Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 750 vs AMD Phenom II X6 1055T

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 6, 2010 3:30:25 AM

So what's your opinion on this choice guys? The set up i'm currently looking at is:

i5 750 - 359
2x2gb g-skill ripjaw - 159
ASUS P7P55D-E PRO - 215
XFX ATI Radeon HD5850 XXX Edition - 375
Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB WD5001AALS - 69
Pioneer DVR-218L DVDRW OEM - 49
Antec 902 - 145

Now i've been reading some threads saying that the AMD outperforms the i5, and if this was the case, the AMD would be the no brainer choice at nearly $100 cheaper. Is everything I listed here compatible with the Phenom? And what would you guys do? :p  Thanks heaps for any suggestions/information.

More about : 750 amd phenom 1055t

a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 4:00:38 AM

The 1055T is a little faster, but the difference is negligible. 2 years from now though, you will be happier with the 6 core. So that is where I would spend my money.

Yes, everything else on your list is fine if you go the 1055 route.



m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2010 4:11:38 AM

What are you doing with this build? The 6core AMD is faster at CPU tasks like converting, etc. For gaming however the i5 750 is better. If this is a pure gaming build the 750 is the way to go.

Your prices seem high. Not in the USA?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 4:54:57 AM

^+1.

For gaming point of view, go for i5.
Otherwise get the x6.

But if x6 is $100 cheaper then I think you should go for it:) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 5:38:31 AM

It would have to be a PURE gaming build. Otherwise, the X6 is the better long term choice in my view.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 5:59:07 AM

If you take the Phenom, you will have to change that motherboard.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 6:00:29 AM

I would go for x6 1055T, as I think it will be better for the long term investment. Also, I think I would go for Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB instead of WD, it won't be much more expensive.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2010 6:32:55 AM

Seeing as long term has come up so much, by the time games are multi threaded enough to worry about multicore CPUs, you wouldn't want to use the 1055. If its a gaming build then the i5 750 is the better choice. If you do lots of other things though, its the 1055. It really depends on what your going to use it for. (prices as they are now of course.)
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 6:34:22 AM

Yeah this is for gaming, so the i5 seems to be the consensus. Thanks all. And yeah in Australia, hence the prices
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 6:56:57 AM

no not I5.....not for any reason. it will not be good enough at gaming to justify the level at which it will beat at everything else...... I use intel
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 7:45:37 AM

bro stop don't do that... in Aus you could have an X6 1090T BE or i7 930 for the money you are spending on that i5 750!! Where are you buying from?

m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2010 5:19:13 PM

Ok, time for benchies. Seeing as people are still running around saying the x6 will be better, lets take a look shall we? Seeing as this is a gaming machine, I'll start with games. BTW, the only reason I'm linking this site is that its the first I found that had both the 1055 and the 750.

http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T...

What games does the 1055 beat the 750 in? Anyone? For that matter, what games does the 1090 beat the 750 in? The 1090 at least comes close in RE5, but thats about it. Lets look at encoding next.

http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T...

The 1055 is faster in handbrake, ties in x264 test, and loses in the TMPGEnc 4.0 .avi to .mpg conversion. The 1055 could be faster, depending on what you do. Next up is their application benchies.

http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T...

Slower in the excel test, slower using winrar, and slower using adobe.

How is the 1055 better? Its only as good as the 750 in handbrake and x264. The 1090 is the chip that compares better, but even that chip loses EVERY gaming benchmark to the 750. If the $100 could be spent getting a better GPU or something like that, I could see getting it. But I get the feeling an extra $100 isn't going to move him up to the 5870 considering the prices he's dealing with. Its money well spent to get the 750. The 1055 simply isn't clocked fast enough to deal with it. Feel free to post more benchies, but I remember the 1090 being ~ it 750, NOT the 1055.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 6:51:05 PM

Yeah, that's what happens when you use GPUs that require more than Deneb/Thuban.

Let's not forget the i5 is topping these at a much lower stock, meaning goodness for OCers.

However, if you OC your x6 a little you won't notice the difference between i5/x6 with only a 5850, and the 6 cores can come in handy later.

Up to you!

IMO go with the x6 if you're overclocking and keeping a 5850 for a while.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 7:43:58 PM

You have to love the guys who cherry pick reviews. Techspot was the worst X6 review out there.

Like I said, the 750 IS the better gamer. The 1055 will be the better long term choice for most other uses.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2010 9:10:51 PM

Its always going to be like that in gaming benches once 5870 crossfire or better is used. All the other marks are bottlenecked and show insignificant performance differences. That's why that review is so different than the rest (in gaming).

Which is cool to see if you're using a single mid/high end card, but for those who want to know the actual performance the CPU is capable of in gaming, they'll find deneb/thuban is quite a bit behind.

TBH I'm sick of reviews (yes you too Toms!) that use a GTX 260 or a single 5850, or whatever. Yeah most people use that but how much data are we really seeing/learning if the difference is under 5% on all the chips?

Most people still believe lyn/neh still match Deneb in gaming.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 6, 2010 11:37:48 PM

Quote:
Woah....big fella....before you have a fanboy stroke, who said the 1055 is better?? Everyone here recommended the 750


Are you sure? First, before calling me an Intel fanboy you might want to do some research about me. Trust me that its not the case. Second, I posted the links due to comments like:

Quote:
The 1055T is a little faster...I would go for x6 1055T, as I think it will be better for the long term investment...no not I5.....not for any reason. it will not be good enough at gaming...


And yes, those are from three different people. I really love the "little faster" comment from Falcon.

Quote:
You have to love the guys who cherry pick reviews. Techspot was the worst X6 review out there.


Post "better" reviews then. As I said I used that one simply because I typed "1055 review" into yahoo and it was the first one that had both the 1055 and the 750 in it. I would have used Toms, but it didn't have the 1055. If you can show me how badly I'm wrong I'd love to see it. Judging from toms review however showing how the 1090 scored I don't see how a slower chip would be successful.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 7, 2010 2:19:33 PM

Quote:
Woah....big fella....before you have a fanboy stroke...


More importantly I'm still waiting for those benchmarks. Any idea how much longer?
m
0
l
May 7, 2010 3:00:44 PM

Yahoo - Google's miles better (Joke).
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 9, 2010 3:53:53 AM

I don't mean to be rude, but are you reading the thread zip? I posted benchies showing the 1055 would lose to the 750. Rather then admit defeat, Falcon said:

Quote:
You have to love the guys who cherry pick reviews. Techspot was the worst X6 review out there.


As I said, I used the one I did as it was the first I found that had BOTH the 1055 and the 750. Looking at how the 1090 scored against the 750 on other sites, I don't see how the 1055 has a chance. When you compare the 1055 and the 750, the 750 will win pretty much all the benchmarks. Stock or OC'd shouldn't make a difference. I'm waiting for Falcon to find his benchmarks to prove me wrong. Should be coming in any day now.

This is probably all for not anyways. The OP already spoke of getting the 750.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 11, 2010 5:27:53 PM

First, it says should. It doesn't say "which consistently outrun..." Second, provide the benchmarks. I've been waiting how long for Falcon to show me I was wrong? Certainly if my link was so wrong it would be easy for him to link me a good one. Wouldn't it? I was told I'm wrong, I'm just asking for proof so that I can see that I am. Otherwise its just some internet troll trying to spread disinformation.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 11, 2010 9:47:50 PM

I like graphs and charts, any of those in there that show the 1055T consistently beating the 750? Link some of those. Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x4-960t-z...

Here is the link to the charts they provide. I skipped the first page as its handbrake, etc and we know how that plays out. I'm looking at the 750 and the unlocked 960T. We have to deduct a bit seeing as its at 3.0GHz and the 1055 is at 2.8GHz.

3dmax 2010 is probably a tie. CS4 would be a win for the 750. Same with winrar. Win 7 might be a win for the 1055T, depends on how much that extra 200MHz would add. Either way its not a big win. Using those graphs the 750 is still better. Ties in 3dmax 2010, win7, but wins in CS4 and Winrar. I still haven't seen the 750 lose a single game benchmark. Why do some debate this?

AMD did a great job getting a 6 core CPU out for the masses. At its ~$200 price point its a great chip. More impressive is that it can work on AM2+ boards that have been out for how long? Compared to the 750 however it falls a bit short. I would use it if I already had an AM2+/AM3 board as its not THAT much worse. But if your buying new and want the best of these two, its the 750. Its not a matter of "seeing what I believe", its a matter of truth. The 750 wins benchies, plain and simple.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 11, 2010 10:28:33 PM

Yes, I mentioned that already. If there are only a few programs that take advantage of 6 cores, why bother buying it? Unless you use handbrake a lot, its pointless to buy it. I'm not sure why your taking up falcons cause.

I'm replying to falcon who dissed my choice of who I linked to. He claimed I "cherry picked" the worst review. I now have two sites that show the 1055T to not be the best chip. One really as the OP said it was a gaming build. If its a gaming build he's better off getting the 955.

I see no point in trashing this thread any farther. PM me if you want to continue this. I believe my point has been made however. Games are better on the 750, and even some/many general use or productivity apps as well. There are few things that the 1055T is better at.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2010 12:10:04 PM

I advice you phenom ii x6 1090T is very good performance and price.
do not rush!!
m
0
l
May 16, 2010 9:45:38 PM

Don't really know what the over clocking abilities of the i5 are....but I've got a 1055t running at 4Ghz on air and it could go up to 4.5Ghz if I didn't wanna go over 50c at load.

Just putting it out there. Six cores at 4Ghz = Very fast everything....for only $200
m
0
l
June 9, 2010 5:25:40 PM

Hello,

I didn't want to start a new thread... I think it fits in here, too.

I am thinking about this X6 1090T, i5-750 thing too, plus the X4 965.

It seems, that they all are neck to neck in benchmarks (if you want to rely on that). I tossed and turned and asked myself, what would be the smartest long-term buying strategie.

These thoughts apply only to Gaming! (since I am building a gaming machine)

1090T
Well, a six-core at 3,2GHz (3Core at 3,6 cause of turbo), for 280EUR. That sounds cheap, but why spend 280,-EUR while you can get a i5-750 for 180,-EUR or a X4 965 BE for 155EUR, when they all are neck-to-neck? Second question, that comes to mind, is why 6-Core, if games are programmed on the XBox (3Core Maschine)? Will there really be games that utilize 6-Cores (ok, the 3-core turbo of the 1090T could be an advantage in the 3-core case).

When you buy for future upgradeability. You know, that the i5 1156 socket will not be supported with new CPUs in the next year.
If you buy a 965 or 1090T, you can use the Bulldozer, which will come early 1011 (it seems) and will be fitting in the AM3 socket. So again, why spend 280,-EUR for the 1090T, when you are looking to upgrade it to the Bulldozer somewhen?

Seems we end up taking the i5 or the 965.
Now the question is. Will you really benefit from planning to somewhen upgrade to the Bulldozer? (which is supposed to be a hugh speedbumb, that even Apple spoke with AMD, which can have several reasons, e.g. forcing Intel to lower prices for Apple...).

Lets take two scenarios:
1. you buy i5. In the meantime you try to speedup your system by several graphics cards upgrades. Being optimistic, let's say the i5 will be at his ende, even with the newest graphics card in 3 years (just for the example). You will then change the motherboard (new socket) and the CPU.
2. you buy 965. In the meantime you do graphics card upgrades, till it is at its ends to0, let's say 3 years too. Now you can stay with the motherboard, and just change the CPU to Bulldozer.
But is this really good?
To answer this, one would have to know, if maybe one of the two (i5 or 965) will even last longer and make an upgrade obsolete). Second question that comes to mind. Will you want to have the old Motherboard with the new AMD CPU.

I do not know what the answers are to this.

If one wants to go with the AMD, it is maybe smarter to use the 965, because of the upgradability to bulldozer (no matter if you plan to do so or not), and the fact that probably for gaming the 1090T will be at his ends, nearly the same time, the 965 will be, or am I totally wrong? So you can save 100EUR of the 1090T and spend in a better graphics card or in buying the Bulldozer, if necessary somewhen.

There is one thing about the 1155-Boards, too. If one wants SATA-3 then it won't work properly on them, am I right? (no matter, that I have the opinion that you do not need SATA-3 because, in the next 3 years there will be no HDD and even SSD that completely uses the full SATA-2. but what if you want to stay longer with the board and the CPU? Maybe 5 years).


I saw, that i5 is a bit of just a nose in many games, but 965 is right behind. So I do not know, if the i5 will really last longer than the 965, when I plan with future-use in mind. (The only game I found that favoured the 965 was CoD4 and Anno1404. Interestingly the 965 gets to unsuspected power, when playing at 1920x1200 with 4xAA. Which I find curious, shouldn't the CPUs struggle with higher settings etc.?)

Any guesses to this?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2010 6:28:35 PM

IMO once overclocking is taken into account i'd see the i5-750 lasting a GPU generation longer than Phenom II x4. However with AM3 you'll likely get BD in the not too distant future (AMD's next CPU arch).

Decisions decisions!
m
0
l
July 21, 2010 9:05:47 AM

im also stuck between the phenom II x6 1055t and the i5 750, im mostly going to use this pc for gaming but it needs to last a ;long time i was thinking of getting an i5 750 and a gigabyte h55m usb3 motherboard and a hd5850 gpu but the motherboard does not support crossfireX and in the future i wanted 2 put another 5850 in there, either i could get the ud4p motherboard but then il have 2 downgrade my gpu 2 the r5770 hawk, so any cheap mobos that support crossfireX and i dont care about usb3 and sata3, my other option would be to get the phenom II x6 1055T and get a nice amd mobo and a 5850 gpu, i have access 2 a ud7 amd mobo that costs a bit more than the ud4p, the other problem is that i own my own business, we buy from rectron, they only stock intel cpus, so if i want a amd il have 2 buy it 4rm somewhere else that is more expensive. Rectron do stock amd mobos tho but the only discrete mobo is the ud7 meaning that il also have to buy my motherboard 4rm somewhere else which is more expensive, any advice?
m
0
l
!