure it out but it looks like a wash to me on first glance.
  4. I hope it helps, it took having to post it in 3 posts to realize just how much information I looked over... :cry:
  5. Feel free to give all the feedback you want and comments, if appropriate of course.
  6. hopefully this will quiten down some of the arguements.

    as ive been seeing for a months. i5=better, phenom II=better value.

    theres no doubting the i5 is a better processor, those who do are simply being fanboys. personally though, id have little interest in building a rig around it unless id won a bunch of money. id rather save a bunch on a similar chip, and get a better video card and ram.
  7. welshmousepk said:
    hopefully this will quiten down some of the arguements.

    as ive been seeing for a months. i5=better, phenom II=better value.

    theres no doubting the i5 is a better processor, those who do are simply being fanboys.


    Well that is not necessarily true, refer to the guide please.

    Yeah I am kinda hoping that this will help people settle it once and for all with enough facts to choke an elephant.
  8. Good job AMW. Anybody who says the i5 is better is basically just being a fanboy.

    (yes that was me being sarcastic due to the previous posters complete idiocy).
  9. I would say...look at that SSE4 v-dub benchmark on lostcircuits. I'm not convinced that deserves inclusion, maybe you can convince me otherwise.
  10. Better by definition is an opinion as well as a very broad adjective and therefore neither solution can be called "better" just better suited for certain needs.
  11. I just recently decided between these two for my new build, and let me tell you it was a tough call. In the end, I went with the i5 because although performance gains are minimal on the 965 (or o/c'ed 955, which was my plan) at the end of the day, the 50 or so extra dollars I would theoretically save were not worth a huge amount to me either. I really like the approach you took on this one though, the scientific one that is. I can't tell you how much fanboy trash I had to sift through to get input on this decision. It seemed the vast majority of forum-goers were either staunchly amd or intel and refused to consider the alternative as viable under any circumstances.
  12. jennyh said:
    I would say...look at that SSE4 v-dub benchmark on lostcircuits. I'm not convinced that deserves inclusion, maybe you can convince me otherwise.


    I suppose that it is because a feature is a feature. I was sure to show the benchmark with it disabled to give a complete perspective on the matter. The more intricate examining on the SSE4 addition to the benchmark is for the reader to decide, not me.
  13. zach377 said:
    I just recently decided between these two for my new build, and let me tell you it was a tough call. In the end, I went with the i5 because although performance gains are minimal on the 965 (or o/c'ed 955, which was my plan) at the end of the day, the 50 or so extra dollars I would theoretically save were not worth a huge amount to me either.


    Both are great and as long as they meet your needs then you can't go wrong with either.
  14. Oh another thing too. There are no 32nm quads planned by intel in 2010, i3, i5 or i7.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16996/38/

    I'm not nitpicking, just trying to make sure the whole facts are available to help people make their choice.
  15. I would love to see them compared at Overclock speeds that are considered average overclocks of the two systems. While both OC, you didn't compare them at OC values.
  16. jennyh said:
    Oh another thing too. There are no 32nm quads planned by intel in 2010, i3, i5 or i7.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16996/38/

    I'm not nitpicking, just trying to make sure the whole facts are available to help people make their choice.


    I'm not sure on the source, but if true then it still doesn't necessarily impact my statement. I stated that they will come out, not when. We don't know the when for either party, but 32nm LGA 1156 quads have been announced a few times.

    Thanks for the contribution.
  17. bystander said:
    I would love to see them compared at Overclock speeds that are considered average overclocks of the two systems. While both OC, you didn't compare them at OC values.


    I thought about it, but there are only a handful of articles that do this and I was going for a very broad consensus, however I will look into it.
  18. bystander said:
    I would love to see them compared at Overclock speeds that are considered average overclocks of the two systems. While both OC, you didn't compare them at OC values.



    The 965 runs at 3.4 constant(unless) C&Q is enabled then its around 1ghz, but it adjust accordingly to load.

    The i5 has turbo boost which is kinda like C&Q but reversed (some imply its cheatng :sarcastic: )
    But since it doesnt cost extra and doesnt need special TIM to make it work and actually comes with the i5
    in its stock form then its a fair comparison between the two.

    As for the avg overclock thing, so far the i5 seems to be a little higher and more stable overall so far.
    This is considering the newest C stepping from AMD too
  19. jennyh said:
    Oh another thing too. There are no 32nm quads planned by intel in 2010, i3, i5 or i7.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16996/38/

    I'm not nitpicking, just trying to make sure the whole facts are available to help people make their choice.

    Hmmm

    http://www.crn.com/hardware/222002641;jsessionid=JMNBZVDUCNEMFQE1GHPSKHWATMY32JVN
    http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=26549
    http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22414
    http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8139
    http://topnews.us/content/29014-intel-launch-17-westmere-technology-based-chips-ces

    Intel is launching 17 new Westmere based products at CES.

    Quote:
    Westmere

    Westmere (formerly Nehalem-C) is the name given to the 32 nm die shrink of Nehalem. Westmere should be ready for a Q4 2009 release provided that Intel stays on target with its roadmap. However, it appears that the bulk of Westmere's versions, excluding mobile versions, will be released sometime in Q1, 2010.[42][43] Westmere's features and improvements from Nehalem have been reported as follows:

    * Native six-core, and possibly dual-die hex-core (12-cores), processors.[44]
    o The successor to Bloomfield and Gainestown is six-core.
    * A new set of instructions that gives over 3x the encryption and decryption rate of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) processes compared to before.[45]
    o Delivers seven new instructions that will be used by the AES algorithm. Also an instruction called PCLMULQDQ that will perform carry-less multiplication.[46] These instructions will allow the processor to perform hardware-accelerated encryption, not only resulting in faster execution but also protecting against software targeted attacks.
    o AES-NI may be included in the integrated graphics of Westmere.
    * Integrated graphics, released at the same time as the processor.
    * Improved virtualization latency.[47]
    * New virtualization capability: "VMX Unrestricted mode support" -- which allows 16-bit guests to run. (real mode and big real mode).


    http://www.techpowerup.com/110567/Intel_Readies_13_Westmere-based_32_nm_Xeon_Processors.html
    Quote:
    Intel Readies 13 Westmere-based 32 nm Xeon Processors
    Outgrowing the known lineup of 32 nm client processors (under the Core family), Intel's upcoming lineup of processors based on the 32 nm Westmere architecture will comprise of no less than 13 models under the Xeon E5000, L5000, X5000, and W3600 series. Among these, there are six hexa-core Xeon processors, including X5680 (3.33 GHz), X5670 (2.93 GHz), X5660 (2.80 GHz), and X5650 (2.66 GHz). X5680 has a TDP of 130W, with the latter three sub 3 GHz models having TDP as low as 95W. There is an energy-efficient L5640 hexa-core model clocked at 2.26 GHz, with TDP at 60W, and a single-socket W3680, clocked at 3.33 GHz with 130W TDP. All these models have six cores, and 12 MB of L3 cache.

    Next up, are Intel's first 32 nm quad-core processors: Xeon X5677 (3.46 GHz, 130W), X5647 (3.06 GHz, 95W), E5640 (2.66 GHz, 80W), X5630 (2.53 GHz, 80W), X5620 (2.40 GHz, 80W), and energy efficient L5630 (2.13 GHz, 40W), and L5609 (1.86 GHz, 40W). Except L5609, all these quad-core chips have HyperThreading Technology and Turbo Boost available. The L2 cache amounts for each of these chips is unknown as of now, but should be up to 8 MB, or as low as 4 MB for some models. Most of these chips are slated for release on March 16, 2010.




    http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-Reveals-More-32nm-Westmere-Details/




    Now Quad Core wise.. well... we don't have Intel's roadmap for anything past Westmere yet. So anything after January 7, 2010 is a mystery.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513&p=5
    Anandtech claims that:
    Quote:
    Keep following; if you want a quad-core Westmere, your only option will be in the LGA-1366 socket with Gulftown. Core i7 will get replaced with a six-core, twelve-thread processor in early 2010. There won’t be a 32nm quad-core part on the desktop until the end of 2010 with Sandy Bridge.


    But this was based on the old roadmap which has since been scrapped.

    Sandy Bridge, unless AMD comes out with a shocker in 2010, will be the first 32nm Quad Cores. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/21/intel-tick-tock-slows-down-sandy-bridge-slips-into-2011.aspx
  20. At this point Elmo, I can't say which I believe, it is just too early. Until we start seeing previews then it could be ETA:2020 for all we know.
  21. AMW1011 said:
    At this point Elmo, I can't say which I believe, it is just too early. Until we start seeing previews then it could be ETA:2020 for all we know.

    I'm actually agreeing with JennyH :p No Corei5 or i7 Quad Core in 2010 planned so far.

    So far there are no plans for any 32nm Desktop Grade quad Cores in 2010 from Intel. But Xeon grade processors is another matter entirely... and they work just as well on an LGA1156 or LGA1366 platform (varying on the model chosen).
  22. The force is strong with you young padawan, good post.
  23. ElMoIsEviL said:
    I'm actually agreeing with JennyH :p No Corei5 or i7 Quad Core in 2010 planned so far.

    So far there are no plans for any 32nm Desktop Grade quad Cores in 2010 from Intel. But Xeon grade processors is another matter entirely... and they work just as well on an LGA1156 or LGA1366 platform (varying on the model chosen).


    I understand, my point is I just think it is too early to call. I mean How many months has it been since Fermi was due to release according to nVidia rumors? A sore point that, my hopes aren't high. If Fermi and the 5xxx series are close I might do a similar thread for them, the reception and interest in my guide is more pronounced then It thought.
  24. overclocking, anyone?
  25. Good job amw1011. You did your homework. This should be made a sticky.
  26. nice find ... i5 = better performance , phenom = better value to summit up
  27. careful cyberkuneriah, when i meade that comment i was called an idiot.

    not sure what i missed exactly, since in the majortiy of benchmarks the i5 wins out. and the 965 is obviously cheaper.

    but what do i know? im an idiot.
  28. Just like gfx cards, 1 is better on a game than another, and possibly better overall in all games, but if its not the game or games you play, it isnt the fastest.
    But no, youre not an idiot
  29. cyberkuberiah said:
    nice find ... i5 = better performance , phenom = better value to summit up


    A solid fact that has been recognized since the beginning.
  30. @jaydee: thanks for clarifying. i was becoming concerned :S.

    i was simply trying to sum it up though, and i think saying that thr i5 is better is pretty fair. in much the same way as a OCZ vertex is better than a Kingston V series. sure they trade blows, but the vertex usually comes out on top. you pay for it though.

    and like i said, i would still build a phenom rig before an i5 rig.
  31. I never said i5 is better than PII-955 in the cost-performance ratio except in the US.

    You just showed how ignorant the AMD fanboys(such as jennyh) are by saying PII-955 is better than i5 in PERFORMANCE.
  32. Those AMD fanboys would say PII-955 is better as long as 955 wins in little apps or in some unfair comparisons where 955 is paired with better graphic card.
  33. Quote:
    Phenom II 965:

    1. It costs less:

    To be honest, if you are overclocking then there is no reason to get the Phenom II 965 over the Phenom II 955, the 955 overclocks as well and is about $20 cheaper and is $15-$25 cheaper than the i5 750.

    Both the i5 750 and Phenom II 955 use the same exact RAM so you can't save money there. Also any AM3 board is only about $10 cheaper than an equivalent P55 board.

    Not seeing the "cheaper" thing? Well here it is:

    AM3 CPUs can be used on AM2+ boards. This makes it an easy upgrade, but that is not all. If one were to buy an AM2+/AM3 or AM2/AM2+/am3 board, which tend to cost significantly less, and DDR2 RAM, which at this time is slightly less than DDR3, then you can save another $40-$80. This combined with the price of the processor can net you $50-$100 extra spending cash over an i5 750 build.


    Things get blurred when it comes to the cost. Why does the line get blurred?

    Well because cost varies on where you get your gear. Let me explain...

    For users who live in Canada:

    Corei5 750: $234.99
    Phenom II X4 965: $220.63

    The difference is a mere $14 therefore one can't exactly claim that one costs less than the other. The difference is trivial.

    Motherboard it's also too close to call (The AM3 board has a MIR while the LGA1156 board has a special bundle price saving you $5 on RAM):

    ASUS P7P55 LX P55 DDR3: $134.99
    ASUS M4A79XTD Evo ATX AM3: $134.99


    For users living in the USA... there is Microcenter to factor in as well (always worth mentioning):

    Corei5 750: $149.99
    Phenom II X4 965: $195.00

    Of course this is assuming you either:

    A. Live near a Microcenter
    or
    B. Have a friend or relative who lives near a Microcenter

    If not then Corei5 750: $194.99

    I just don't see how the 965BE is cheaper when choosing comparable parts.

    If you plan to overclock then there is no comparison. A Corei5 750 will out clock a Phenom II X4 965 when using Air or Water far more often than not. So you could state that a user could buy a 955 and clock it to 3.6GHz (which seems to be the average overclock those things net).

    Well the average overclock for a Corei5 750 is over 4GHz.. I kid you not. In fact I polled this data from Corei5 users:

  34. To AMD fanboys who don't truly understand Turbo mode:

    The max frequency can be achieved on ALL 4 cores with i5-750 is merely 2.8GHz.

    Hence, stop being a noob by saying 955 is better in clock per clock, jennyh!
  35. ElMoIsEviL - I agree with you. People must stop saying Intel better performance AMD better value, this is simply not true... Intel in this case also has the better value depending on the country you live in.
  36. BartG said:
    ElMoIsEviL - I agree with you. People must stop saying Intel better performance AMD better value, this is simply not true... Intel in this case also has the better value depending on the country you live in.

    Yeah, Intel is also cheaper in India according to a member from there.
  37. andy5174 said:
    Yeah, Intel is also cheaper in India according to a member from there.


    yeah , i was the one who said that , when the phenom 965 was like 255$ in us , that price remained in india for a long time even when the i5 launched ... that price is still there in many places ... only dealers who do high volume sales have updated their pricing to reflect the u.s pricing now (their price for 965 < i5 ) ... but they are rare considering not everyone can pick up from them (and a major online retailer still has it for old price ) ...

    to sum it up , u.s price cuts take a long time to reflect here , that is because of much lower sales volume for high end parts ... and the old phenom pricing is plain ridiculous ... because then the i5 has better performance and better value ... it will take some time for the price cut ripple to spread fully ...
  38. the good news is that due to easy online access to tech sites the awareness among buyers is increasing ... and the gaming hardware market is already growing steadily , and it has huge potential .

    the market was much much slow when , i still remember , the geforce 2 ultra (launched) at inr 35k (around 800$ by that time exchange rates ) .. lol .
  39. ElMoIsEviL said:
    Quote:
    Phenom II 965:

    1. It costs less:

    To be honest, if you are overclocking then there is no reason to get the Phenom II 965 over the Phenom II 955, the 955 overclocks as well and is about $20 cheaper and is $15-$25 cheaper than the i5 750.

    Both the i5 750 and Phenom II 955 use the same exact RAM so you can't save money there. Also any AM3 board is only about $10 cheaper than an equivalent P55 board.

    Not seeing the "cheaper" thing? Well here it is:

    AM3 CPUs can be used on AM2+ boards. This makes it an easy upgrade, but that is not all. If one were to buy an AM2+/AM3 or AM2/AM2+/am3 board, which tend to cost significantly less, and DDR2 RAM, which at this time is slightly less than DDR3, then you can save another $40-$80. This combined with the price of the processor can net you $50-$100 extra spending cash over an i5 750 build.


    Things get blurred when it comes to the cost. Why does the line get blurred?

    Well because cost varies on where you get your gear. Let me explain...

    For users who live in Canada:

    Corei5 750: $234.99
    Phenom II X4 965: $220.63

    The difference is a mere $14 therefore one can't exactly claim that one costs less than the other. The difference is trivial.

    Motherboard it's also too close to call (The AM3 board has a MIR while the LGA1156 board has a special bundle price saving you $5 on RAM):

    ASUS P7P55 LX P55 DDR3: $134.99
    ASUS M4A79XTD Evo ATX AM3: $134.99


    For users living in the USA... there is Microcenter to factor in as well (always worth mentioning):

    Corei5 750: $149.99
    Phenom II X4 965: $195.00

    Of course this is assuming you either:

    A. Live near a Microcenter
    or
    B. Have a friend or relative who lives near a Microcenter

    If not then Corei5 750: $194.99

    I just don't see how the 965BE is cheaper when choosing comparable parts.


    Yeah I had thought about getting other prices for other nationalities, but going the UK and canada route I noticed the difference is about the same. Notice I said the 955 is really only worth it and notice I already said that the motherboard will cost about the same. However, I did show the one instance where Phenom II is notably cheaper.
  40. welshmousepk said:
    careful cyberkuneriah, when i meade that comment i was called an idiot.

    not sure what i missed exactly, since in the majortiy of benchmarks the i5 wins out. and the 965 is obviously cheaper.

    but what do i know? im an idiot.

    I never called you an idiot, you were and still are mostly correct. Refer to my post in concern with Jenny:

    Quote:
    Better by definition is an opinion as well as a very broad adjective and therefore neither solution can be called "better" just better suited for certain needs.


    OR JDJ had it pretty well:

    Anonymous said:
    Just like gfx cards, 1 is better on a game than another, and possibly better overall in all games, but if its not the game or games you play, it isnt the fastest.
    But no, youre not an idiot


    After all my readings I must say that both are so damn fast you can't go wrong with either, yes at the end of the day the i5 750 is faster, but not all that noticeably. That is where other concerns come in. All in all I like the i5 750 better for the price.
  41. This was a great post, till some people started commenting and trying to pick each other apart.
    The only thing I can disagree with is that am3 boards can’t support sli and crossfire. They may not be that many of them but they are out there. Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130236

    As far as price goes, it does depend on where you live as other have mentioned. For me the cheapest I can find a i5 at is $194.99 where as I can get a PII 955 for $165.00 or $175.99 for the c3. That’s $20-$30 difference, so we will say $20. The boards that I have been comparing fall in the same category where the i5 boards cost a bit more.

    With the test you also have to take note that different motherboards were used. Anandtech and Techspot are perfect examples with both saying that opposite ones are better suited for Photoshop. Maybe different parts of the program run faster on each chip and one place tested one area more or less, but most likely the motherboard had something to do with it.

    I also don’t know is I exactly agree with the way you did some of your math.
    Ex:
    Far Cry2 Small Ranch (FPS high/avg/low): 73.49/32.37/21.96 56.96/31.89/22.69
    i5 750 22%/1%/-3% = 7% faster
    My feeling is that only the average FPS should have been used to determine the winner. Think about it the average already incorporates that high and low into it; in a way you are “multiplying error”. You also can’t say how long it was at its high or low hence they are kind of irrelevant.

    I would also say that any frame rate that is over 120 should have been left out of the final count considering 120 Hz is the point where overkill really comes into effect.

    All in all a good post, thank you for digging up that articals.
  42. I'm an Intel fanboi, but AMD is still f'n nice and cooler cpu = ftw.

    AM3 is going to be around for a while and current multicore CPUs are more than what you need unless you really have some very hard work loads to make i7 actually worth it.

    AMD
  43. Pro Llama said:
    This was a great post, till some people started commenting and trying to pick each other apart.
    The only thing I can disagree with is that am3 boards can’t support sli and crossfire. They may not be that many of them but they are out there. Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130236

    As far as price goes, it does depend on where you live as other have mentioned. For me the cheapest I can find a i5 at is $194.99 where as I can get a PII 955 for $165.00 or $175.99 for the c3. That’s $20-$30 difference, so we will say $20. The boards that I have been comparing fall in the same category where the i5 boards cost a bit more.

    With the test you also have to take note that different motherboards were used. Anandtech and Techspot are perfect examples with both saying that opposite ones are better suited for Photoshop. Maybe different parts of the program run faster on each chip and one place tested one area more or less, but most likely the motherboard had something to do with it.

    I also don’t know is I exactly agree with the way you did some of your math.
    Ex:
    Far Cry2 Small Ranch (FPS high/avg/low): 73.49/32.37/21.96 56.96/31.89/22.69
    i5 750 22%/1%/-3% = 7% faster
    My feeling is that only the average FPS should have been used to determine the winner. Think about it the average already incorporates that high and low into it; in a way you are “multiplying error”. You also can’t say how long it was at its high or low hence they are kind of irrelevant.

    I would also say that any frame rate that is over 120 should have been left out of the final count considering 120 Hz is the point where overkill really comes into effect.

    All in all a good post, thank you for digging up that articals.


    First, I mean that most PP5 boards have the ability to SLI and crossfire on the same board, while with AM3 you must either buy an SLI board or a crossfire board.

    As for the math, I debated a lot but since a lot of people like to say "well this got more minimum FPS" blah, blah and that it all had to come together with the apps at the end I decided to keep the math the same for simplification.

    Yes different reviews have hugely different results, that is the problem with the comments in these threads. One team picks an article that shows one thing, then the other team picks an article that shows the exact opposite. Therefor I decided to get a large article base and see what they all said as an average. However, that wasn't the only reason. I posted, in detail, all the different benchmarks so that it is easy for one to go through them and make their own conclusion.

    Thanks, I actually feel like it was worth my time.
  44. AMW1011 said:
    First, I mean that most PP5 boards have the ability to SLI and crossfire on the same board, while with AM3 you must either buy an SLI board or a crossfire board.


    This board does both, here is what the one reviewer said "I've built several rigs with this motherboard and have not had one problem yet. Works beautifully nearly all the way around. If you are using a large aftermarket CPU heat sink like the zalman for the AM3 make sure you install the memory in the slots before mounting the cooler! flashed with new bios in a snap. Have done these in SLI and Crossfire setups"
  45. Nothing surprising, but good post that will hopefully calm the flames a bit around here.

    Good on the OP.
  46. I take issue with AMW1011's virtually baseless assertion that the i5 is a hot running chip where as the Phenom 965 is a cool running chip. I feel that's a misrepresentation.

    From the first link you posted...

    http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/page10.html

    "The power consumption levels for the Core i5 750 processor and the new P55 chipset are very impressive. At idle our Core i5 box consumed 106 watts, while increasing to 198 watts under load.

    Compared to the equally clocked Core i7 920, the Core i5 750 is far less power hungry. Compared to older platforms, the Core i5 750 used less power than even the Core 2 Quad Q9650 making it the most efficient platform and processor by far in our tests. "

    From the second article you linked...

    "Under load the Core i5 and Core i7 870 continue to impress. They both draw less power than a Q6600 or a Q9650, all the while outperforming the two. Power consumption is also noticeably lower than Bloomfield. "

    From the third article you linked...

    "Temperatures are very good as well. "

    So I'm done beating that dead horse... all of those sites (and pretty much the whole Internet) is going to say that the i5 is a low power, low temp, highly efficient processor... some may complain about the stock cooler that it comes with, but that's the cooler... not the CPU they're talking about.

    Additionally, some of those gaming tests were done with Turbo Boost disabled... I hardly think that is an accurate representation of what an i5 will do at stock settings. Is Dell gonna turn off that feature when it ships someone a system? Don't think so.
  47. Quote:
    IMO No comparison. Took 5 minutes to hit 4Ghz with a friend's I5 750


    After playing with the P55 BIOS (which was different than my previous nForce BIOS) I had my i5-750 @ 4Ghz stable within about 10 minutes. To be honest I really didn't do any tweaking. Set my settings for where I wanted them, and adjusted the Vcore like twice? Set it for 1.3V, didn't work. Bumped it to 1.32V and bam. Stable. Never had a hiccup since.

    As you've probably all seen, I've told many folks that you can't go wrong with the i5 or PII X4 955/965. However, I do honestly believe benchmarks and statistics prove that price aside, the i5 is better. I think that much is black and white from everything I've ever seen. When you consider that the i5-750 can best the 965 (even if only by 5%) with lower clock speeds, it's fairly simple to say it's the faster CPU.

    I still think we should get a Phenom II X4 965 & i5-750 together at exact same clock speeds and do a slew of benchmarks with them on equal ground. It just seems like the i5-750 should best the 965 by even more at equal clock speeds, when you consider it can edge out the 965 with lesser clock speeds.

    That being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with building an AMD PII X4 system right now.
  48. AMW1011 said:
    Yeah I had thought about getting other prices for other nationalities, but going the UK and canada route I noticed the difference is about the same. Notice I said the 955 is really only worth it and notice I already said that the motherboard will cost about the same. However, I did show the one instance where Phenom II is notably cheaper.

    I did notice you mentioned the 955 stating that when overclocked it can reach 965 speeds for less.

    Since you're making the overclocking argument.. my argument was that a Corei5 750, when overclocked can surpass Core i7-975x speeds. Overclocking logic is applicable to both.

    So the better value remains the Corei5 750 which can easily surpass the performance of a $1000USD chip when overclocked (and is so damn easy to overclock it's not even funny as I showcased by supplying poll results where the majority of users hit over 4GHz on air).

    So you can make the Phenom II platform slightly cheaper by going for a cheaper chipset and some cheaper DDR2 ram (the chipset which will significantly degrade performance and the ram which will only make a tiny dent of degradation). But when you do that, you're no longer comparing the same performance numbers shown above therefore no longer comparing the Phenom II 965 to the Core i5 750 (it's no longer about "The Truth: i5 750 vs Phenom II 965")
  49. Quote:
    Who gives a *** what they do. EVERY COMPANY DOES IT. :lol:

    I'm an Intel fan because it's the better product. Turbo, HyperThreading, Bang For The Buck....


    LOL "Bang for your buck" isn't always the way to go though.

    http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/handguns/40sw/hi_point_40sw.html

    You can get REALLY cheap "Bang" for your buck from these guys, but I'd never buy one of their firearms. ;)

    But I will agree with you that Intel is the champ for the time being. However, couple years from now when I'm looking for another system overhaul, if AMD is on top, I'm dumping Intel like a pale full of garbage. There's no loyalty for me between Intel/AMD. It's all about who offers the best product at the time.

    (Edit: fixed typing error, "dumping" had been typed as "temping")
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i5 Phenom Product