Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 750 better CPU of Phenom x6 1090T Black Edition (in gaming)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 8, 2010 10:48:23 PM

Hi, guys is this really?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-phenom-ii-co...

i5 750 is better of Phenom x6 1090T Black Edition (in gaming)???
Also i5 750 is better of Phenom II X4 Black Edition 965...

I can't believe in that...
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2010 12:15:21 AM

Then don't believe it. I don't. :pt1cable: 

Well actually, based on everything I have read, and no personal experience, the i5 750 will perform the same or slightly better than the 955...
The old i5 750 vs Phenom II 955, and more recently, 965, has been beaten to death. It is generally accepted that The i5 will perform better overall. I would love to test this myself, but I unfortunately don't have the money or equipment.

Here's a great compilation of various benchmarks from a lot of different sources.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272741-28-truth-pheno...
June 9, 2010 12:28:04 AM

enzo matrix said:
Then don't believe it. I don't. :pt1cable: 

Well actually, based on everything I have read, and no personal experience, the i5 750 will perform the same or slightly better than the 955...
The old i5 750 vs Phenom II 955, and more recently, 965, has been beaten to death. It is generally accepted that The i5 will perform better overall. I would love to test this myself, but I unfortunately don't have the money or equipment.

Here's a great compilation of various benchmarks from a lot of different sources.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272741-28-truth-pheno...

Ok, than what you say on this?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=109 Compared with 965, not 955.
Related resources
June 9, 2010 12:40:36 AM

You give me link to look how 965 is better and faster of i5 750 but you don't look enough. There it's cleary i5 750 totaly beat Phenom x4 II 965

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/272741-10-truth-phe...

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.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2010 12:42:04 AM

Misko195 said:
Ok, than what you say on this?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=109 Compared with 965, not 955.


Lol dude. Since "higher is better", the gaming benchmarks are on the bottom, and with the link you gave me the 965 is blue and the i5 is black, I'd say that anandtech has just held up that the i5 is better to such an extreme, with the exception of Batman.

What do you make of this?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/16

We could go on all day, but at the end of the day, what I linked you to sums up the average.

I also make note that the three games listed on the anandtech benchmark comparison where the i5 makes a massive win, I cannot find in any other benchmark sites that tested those games: Dragon Age, WoW and Dawn of War II. No one else seems to have tested them. This is interesting.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2010 12:47:39 AM

Misko195 said:
You give me link to look how 965 is better and faster of i5 750 but you don't look enough. There it's cleary i5 750 totaly beat Phenom x4 II 965

When I looked at that thread, I was never given the impression that "965 is better and faster of i5 750", nor did I state it. I just found that link that had a whole bunch of different benchmarks that summed up the common acceptance that, as I stated before, "the i5 performs better overall." SORRY for trying to be helpful.

If you set this up as a flame thread and just want an argument and are trying to make it sound like I think the 965 is better, so you can flame, then go somewhere else.
June 9, 2010 12:55:51 AM

Ok men, you'r AMD fan, im Intel fan. We can all day, yes. I5 750 is faster in some app and game, also and 965 is faster in some app and game. Can't be compared :D 
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2010 12:56:54 AM

Misko195 said:
Ok men, you'r AMD fan, im Intel fan. We can all day, yes. I5 750 is faster in some app and game, also and 965 is faster in some app and game. Can't be compared :D 

WTF dude? I'm an AMD fan because I think that the i5 is a better CPU?
June 9, 2010 10:47:34 AM

enzo matrix said:
WTF dude? I'm an AMD fan because I think that the i5 is a better CPU?

You always tell me how PIIX4 965 is better of i5 750, i don't know, maybe :(  ... And becouse that i think you'r AMD fan.

But nevermind :)  it's ok...
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2010 11:14:48 AM

This topic has been discussed so many times on so many CPU sites. Overall, the general census is the i5 750 is the better gaming CPU, at stock and when overclocked. The 750 has a lot of overclocking head room versus both the AMD CPU's. It's not uncommon for the 750 to hit 4Ghz with a good air cooler. If I was going to build a pure gaming system right now, I would get the i5 750.
June 9, 2010 1:03:13 PM

runswindows95 said:
This topic has been discussed so many times on so many CPU sites. Overall, the general census is the i5 750 is the better gaming CPU, at stock and when overclocked. The 750 has a lot of overclocking head room versus both the AMD CPU's. It's not uncommon for the 750 to hit 4Ghz with a good air cooler. If I was going to build a pure gaming system right now, I would get the i5 750.

Maybe, but i look for first time on this topic :D ... It's realy useful...
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2010 2:23:23 PM

No nothing useful here. I can't believe you think some point is being made here ?
June 9, 2010 3:28:41 PM

From tomshardware's Best gaming CPU hierarchy chart, and many reviews, yes i5-750 is above 1090T.
If you plan to use more than two graphics cards in CrossFire or SLI, like tri or quad then get i7.
June 9, 2010 3:53:14 PM

triplebug said:
If you plan to use more than two graphics cards in CrossFire or SLI, like tri or quad then get i7.


People are STILL trying to propagate that incorrect myth?

There is no definitive proof of that myth; the only site with "proof" shows the AMD scaling almost exactly the same as the Intel. (Actually the results in that review show the AMD scaling slightly better.)

Sadly I have come to the conclusion that many of the people that propagate the myth don't understand the difference between scaling and relative performance. (They get the two confused, ergo the myth persists.)
June 9, 2010 3:59:29 PM

keithlm said:
People are STILL trying to propagate that incorrect myth?

There is no definitive proof of that myth; the only site with "proof" shows the AMD scaling almost exactly the same as the Intel. (Actually the results in that review show the AMD scaling slightly better.)

Sadly I have come to the conclusion that many of the people that propagate the myth don't understand the difference between scaling and relative performance. (They get the two confused, ergo the myth persists.)

Despo? I quoted this from tomshardware best june 2010 gaming cpu review.

Quote:
Perhaps the only performance-based justification we can think of for moving up from a Core i5-750 is that LGA 1156 processors have an inherent limit of 16 PCIe lanes for graphics use. This is an architectural detail that the LGA 1156-based Core i5 and Core i7 processors share, so if a gamer plans to use more than two graphics cards in CrossFire or SLI, the LGA 1366 Core i7-900-series processors are the way to go.
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2010 7:05:07 PM

I found a tomshardware review that FINALLY used a GPU strong enough (5970) to tell between high-end CPUs.

Quite a difference in the GPU bound games when Lynnfield/Deneb/Thuban are near clock4clock.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-875k-core-i...

3rd review I've found with GPUs strong enough to tell the difference between high end CPUs on a normal resolution. All 3 show a significant gain for lynnfield/nehalem over Phenom II.

Just need a few more until people start believing it!
a c 81 à CPUs
June 9, 2010 7:41:11 PM

The i5 750 is stronger by architecture to any AMD desktop solution out there.. So only it is able to compete (and even outperform) its competitors with even a lower clock speed.. But i wont tell this for gaming as at higher resolutions, the games become GPU dependent.. Thus, stronger the GPU, better the frames.. Comparing to the 6 core AMD cpu, i'd go with the AMD solution as developers have started to exploit quad cores and it wont be long enough wherein more cores would mean smoother performance.. I don't see any 6 core solution coming to the P55 ever so getting the AMD would be a smarter choice as they already have 6 core solutions (one might say inferior) and the AM3 platform is more likely to get cpu upgrades at a bigger scale as compared to the lynfield..
!