Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Value: Phenom II X4 BE, i5-750, or Phenom II X6 1055T

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2010 10:52:31 PM

I'm building a new gaming rig/ work pc (mainly need photoshop right now, but may need support for video editing later). I've been doing a lot of research and recently settled on a Asus DirectCu 5850 as my GPU. Now I'm trying to come up with the right motherboard/cpu combination but I'm finding a lot of mixed reviews about which processor to go with. I've read the THG review from a couple days ago that compared the i5-750 to the 1090T but the results really didn't seem all that conclusive and I'm not sure I found the article all that helpful. Especially since I wanted to know more about the 1055T. Checking around other websites has led me to similar confusion so I've decided to turn to these fine forums which have so far been invaluable in helping me become better informed about my upcoming purchase.

Which processor overall is recommended for my usage? Which offers the best value for my dollar? HD is important to me which is why I chose the card I did. Will any of these processors bottleneck my GPU?

Edit: I think it's important to note I'm not afraid to overclock and the potential to pull extra out of my components is something I'm interested in since it adds value to my dollar. I'm trying to keep the system relatively quiet on air which is why my case is a CoolerMaster HAF 922: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
May 17, 2010 12:12:12 AM

i5 750 HANDS DOWN.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 1:24:13 AM

Slayer697 said:
I'm building a new gaming rig/ work pc (mainly need photoshop right now, but may need support for video editing later). I've been doing a lot of research and recently settled on a Asus DirectCu 5850 as my GPU. Now I'm trying to come up with the right motherboard/cpu combination but I'm finding a lot of mixed reviews about which processor to go with. I've read the THG review from a couple days ago that compared the i5-750 to the 1090T but the results really didn't seem all that conclusive and I'm not sure I found the article all that helpful. Especially since I wanted to know more about the 1055T. Checking around other websites has led me to similar confusion so I've decided to turn to these fine forums which have so far been invaluable in helping me become better informed about my upcoming purchase.

Which processor overall is recommended for my usage? Which offers the best value for my dollar? HD is important to me which is why I chose the card I did. Will any of these processors bottleneck my GPU?

Edit: I think it's important to note I'm not afraid to overclock and the potential to pull extra out of my components is something I'm interested in since it adds value to my dollar. I'm trying to keep the system relatively quiet on air which is why my case is a CoolerMaster HAF 922: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...


Well for gaming, the core i5 750 and the Phenom II x4 955 are virtually the same in terms of overall performance.

Photoshop, i would have to say the same thing.

Video editing, debatable. depending on the program, if it can use the 6 cores of the Phenom II x6, this will be the best cpu. If not, it will be up to you.


Now when you factor in overclocking, i would give it to the core i5 750 (2.66) as it starts at a lower GHz than phenom II x4 955 (3.2), and it reaches to the same GHz speed at around 3.8 to 4.

Overall though, i think you'll be fine with any of the setups.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 17, 2010 4:27:22 AM

First off do NOT get the x6 because if gaming is primary and you will only be doing a little video editing than it will be a bad buy.

The i5 750 is superior to the 965 in gaming as well as other tasks. The only catch is that its $20-40 more.

Also warmon, he specifically said he would not be overclocking.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 4:58:52 AM

amk09 said:
i5 750 HANDS DOWN.

+1. As long as OP is aware that it is end of the road for the 1156 Intel socket and he have no future plans to do 5850 in crossfire due to x8x8 limitation of the 1156.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 6:30:41 AM

with 965 is out of the picture. 1055T overclocked is a beast unleashed, not to say that the i5 isnt, but x6 is going to be a more futureproof solution. besides, you should be more concerned with GPU than CPU for a gaming rig, the difference in frame rates with these CPU's are negligible compared to performance gain by upgrading to a better GPU. with that said, you'r CPU will not likely become bottleneck for your GPU at this point.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 7:35:32 AM

amk09 said:
First off do NOT get the x6 because if gaming is primary and you will only be doing a little video editing than it will be a bad buy.

The i5 750 is superior to the 965 in gaming as well as other tasks. The only catch is that its $20-40 more.

Also warmon, he specifically said he would not be overclocking.


I actually said "I'm not afraid to overclock," so quite the opposite. That being said, the i5-750 was one of two chips first recommended but I've been trying to figure out if it's better than the 1055T because I can buy both for the same price at a local tiger direct.

Warmon: which setup do you recommend though? Being able to upgrade in the future is something I'm keeping in mind, although I'm trying to weigh out its true benefit since it seems like the AM3 socket is nearing the end as well.

Randomkid: I want to keep the option for 5850 crossfire open. It's my understanding that the x8x8 limitation of the 1156 isn't a particularly big issue. I wasn't able to find a lot of useful information about x8x8 vs x16x16, but what was I was able to find all seemed to say that for my 5850s x8x8 shouldn't result in much of a dip in performance if any at all. THG graphics card forum posters have echoed similar sentiments. Do you have any insight you can share?

Part of me wants to keep this as an intel chipset in case macintosh decides to support 5xxx cards in future mac computers, but I'm starting to think it might just be better to custom build a hackintosh down the road than to hope my build gets lucky and just works. I would certainly go with an AMD board if its value was greater than an intel board. Reading what some people are saying about getting their 1055Ts up to 4.0 on just air and still running relatively cool, I'm interested to get more perspective on the AMD vs intel debate.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 8:07:23 AM

The difference between x8 x8 and x16 x16 is not really noticable unless your a numbers freak, maybe a few fps.

And sorry for misreading your initial post, but fyi the i5 750 is a great overclocker and can perform on par the the i7 930.

I really just don't think you need 6 cores, it won't really benefit you in any way.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 8:34:57 AM

amk09 said:
I really just don't think you need 6 cores, it won't really benefit you in any way.


I really don't understand the whole concept of "you don't need 6 cores so don't buy it".

if they have the money for it, I don't see why not. the OP does state he will be doing video editing later so a 6-core would be a great choice here. I not talking about gaming performance here, i'm talking about future-proofing your investment. sure, a lot of games right now do not utilize 6-core, thats not to say games will NEVER utilize 6-core in the future, people said the same-thing about dual cores years ago, and then they said the same-thing regarding quad-cores, but guess what? technology is an ever-evolving concept, get used to it. but to be honest, not everything revolves around games, people do mature and eventually grow out of it, and use their PC for things other than pure entertainment-- such as WORK, the OP obviously is going to be using his PC for cpu-intensive graphic/video work so to answer his question, YES 6-core if you can afford it!
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 8:46:25 AM

arterius2 said:
I really don't understand the whole concept of "you don't need 6 cores so don't buy it".

if they have the money for it, I don't see why not. the OP does state he will be doing video editing later so a 6-core would be a great choice here. I not talking about gaming performance here, i'm talking about future-proofing your investment. sure, a lot of games right now do not utilize 6-core, thats not to say games will NEVER utilize 6-core in the future, people said the same-thing about dual cores years ago, and then they said the same-thing regarding quad-cores, but guess what? technology is an ever-evolving concept, get used to it. but to be honest, not everything revolves around games, people do mature and eventually grow out of it, and use their PC for things other than pure entertainment-- such as WORK, the OP obviously is going to be using his PC for cpu-intensive graphic/video work so to answer his question, YES 6-core if you can afford it!


Yes but he will get less gaming performance out of the x6 than he will from a x4 965 or a i5 750. That's all i'm trying to say. On top of that an OC'ed i5 750 will be more than adequate for any video editing he'll be doing.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 8:59:30 AM

amk09 said:
Yes but he will get less gaming performance out of the x6 than he will from a x4 965 or a i5 750. That's all i'm trying to say. On top of that an OC'ed i5 750 will be more than adequate for any video editing he'll be doing.


I want to make it clear on this thread, as most people may not be aware that the hex-core thubans are implemented with "turbo-cores", when setup correctly (via BIOS), it works a little differently than intel's. the 1050T can actually "turn-off"(low power state) the un-used cores and use the extra saved energy to boost the remaining cores. this actually gives the x6 CPU's a clear advantage over the X4's @ the same clock

for example: if all 6 cores are clocked at 3.2ghz, and the user is playing a game that only utilize 3 cores, the 3 idle cores will be ran in a low-power state (800mhz), while the other 3 cores will receive a boost to lets say 3.8ghz, thus improving performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 11:09:03 AM

Slayer697 said:

Randomkid: I want to keep the option for 5850 crossfire open. It's my understanding that the x8x8 limitation of the 1156 isn't a particularly big issue. I wasn't able to find a lot of useful information about x8x8 vs x16x16, but what was I was able to find all seemed to say that for my 5850s x8x8 shouldn't result in much of a dip in performance if any at all. THG graphics card forum posters have echoed similar sentiments. Do you have any insight you can share?

Part of me wants to keep this as an intel chipset in case macintosh decides to support 5xxx cards in future mac computers, but I'm starting to think it might just be better to custom build a hackintosh down the road than to hope my build gets lucky and just works. I would certainly go with an AMD board if its value was greater than an intel board. Reading what some people are saying about getting their 1055Ts up to 4.0 on just air and still running relatively cool, I'm interested to get more perspective on the AMD vs intel debate.

I also do not have good reference for the x8x8 vs x16x16 issue but I heard that the higher you go on the GPU scale, the more performance dip.
I think CPU wise, you can not go wrong with the i5 750 or the 1055T. The only issue is where you get the better platform. The 890 chipset for AMD apart from ensuring x16x16 for your crossfire also have the added benefit of USB3.0 and SATA 6GB. How important these are to you will probably tip the balance for your choice.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 3:17:36 PM

Well USB 3.0 and SATA 6GB are both things I want so the question then is: is one solution a better value than the other. I don't think I'll need x16 support. From what I understand it's really more noticeable at higher resolutions, and I plan on sticking to HD. Unless someone can provide convincing evidence for x16 of course. Maybe I'll ask the mobo forum about this as well.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 6:42:59 PM

If you're an overclocker and you have a quality mobo/RAM go for the 1055T. Else go Phenom II 955 and learn how to change a multiplier.

Honestly, Phenom II is a bit behind i5 in gaming. With a single 5850, a Phenom II is plenty, but crossfire a 2nd and you may have some bottlenecking. Little benchmarks show this difference because almost all of them use a 5870 or weaker in their reviews.

Tbh if you want 5850 crossfire i'd go i5 and OC.

For a single 5850 Phenom II all the way.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 7:40:16 PM

I would say go with the 1055T if you are planning on using to do work. The extra performance will not help you when gaming but will make a difference when running heavy applications.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 7:45:24 PM

Raidur said:
If you're an overclocker and you have a quality mobo/RAM go for the 1055T. Else go Phenom II 955 and learn how to change a multiplier.

Honestly, Phenom II is a bit behind i5 in gaming. With a single 5850, a Phenom II is plenty, but crossfire a 2nd and you may have some bottlenecking. Little benchmarks show this difference because almost all of them use a 5870 or weaker in their reviews.

Tbh if you want 5850 crossfire i'd go i5 and OC.

For a single 5850 Phenom II all the way.


I'm a bit confused it seems like you're recommending both the i5-750 and the 1055T. I haven't really picked my motherboard yet which is part of the reason I want advice on the processor. If you could clarify I'd appreciate it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2010 10:43:31 PM

Kind of. :p 

The first paragraph I was comparing only the 1055T and the 955.

The second one I was comparing the i5-750 to Phenom II (in general).

I do end up recommending both, but state circumstances/benefits. Phenom II being obviously better at encoding or on the wallet (expected knowledge and not my main point so not included), and i5 being higher performing when you have enough GPU power to show it.

Just stating because I keep seeing the 750 being placed close in performance to deneb when its really in a class of its own, its just overkill on most reviews. Its like saying the Phenom I is a hair less in gaming than a q9400/q6600 because most of the reviews used an 8800GT. If you know what I mean.
m
0
l
May 17, 2010 11:35:40 PM

Raidur said:
Its like saying the Phenom I is a hair less in gaming than a q9400/q6600 because most of the reviews used an 8800GT. If you know what I mean.


You'll have to pardon me if I don't. I've just recently got back into PCs after 4 years of owning a mac and almost 6 years of service from my previous PC which a friend built for me.

I want to say I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I really do. Are you saying that the processor is irrelevant because of the power of my selected GPU? If so is it because it's too powerful or not powerful enough?

I'm going to be turning to the motherboard forums soon enough to help me decide on which CPU may be better suited for me after looking at which motherboards I'll have to pair them with.

As for the Phenom II being better on the wallet, tiger direct is selling both the i5-750 and the 1055T at the same price: $209. If there's something I'm not understanding I'll be glad if you set me straight! :D 
m
0
l
May 18, 2010 1:48:41 AM

I think what we're trying to say here is, 1055T is a bargain for its performance - if you know how to utilize it, its actually harder than it sounds because most kids on this forum these days only care about gaming performance. with all cores fired up, this cpu can output some serious calculating power. if you find the right stores, a 1055T could be had for about $150
m
0
l
May 18, 2010 3:03:29 PM

Raidur said:
With a single 5850, a Phenom II is plenty, but crossfire a 2nd and you may have some bottlenecking.


Why are you propagating this myth and pretending that it is somehow true?

Please note that the legionhardware reviews often quoted to justify this myth do NOT show the Phenom II bottlenecks in any way. Those articles show the i7 doing slightly better in a few of the games. But if you look closely at the delta (i.e., difference between each score) for each game you see that both chips scale almost exactly the same. And that article was done with 2x 5870. Claiming the same thing about the 5850 would be purposefully propagating something untrue. Claiming it for the i5 is even less true.

Actually if you look closely at those delta you see that the Phenom II scales slightly better in a few of the games and no worse in the rest. So sadly that article shows that the Intel chips do not scale as well as the AMD chips. People tend to ignore these facts by focusing only on the scores themselves and not how they compare to each other.

Or have you guys found another article that justifies this myth?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2010 3:15:39 PM

keithlm said:
Why are you propagating this myth and pretending that it is somehow true?

Please note that the legionhardware reviews often quoted to justify this myth do NOT show the Phenom II bottlenecks in any way. Those articles show the i7 doing slightly better in a few of the games. But if you look closely at the delta (i.e., difference between each score) for each game you see that both chips scale almost exactly the same. And that article was done with 2x 5870. Claiming the same thing about the 5850 would be purposefully propagating something untrue. Claiming it for the i5 is even less true.

Actually if you look closely at those delta you see that the Phenom II scales slightly better in a few of the games and no worse in the rest. So sadly that article shows that the Intel chips do not scale as well as the AMD chips. People tend to ignore these facts by focusing only on the scores themselves and not how they compare to each other.

Or have you guys found another article that justifies this myth?

Thank you…

I have said that to him before and he always brings it up in any form relating to i5 and PII. He always uses the same article as well which shows nothing.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 12:46:42 PM

Days later and much reading have gone by and still I haven't been able to find a clear indication of which route to go. It's starting to seem like both an i5-750 and a 1055T with comparable mobos are going to cost about the same and offer relatively similar performance. What it's really going to come down to is brand preference in the processor/mobo combo.

I'm starting to lean away from crossfire as the prospect of just getting a better card in a couple years (and selling my 5850) is starting to seem much more attractive.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 12:53:44 PM

pretty sure 6-core 1055T will give you better performance overall.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 3:33:04 PM

Slayer697 said:

I'm starting to lean away from crossfire as the prospect of just getting a better card in a couple years (and selling my 5850) is starting to seem much more attractive.

With more & more features coming out of each new GPU series, it's hard to consider buying an old GPU model for crossfire with a GPU you bought 6months to 1 year ago. So I think your on right track to lean away from crossfiring.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 5:28:52 PM

After a couple more days worth of research I'm finding that for an ideal overclock that doesn't draw a ton of power the i5-750 is probably going to be the best solution. The 1055T looked like an attractive solution until I started seeing some of the number reviewers were hitting for wattage in the 4.0+ clock rates. Looks like the 1055T starts sucking a ton of power the higher you go, while this THG article on optimal i5-750 clock rate to power consumption ratio shed some interesting light on the i5-750:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-750-efficie...

Reviews all seem to point to 4.0 clocks being relatively normal with the i5-750 as well which leaves the 1055T with only the additional cores as an advantage. The 1055T has also boasted some cool temperatures in the reviews I've seen which is another plus for that chip.

Since my machine will most likely be used for mainly gaming and less intensive graphical work, I'm pretty sure the i5-750 has come out as the winner here unless some evidence surfaces in support of the 1055T as a gaming chip.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 6:00:36 PM

newer games coming out of the pipeline will support more multi-cores, for example, crysis 2. the quad-core might sound sufficient now, but... can it play Crysis 2...? (sorry just had to let that one rip), with more available cores you can also allow more process to run in the background while you are enjoying your game, such as anti-virus, messenger, torrents, skype etc. those extra cores will come in real handy when you start bombarding your pc with softwares. try to future-proof your investment as much as you can, 1156 is a dead socket(while AMD's future bulldozers are confirmed AM3) simple rule of thumb really, never buy your computer for what you would use now, always plan ahead, like everything else you do in life.

P.S. intel-fanboys, im not trying to down-play intel's role in this, I would be more than happy to buy intel cpus at the right price. but just take what i have to say at face value, you are buying into a chip that's already 1 year old and a socket thats going to hit a dead end by the end of the year, just don't want you to regret this decision later on.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 6:25:53 PM

/facepalm with the b/s about 1156.
If your considering changing your cpu that you paid 200 dollars for within a year, you bought the wrong cpu in the first place.
edit: You need to buy within your budget , and the performance you get from your purchase now. If you want to be a fanboy and come up with these fairy tales, about dead platforms and bulldozer which we don't anything concrete. Why buy in to Thuban if its just a stepping stone, for AMD, that they are going to abandon for Bulldozer ?
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 6:40:58 PM

not going to start a debate about the longevity of 1156 socket,
but we all know that Intel is probably going to introduce a new socket down the road for their new architecture, regardless of how often people change their cpus, my suggestion is for the OP to consider a more future-proof investment, whether you believe this is true or not, is whole other story.

with that aside, I do in-fact change my cpu on a 1-year cycle, because my work demands this, I in-fact lose more money by not upgrading. so everyone have different needs, don't assume you are the rule.

edit: You want to make this personal, I bought into Thuban because i make more money by doing this, you got a serious problem with that? Computer is a tool in which I use to make a living, in few month's time I could very well be running Bulldozer or Sandybridge- if Intel play their cards right, I'm not a fanboy, my previous cpu was also Intel, just because I'm running AMD right now doesnt make me an AMD fanboy. I just happened to make smart choices. Any further argument on this matter is pointless, I gave my opinion, either take it or leave it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 10:43:24 PM

keithlm said:
Why are you propagating this myth and pretending that it is somehow true?

Please note that the legionhardware reviews often quoted to justify this myth do NOT show the Phenom II bottlenecks in any way. Those articles show the i7 doing slightly better in a few of the games. But if you look closely at the delta (i.e., difference between each score) for each game you see that both chips scale almost exactly the same. And that article was done with 2x 5870. Claiming the same thing about the 5850 would be purposefully propagating something untrue. Claiming it for the i5 is even less true.

Actually if you look closely at those delta you see that the Phenom II scales slightly better in a few of the games and no worse in the rest. So sadly that article shows that the Intel chips do not scale as well as the AMD chips. People tend to ignore these facts by focusing only on the scores themselves and not how they compare to each other.

Or have you guys found another article that justifies this myth?


The scaling is not the same, let's use crysis since its the most 'fair' game in the review.

Crysis warhead 1680x1050

I7 3.6 - 4.0ghz
Min FPS: 2% increase
Avg FPS: 9% increase

AMD 3.6 - 4.0ghz
Min FPS: ~35% increase
Avg FPS: ~15% increase

I7 3.2 - 3.6ghz
Min FPS: 10% increase
Avg FPS: 7% increase

AMD 3.2 - 3.6ghz
Min FPS: 32% increase
Avg FPS: 9% increase

The reason I call this bottlenecking is because if a weaker GPU setup was used, such as a single 5870, the CPUs would perform extremely similar to one another. Yet once you up the GPU setup the i7 'magically' takes a significant lead.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 10:47:22 PM

Also AMD tends to lead slightly at times when the GPU is the bottleneck, as you can also see in the 25x16 resolution bench below this one.

I do agree however that we need more data. Hopefully a review comes out comparing these CPUs using faster GPUs so we can find Phenom II's true limit. And if even i7 is somewhat bottlenecking these new high-end cards.

Time will tell!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2010 10:58:02 PM

Pro Llama said:
Thank you…

I have said that to him before and he always brings it up in any form relating to i5 and PII. He always uses the same article as well which shows nothing.


I only bring it up when I read, "Phenom II 965(955) and i5-750 are equal (close) in gaming."

I use that article because it is the ONLY one comparing AMD/intel using something stronger than a 5870. Actually it shows intel leading significantly in fair games and dominating in CPU bound/intel friendly games.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 11:38:16 PM

I'm guessing that by your use of the word "fair" you actually mean the one result that would statistically be thrown out as being worthless since the results are anomalous and inconsistent compared to the other results.

And you completely failed to actually show a bottleneck even with those anomalous results. But you continue to claim there is one even when the rest of the results in the review YOU keep quoting contradict your conclusion and show that the AMD chips continually scales consistantly when compared to the Intel chip. (On all of the benchmarks except for... YOU GUESSED IT... the one you have falsely chosen as being "fair".)

The one thing you did mention is that the Intel friendly games prefer the Intel chips. (Dr. Obvious.)

And you are correct we need more data. To continually claim that the PhII is bottlenecking with no actual evidence showing that to be the case would not be very intelligent.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2010 1:14:21 AM

I call it the fair one due to it being the only one that doesn't tend to lean towards another CPU when IPC is the same.

Stalker is the only exception here (the rest of the games are a little more CPU bound), and as it does follow what you say, however crysis doesn't.

According to this information we are both right.

We need more info, and until then we can agree to disagree.

I know its hard to see AMD's best not hold up but you have to remember their IPC is still less than Core2Quad.
m
0
l
May 20, 2010 2:38:13 PM

I've heard many good points for both the 1055T and the i5-750. I've been leaning towards the i5-750 but I've come to two questions I didn't really have before:

1. Is future proofing all that important? It sounds like both the AM3 and 1156 socket are going to be obsolete in 2 years. I guess I could get the AM3 socket and be able to upgrade to Bulldozer, but is that one upgrade really enough to justify going with AMD?

2. Which chip would be better if I wanted to record video while playing games?

I think these two questions will be the final deciding factor for me as it seems that power usage is mostly irrelevant (not enough to seriously impact the bills) and both chips look to be fine for both overclocking and heat generation.
m
0
l
May 20, 2010 3:07:53 PM

1. I know that I brought up this subject in my previous post, but I'm going to be fair on this one - No, future-proofing is not all that important, but it should carry some weight in your buying decisions. In the end, it really depends on you, do you see yourself moving on to a new platform in the not-so-distant future?, or are you the type who likes to hold onto their money and spend it when absolutely necessary. Of course money will play an important role here, if you got the money to spend on hardware, I don't see future-proofing as a real problem, because possibly a year from now, you would probably buy into a whole new platform. However, I'm going to have to give AMD credit here though for having a rock-solid socket platform over the past years, ever since the AM2/AM2+ days.

2. Under multi-threaded conditions, one of the main reasons that i7 CPU's has a lead over the AMD is due to their hyper-threading technology, you take that away(i5-750), and both CPUs are in the same ballpark, which now comes down to cores, the 1055T having more cores, will generally perform better than the i5-750 when multi-threading/multi-tasking are pushed to their limits. So to answer your question, if you are playing a multi-core-intensive game, for example, the up-coming Crysis 2, and want to record video at the same time, this is a no-brainer as 1055T will definitely be the optimal choice.

Another thing to consider is that the 6-core Thubans are known to be cool-running, I can confirm for a fact that when pushed to their maximum with a good air-cooling setup, you will still idle in the 20+C degree range, and 50ish degrees under load. the i5-750 however, when pushed too high, will run into heat issues, which if you poke around this forum, you will see few threads regarding this.

This is my Thuban running air-cooled with Prolimatech Megahalems, and I live in the tropics.


P.S. Please do not feel obligated to empathize with what I have to say, in the end either choice you make is the right choice, 1055T and i5-750 are both excellent CPUs -performance and price wise, you will not regret this decision anyhow.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2010 7:21:58 PM

And keith if you look over the review again, more than half of the games follow what I say. Actually 4 of 6 do.
m
0
l
May 20, 2010 11:53:08 PM

Raidur said:
And keith if you look over the review again, more than half of the games follow what I say. Actually 4 of 6 do.



The tests show that AMD and Intel scale almost exactly the same. (I.e., they maintain the same delta.)

This means that anybody claiming this review shows AMD to be bottlenecking are saying that the Intel bottenecks by about same amount. (Which means they can't advocate either chip for gaming purposes.)

To make things a bit more clear... here is a graph showing the delta percentages (y axis) vs frequency (x axis) for that test: (Column F is low res and Column K is high res.) The highest frequency is the first one the left of the x axis going to the 2.0Ghz test on the far right. I don't know why the frequencies got shifted left...



Please point out where you see a bottleneck; the delta at low res remain basically almost the same. At high res the delta is not as consistent at 2.0Ghz but is fairly consistent the rest of the time. (SO I guess at 2.0GHz perhaps we are seeing a bottleneck on the high res test; but the rest of the time we don't.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 12:48:39 AM

1. Crysis Warhead, which we agreed on.

2. Farcry 2, this one it is most obvious. I7 showing less than 1% increase from 3.2 to 4.0.
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

3. World in conflict, minimum FPS stays the same 3.6-4.0ghz, avg fps goes up by 5%, half as much as AMDs.

4. Company of Heroes shows a ~2% increase for i7 from 3.6 to 4.0ghz.

4 of the 6 titles show the Phenom II is bottlenecking the GPUs. The Phenom II chip scales almost linear all the way to 4ghz, where as the i7 obviously doesn't. This means the i7 has reached its max (or near max) allowed FPS with those GPUs (usually at 3.6ghz), meaning the GPU is the limiting factor..
m
0
l
May 21, 2010 4:29:52 AM

Raidur said:
4 of the 6 titles show the Phenom II is bottlenecking the GPUs.


Your claim that 4 of the 6 titles show the Phenom II bottlenecking is not correct. (Because they don't... and your theory doesn't explain why both AMD and Intel scale with basically the same delta. If they didn't then you COULD have a possible working theory. But since they DO scale the same your theory falls to the ground.)

Your logic has not proven that the AMD is bottlenecking the GPU in any of those benchmarks.

Which is why we need more data on this issue and can't just rely on a single review to reach a definitive conclusion. Doing that is bad science. (Or a sign of an extreme fanboy.)
m
0
l
May 21, 2010 7:36:04 AM

Just found i5 750 is on sale, currently there's a good price on centralcomputer.
m
0
l
May 21, 2010 7:47:42 AM

kurumba said:
Just found i5 750 is on sale, currently there's a good price on centralcomputer.


Over where I live the 1055T and the i5-750 are about the same price. So really the only decision to be made is which will offer better performance for me.
m
0
l
a c 113 à CPUs
May 21, 2010 1:36:47 PM

Slayer697 said:
Over where I live the 1055T and the i5-750 are about the same price. So really the only decision to be made is which will offer better performance for me.


Buy a Phenom 955BE.

If you are in the US the Phenom 955BE C3 / MSI 890FXA-GD70 AM3 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3 combo is $315 AR.

If you are not in the US .... :kaola: 














:D 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 5:10:19 PM

Did you just not read that post keith? Are we looking at the same review???

In 4 of the 6 tests the i7s gain nearly no increase in performance from 3.6ghz(sometimes 3.2), meaning there is NO CPU bottleneck.

In ALL tests Phenom II scales linear all the way to 4ghz, meaning if it went to 4.4ghz the FPS would likely keep going up (toward intel's numbers) meaning BOTTLENECK.

The scaling is not NEARLY the same 3.6-4.0.
How does this not show bottlenecking???
m
0
l
May 21, 2010 7:53:29 PM

Raidur said:
Did you just not read that post keith? Are we looking at the same review???

In 4 of the 6 tests the i7s gain nearly no increase in performance from 3.6ghz(sometimes 3.2), meaning there is NO CPU bottleneck.

In ALL tests Phenom II scales linear all the way to 4ghz, meaning if it went to 4.4ghz the FPS would likely keep going up (toward intel's numbers) meaning BOTTLENECK.

The scaling is not NEARLY the same 3.6-4.0.
How does this not show bottlenecking???



They all have basically the same delta between AMD and Intel brands at all of the various frequencies.

That means that both brands scale the same as the frequency changes.

That means that neither brand CPU bottlenecks the video card. OR both brands bottleneck equally. Please select one or the other.
m
0
l
May 21, 2010 8:34:24 PM

Since you seem confused I have created a set of graphs to help you visualize.

The BLUE lines are the lower res and the orange lines are higher res. The left is the higher 4.0 frequency. The BLACK line is the zero delta point or no difference in performance between both the PhII and the i7 chips.

NOTE: If you see the blue or orange line go towards the black line on the left of the graphs that means that as the frequency goes up that the AMD chip is scaling better than the Intel chip. There is no visible or obvious bottleneck, however we can see that the AMD CPU does however scale better than the Intel as the frequency goes up.

If both brands perfectly scaled identically compared to each other then the lines would be perfectly flat.

I know you'll probably not like what you see so you'll just dismiss the graphs. However, you can easily recreate the graphs by charting percentage difference between each game score for each brand at each frequency. (And of course for each resolution to create the second line.) Then put it into a graph.




(Yes I hate that the higher frequency is on the left... but as I pulled the numbers from the review it went from the highest to the lowest so that is how I entered them into the spreadsheet. And I don't feel like redoing both the spreadsheet and the graphs... since the only "bad" thing is the highest frequency is on the left.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2010 11:51:11 PM

Slayer697 said:
Over where I live the 1055T and the i5-750 are about the same price. So really the only decision to be made is which will offer better performance for me.

You may want to consider motherboard supported features too, like SATA 6GB & USB3.0 available in the AMD 890 chipset.
And think about the limited x8x8 in 1156 if you go towards the 2xGPU route ( although it may not matter too much performance wise ).
m
0
l
May 22, 2010 2:43:58 AM

randomkid said:
You may want to consider motherboard supported features too, like SATA 6GB & USB3.0 available in the AMD 890 chipset.
And think about the limited x8x8 in 1156 if you go towards the 2xGPU route ( although it may not matter too much performance wise ).


I've narrowed down my motherboard choices to just 4:

ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3
Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5
Gigabyte GA-P55-UD3

I've never used Gigabyte before so I'm a bit afraid to make the jump, but they all seem like solid boards. The first 3 are all in the same price range though with only the last one fitting a budget build. Unless I'm mistaken they all have SATA 6GB and USB3.0 so it's a moot point. At this point I'm looking exclusively at processor performance. I think I'd have already gone with the 1055T if I wasn't afraid that it's going to limit me when it comes to gaming. After all THG also voted the i5-750 the top gaming processor, and as far as everything else goes it's stood up pretty well against everything but the best threaded apps.

The real question is this: will an i5-750 take a big performance hit if I use video recording software to record myself gaming? Will the 1055T handle this that much better or will the difference be relatively negligible (10-15%).

As for x8x8, extensive research has led me to the conclusion that it would be largely irrelevant for my resolution preference and two 5850s. Advice from people on the forums is that I should just upgrade to a better card in a year or two instead of running crossfire. In fact, I think one of them was you, perhaps even in this very thread ;) 

I'm reading up every forum post/thread I can on the i5-750/1055T dilemma. It seems I'm not the only one torn between these two chips.

Is socket 1156 really dead? Is it a socket Intel has stated they will not support in the future, or are people just going on their gut feeling?
m
0
l
May 22, 2010 4:27:08 AM

Quote:
1156 is DEAD. Intel has already announced LGA1155, and new products (based on Sandy Bridge) is going to be released on that socket, which isnt pin compatible with 1156(even-though its just a 1pin difference). All you can upgrade if you get the 750 is higher binned Nehalems, which is pretty pointless.


I see. How will AMD's AM3 fare by comparison? Which processor do you recommend?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2010 3:46:52 PM

Quote:
1156 is DEAD. Intel has already announced LGA1155, and new products (based on Sandy Bridge) is going to be released on that socket, which isnt pin compatible with 1156(even-though its just a 1pin difference). All you can upgrade if you get the 750 is higher binned Nehalems, which is pretty pointless.


:pfff:  Lga 1156 is not dead yet.

1. There nearly 1/2 a dozen cpus still planned for this year to launch. (Pentium G6951 and Core i7-880 are some examples)

2. It wont be dead until intel has fully switch over to the new socket. (like how LGA 775 wasn't dead until the beginning of this year.)

Thats just like saying AM3 socket is dead now because we know AM3r2 (or what ever the next amd socket name is) is coming around the conner.

Just because we know there a new socket coming around to replace the current socket, doesn't mean it's dead. It just means it's time is coming just like everything else.

m
0
l
!