Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel i7 980x Vs AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Wich ones is better?

Total: 37 votes (2 blank votes)

  • i7 980x
  • 60 %
  • AMD 1090t?
  • 40 %
April 29, 2010 10:38:14 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... AMD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... INtel

THey are both 6 cores but why does the price slope like a hill when it compares to each other?? the only big idfference i know is the 6mb and 12mb cache. i know somewhat of a good amount about omcputers but i do not understand why they are so diffrently price ranged and what 6mb and 12mb cache is, maysomeone please explaine. ty
April 29, 2010 11:13:45 PM

yes,but 980 is hyper-threaded,and have 12 thread.980x is better than amd 1090t in most field even rendering and encoding.1090t beat all i7 in most field except 980x look at this:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phen...
amd in performance and price is the best.intel's price is expensive.1090t is best cpu in 300$ and beat's inte's cpus that have 800-900$
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:26:09 PM

for the average joe: 1090t is better

for hedgefund managers, wall street bankers and financial product sales associates: i7 980x
Related resources
April 29, 2010 11:30:27 PM

I would highly recommend the 1090T. It offers similar performance for less than a third of the cost. The 1090T is a much better value. Unless you have money flowing out your ears like a faucet, the 1090T is a better choice.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:30:36 PM

The i7 980X is awesome lol, no point denying it.

For the price? Nope. You can get three 1090T's for the same price, and if you used them all together like in a server, they would end up more than twice as fast. :) 
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 12:00:40 AM

or 980x vs
April 30, 2010 12:15:15 AM

goto cpu passmark for a whole set of cpu benchmark.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 12:40:18 AM

I prefer not to wipe my ass with money, I'll take the 1090T. :) 

Which is better? :/ 
April 30, 2010 12:43:51 AM

The real deabte:


i5-750 vs 1055T

i7-930 vs 1090T
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:09:41 AM

Another vote for the 1090T. For the money, you can build a complete 1090T system for the cost of the i7 980X.
April 30, 2010 1:21:55 AM

be sure 1090t is better.
April 30, 2010 1:34:28 AM

It said better, not better price/preformance people.

jus to clear it up:

AMD Hexcore: Cheaper.

intell hex core: better.

End fo story,
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:39:55 AM

The real issue is.

AMD hex core : Cheaper and Better than intel Quad core.

Any of you who can afford to throw cash at an i7 980x, feel free to ignore the obviousness of this. :D 
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:42:43 AM

Quote:
Intel i7 980x Vs AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

THey are both 6 cores but why does the price slope like a hill when it compares to each other?? the only big idfference i know is the 6mb and 12mb cache. i know somewhat of a good amount about omcputers but i do not understand why they are so diffrently price ranged and what 6mb and 12mb cache is, maysomeone please explaine. ty


If I understand you correctly, I think everyone is misunderstanding your question.

The 980X is a faster chip, even though both are 6 core chips. There are a few reasons for this.

Its important to remember that clock speed is not a good measure of cpu speed between different architectures. One chip can do more work at the same clock speed. For exampe, core 2 duos were almost twice as fast at the pentium D at the same clock speed, even though both were dual core.

The current Intel cpu cores are faster per clock cycle than the equivalent AMD core. Also the cache difference you mentioned equates to about 10% speed boost. Intel chips also have a few special instruction that improve speed in certain applications.

All in all, the 980X is about 30% faster than the 1090T. But the 1090T is 1/3 the price and a great performer.
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 1:59:47 AM

FALC0N said:

If I understand you correctly, I think everyone is misunderstanding your question.

My thoughts exactly. You beat me to it.

Think of it like this: cycle only measures the speed of the CPU not how powerful it is. To measure its power, you would need to take the speed (in cycles per second or Hz) and factor in how much it does per each cycle. The core i7 architecture does more per cycle than the Phenom II architecture. Plus is has all the aforementioned features like turbo boost (speeds up clock cycle for a single or a couple cores that are heavily loaded), hyperthreading (allows two threads to be executed at the same time on one core) and more cache (less slow ram access required).
April 30, 2010 6:56:32 AM

price : 1090t
performance : without doubt 980x
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:25:10 AM

The 980x is faster, and not by a small margin. Realistically, for most users, the 1090t is the better choice though.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:33:40 AM

i7-980X is of course better, but the performance gain is definitely not worth the premium. I would recommend that you get the 1055T as you already have a compatible mb.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 8:51:31 AM

Well, 'better' in terms of performance is the i7 980X no doubt, but as for price/performance, the 1090T is better. But, the i7 980X costs > $1000, and the Phenom II X6 1090T is less than a third of the price.
April 30, 2010 6:49:52 PM

jennyh said:
The real issue is.

AMD hex core : Cheaper and Better than intel Quad core.

Any of you who can afford to throw cash at an i7 980x, feel free to ignore the obviousness of this. :D 


Jenny:

1. The 1090T is more expensive than the i7-930 by 10$ Newegg, 110$ Micrenter.

2. The 1090T is 150$ more than thwe i5-750 (Microenter), and 100$ mroe on newegg.

3. The 1090T loses to the 930 in most things.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:22:37 PM

thangbipbomz said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... AMD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... INtel

THey are both 6 cores but why does the price slope like a hill when it compares to each other?? the only big idfference i know is the 6mb and 12mb cache. i know somewhat of a good amount about omcputers but i do not understand why they are so diffrently price ranged and what 6mb and 12mb cache is, maysomeone please explaine. ty


[1] Simply put, cache is an on-chip memory where the processor places frequently accessed data. By keeping more data closer to the processor for fast execution, overall performance is improved. This is of particular benefit when running rich media titles and games, as well as everyday productivity applications. Imagine your entire brain to be the cpu. Then the frontal cortex, where your brain stores your short term memories for quick recall, is your cache.
April 30, 2010 8:09:04 PM

builderbobftw said:
Jenny:

1. The 1090T is more expensive than the i7-930 by 10$ Newegg, 110$ Micrenter.

2. The 1090T is 150$ more than thwe i5-750 (Microenter), and 100$ mroe on newegg.

3. The 1090T loses to the 930 in most things.


looooooose?????lol.in many froum you can see the result of the benchmark that 930 beat 1090 is because of this :
that program didn't support 6 core of cpu!!!and in prgram that support 6 core 1090 beat 930.goto cpubenchmark.net see high end cpu.the result of all benchmark is in there.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phen...
April 30, 2010 8:34:21 PM

That doesn't tell the whole stry, not by a long shot.

It loses eppicaly in most games, and monay other things.
April 30, 2010 8:59:22 PM

builderbobftw said:
That doesn't tell the whole stry, not by a long shot.

It loses eppicaly in most games, and monay other things.

if you look at that game that 930 beat 1090t ,965 beat 1090.it show you that didn't support the 6core.i said it again.why you don't understand.cpubenchmark.net is the standard and every body agreemet with that.and you are a intel fanboy.try to guid here not toiling. :hello: 
April 30, 2010 11:59:23 PM

Have you seen the gaming beches?

i assume not, becuase if you had you wouldnt be argueing with me.
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2010 12:24:52 AM

How can we miss it, you have linked to it about a dozen times in the last 12 hours ! :) 
I say again that review was to show that high clocked cores can power a high end gpu as well as a quad. And it does show that. I can show you dozens of other reviews that show the 860,870 trading blows with any AMD cpu.
edit : sorry the below was directed towards a gaming question in another post.
You can have 12 cores, if you don't have at least two of them at 4.00ghz or higher its going to be more of a bottleneck than a cpu with more powerful cores. A stock 1090 turboing up to 3.6 is going to be fine. The 1055 is going to be less than ideal in some cases. Leaving performance on the table.
May 1, 2010 1:00:46 AM

jenny, look at those crysis beches long and hard......
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2010 10:46:24 PM

I think we can't just judge CPU based on pure performance. I think price should be the deciding factor.
May 10, 2010 10:52:39 AM

FALC0N said:
Quote:
Intel i7 980x Vs AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

THey are both 6 cores but why does the price slope like a hill when it compares to each other?? the only big idfference i know is the 6mb and 12mb cache. i know somewhat of a good amount about omcputers but i do not understand why they are so diffrently price ranged and what 6mb and 12mb cache is, maysomeone please explaine. ty


If I understand you correctly, I think everyone is misunderstanding your question.

The 980X is a faster chip, even though both are 6 core chips. There are a few reasons for this.

Its important to remember that clock speed is not a good measure of cpu speed between different architectures. One chip can do more work at the same clock speed. For exampe, core 2 duos were almost twice as fast at the pentium D at the same clock speed, even though both were dual core.

The current Intel cpu cores are faster per clock cycle than the equivalent AMD core. Also the cache difference you mentioned equates to about 10% speed boost. Intel chips also have a few special instruction that improve speed in certain applications.

All in all, the 980X is about 30% faster than the 1090T. But the 1090T is 1/3 the price and a great performer.



also the manufacturing process. the 980x has next gen 32nm process whereas the 1090t is still stuck on the 45nm process
May 10, 2010 10:57:29 AM

Alfred_i said:
if you look at that game that 930 beat 1090t ,965 beat 1090.it show you that didn't support the 6core.i said it again.why you don't understand.cpubenchmark.net is the standard and every body agreemet with that.and you are a intel fanboy.try to guid here not toiling. :hello: 


you brainless, game supports more than 2 cores get that. and i guess you are the fanboy
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 1:48:38 PM

dragon5677 said:
you brainless, game supports more than 2 cores get that. and i guess you are the fanboy


:pfff: 

Most games dont go beyond 2 cores. There aren't that many games support 4 cores and there very few past that. FSX, AC2, are the only few games that i know that can uses +6 cores/threads.
a c 131 à CPUs
May 10, 2010 2:25:36 PM

dragon5677 said:
you brainless, game supports more than 2 cores get that. and i guess you are the fanboy

Actually, most games don't go beyond 3 cores. I recently tested MW2 with my quad by reducing the number of cores and clockspeed and using fraps. The framerate dropped at the exact same clockspeed for 4 cores and 3 cores. But dropped at a higher clockspeed for 2 cores.
May 10, 2010 2:42:28 PM

Most games dont go beyond 2 cores. There aren't that many games support 4 cores and there very few past that. FSX, AC2, are the only few games that i know that can uses +6 cores/threads. said:
Most games dont go beyond 2 cores. There aren't that many games support 4 cores and there very few past that. FSX, AC2, are the only few games that i know that can uses +6 cores/threads.


avp2, bfbc2, metro2033, dirt2... put the word "old" on your first sentence.

most contemporary games support more than 2 cores.

a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 4:35:31 PM

Whoop - whoop - whoop! Price-drop alert! Tigerdirect now has the 980x at $950, a hundred bucks off the Newegg price :p .

Quick, get 'em while they're hot! :kaola: 

a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 5:44:28 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Whoop - whoop - whoop! Price-drop alert! Tigerdirect now has the 980x at $950, a hundred bucks off the Newegg price :p .

Quick, get 'em while they're hot! :kaola: 



thats such a steal :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 6:44:47 PM

Not even a debate worth having, given the price of the 980x. Nobody should buy that CPU unless they're a fool who likes throwing away money. If we were talking about cars, it'd be like spending $300,000 for an extra 25 horsepower that you don't even use.

Intel's pricing structure is a complete failure across the board, and I have no idea why anyone would currently buy any of their CPUs on the market. There is a 40% cheaper equivalent for everything Intel makes, unless you have a raging hard-on for the $500+ processor-as-a-status-symbol.
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 7:07:09 PM

BTW I have been trying to see if anyone has any benchmarks on the Phenom X6 1090t for Microsoft Flight Simulator X.Haven't found one as of yet but would be interested in seeing how this CPU would perform.
May 10, 2010 7:09:42 PM

Quote:
Cough. The 980X is pretty cheap compared to identical 6-core Xeons cough.


betetr off with Quad socket 930s
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 7:12:29 PM

\\
Quote:
Cough. The 980X is pretty cheap compared to identical 6-core Xeons cough.

What is your point ?
Your demi God AMD makes 1000 dollar server cpu's as well.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
45nm ,
Do you want servers to be limited by the budget constraints of a Paperboy, or pizza delivery guy ?
May 10, 2010 7:15:52 PM

Quote:
WHAT?
Builderbob became an AMD fanboi?!
:o 


He wasn"t talking ot me!

Intell all the way! (At over 150$ pricepoints....)

EDIT:

Guys, I'm sure everyone here is tried of reading jenn's posts.

So, Everybody, Anywhere anytime jenn posts, vote to hide!
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 10:11:56 PM

Quote:
Cough. The 980X is pretty cheap compared to identical 6-core Xeons cough.


I should have qualified that by saying I'm talking about CPUs that an ordinary consumer would buy. When you get into the world of servers and multi-processor setups, sure, there are uses for a lot of things that are in a completely different realm of prices, and I'm honestly not sure whether Intel's pricing is still so obscene by comparison. For regular gaming and consumer usage, though, Intel can EABOD.
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2010 10:36:18 PM

If AMD could make something that could compete, or was clearly 'the best' they would make a model and charge a thousand dollars for it. They did it just a few years ago (those of you with short memories) + if they ever get their act together will again.
May 10, 2010 10:38:56 PM

notty22 said:
If AMD could make something that could compete, .... if they ever get their act together will again.



Doubt it.
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2010 12:03:59 AM

capt_taco said:
I should have qualified that by saying I'm talking about CPUs that an ordinary consumer would buy. When you get into the world of servers and multi-processor setups, sure, there are uses for a lot of things that are in a completely different realm of prices, and I'm honestly not sure whether Intel's pricing is still so obscene by comparison. For regular gaming and consumer usage, though, Intel can EABOD.


LOL - what does EABOD stand for - Eat A Butt Of Death??
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2010 12:15:36 AM

Personally I think if Intel does do a price drop on the top-tier CPUs in the next 2 months, then they must be feeling some competition from AMD, and I would attribute a price drop more to the competition than a ramp-up on 32nm.

Anyway, as somebody whose boss just told him that he'll get a whopping EOY bonus this year (after zip last year because of lousy financials), I'm looking a bit higher up the wish list price chart :p .
May 11, 2010 12:45:05 AM

I've got to admit that the 1090T is a bit of a disappointment to me. It is more expensive than the i7 930 and is barely on par with it. I was hoping that it would be better.

Yeah I know, most of you are surprised by this as I am an avid defender of AMD, often called a fanboy, and I still believe that the PII X4 line is the best bank for the buck out there and performs equally with intel i5 - i7 on most applications for a much lower price.

But I must be fair, if I had to choose between a 1090T and a i7 930 right now, I would go with INTEL without a second thought.

The 980x and the latest AMD can't really be compared to one another as the former costs 1k$, but the former is definitely the best performance wise, this CPU is amazingly fast. And I do understand the price tag for the 980x much better than I understand the pricing of the 975.

Just to those out there (like I did :D  ) who believe that the AMD CPU can equal the INTEL i7 in all applications. I recently started folding and you can really notice the vast superiority of the i7 line over the phenom there. The difference is huge, 6k to 8k PPD for AMD (965 @ at 4.1Ghz), 14 to 16k PPD for i7 920 (stock). Let's not talk about the 980X which hits 25k PPD easily (stock). Numbers given to me by fellow folders at OCN.

Just saying, so don't bite my head off and I am still an AMD fan but I must give merit where it is due. In this case, the 1090T would not be a good buy IMHO as the i7 930 is on par with it and is cheaper.
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2010 2:48:37 AM

yannickhk said:
I've got to admit that the 1090T is a bit of a disappointment to me. It is more expensive than the i7 930 and is barely on par with it. I was hoping that it would be better.

Yeah I know, most of you are surprised by this as I am an avid defender of AMD, often called a fanboy, and I still believe that the PII X4 line is the best bank for the buck out there and performs equally with intel i5 - i7 on most applications for a much lower price.

But I must be fair, if I had to choose between a 1090T and a i7 930 right now, I would go with INTEL without a second thought.

The 980x and the latest AMD can't really be compared to one another as the former costs 1k$, but the former is definitely the best performance wise, this CPU is amazingly fast. And I do understand the price tag for the 980x much better than I understand the pricing of the 975.

Just to those out there (like I did :D  ) who believe that the AMD CPU can equal the INTEL i7 in all applications. I recently started folding and you can really notice the vast superiority of the i7 line over the phenom there. The difference is huge, 6k to 8k PPD for AMD (965 @ at 4.1Ghz), 14 to 16k PPD for i7 920 (stock). Let's not talk about the 980X which hits 25k PPD easily (stock). Numbers given to me by fellow folders at OCN.

Just saying, so don't bite my head off and I am still an AMD fan but I must give merit where it is due. In this case, the 1090T would not be a good buy IMHO as the i7 930 is on par with it and is cheaper.


Speaking of F@H, nice 2nd place win in the chimp challenge. :)  Maybe i try joining that competition next year. :whistle: 

a b à CPUs
May 11, 2010 3:33:35 AM

notty22 said:
If AMD could make something that could compete, or was clearly 'the best' they would make a model and charge a thousand dollars for it. They did it just a few years ago (those of you with short memories) + if they ever get their act together will again.


Yeah, but in the meantime, since they're the ones charging the reasonable prices NOW, and Intel are the ones going all-out to squeeze top dollar out of me, I'll stick with the ones who are half the price. If Intel turns around and comes out with some competitive prices, I'll buy from them. No shame in being a mercenary with your allegiance -- this isn't a sports team; it's circuits etched into a piece of metal. Right now, though, Intel doesn't have any "must-have" CPU, and it doesn't have very good prices.


fazers_on_stun said:
LOL - what does EABOD stand for - Eat A Butt Of Death??


Bowl of Dicks.
!