Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help AMD gaming cpu

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 19, 2010 8:33:13 PM

Hey guys, im new here... :p 
First all i pretend a gaming rig
Well i just want to ask your opinion\help about this, amd 965 3,4ghz or amd 1055t 2.8ghz ....
But i read one post "CPU Buyer's Guide 2.0" that 1055t isn´t good\recomended for gaming.
Also i want to buy a "futureproof" pc that last atleast 4 years or so .
My way to see: 965 stock = 3.4ghz per core, good :)  but 1055t 2.8ghz :S but 6 core... good too :) 

Reply please with if it would be your case what would you buy\do.ty :) 

More about : amd gaming cpu

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 19, 2010 8:43:13 PM

Anyone?
a c 897 à CPUs
a c 293 4 Gaming
a c 357 À AMD
June 19, 2010 8:59:17 PM

The 965 is better for gaming! There are no games out that can utilize all cores on the X6. The higher speed on the 965 makes it a better gaming CPU.
Where the X6 comes in, is for people with lots of ram and do a lot multitasking.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
June 19, 2010 9:21:07 PM

Thank you both for answering :D 
965 stable has 3.4ghz its better, about 1055t for oc i need good cooler, i dont own any one :(  so please could you reply again
Also 965 will be futureproof?
Hmm if i would buy x6 what psu power (w) would i use?
graphics: gtx 470
ram:8gb
hdd:640gb + 80ssd or 100ssd
mobo:Asus M4A89GTD
Any sugestion?
June 19, 2010 11:22:23 PM

also you dont need anything more than the stock cooler to oc the 1055t, i dont even think you need to raise the voltage.
June 19, 2010 11:22:49 PM

What Psychosaysdie said is correct. And to rolli- i dont trust the tomshardware review, i feel like there was something wrong with the motherboard because when the 1090t is overclocked it has worse performance than stock in some tests... this is a sign of throttling. At the same clock thuban performs a bit better in games than the 965. most other hardware sight tests prove this. especially in rts games.
a c 897 à CPUs
a c 293 4 Gaming
a c 357 À AMD
June 20, 2010 1:35:49 AM

Quote:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomiix6_042610231918/22636.png

X6 @ 3.2Ghz pulls alittle better framre's then a 965 @ 3.4Ghz

For what price difference? That is a 1090 not 1055. It is reasonable to believe that the 1055 can be clocked to 3.2-3.4GHz on air but the 965 can be clocked to 3.7-3.8 GHz on air.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 20, 2010 3:20:23 PM

Quote:
Also i want to buy a "futureproof" pc that last atleast 4 years or so .
My way to see: 965 stock = 3.4ghz per core, good :)  but 1055t 2.8ghz :S but 6 core... good too :) 


Realistically, there is no such thing as "futureproofing". You are better off purchasing what you need now, then upgrading as you need to down the road. It is much more cost effective. I can see you keeping a computer built today for 2-3 years, realistically.
June 20, 2010 3:28:37 PM

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Dont do this to yourself!
AMD will be releasing the Bulldozer cpus in 2011!
They will have :o  16 :o  blerrie cores, now thats futureproofing....
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 21, 2010 1:46:57 AM

correction: The desktop model with the bulldozer core is called Zambezi and has up to 8 cores. Why someone would go for the 16-core overpriced server bulldozer for personal use is beyond me. Especially since they normally have lower clocks. In AMD's definition, 1 module=2 cores.

But as you can see, technology is always moving forward at a rapid and unpredictable pace. Get what you need now and only upgrade when you are unhappy with your current performance; not when you see the new processors and want them just because they are better.
June 21, 2010 7:04:52 AM

Correction: You cannot correct me, as everything i said was true. Your system sees the CPU as 16 cores, even though there are only 8 physical ones. Once upon a time, 1 core was the baseline, then two, and so on. Soon 16/8 cores WILL BE THE NORM! And they dont "usually" have lower clocks. look at Intel's i7 980x. It has a stock speed of 3.33ghz. EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE 975, and intel dont make a faster processor.PCs are like cars. You can get wat you can now, and it will last for a few yrs. then it will be old and youll have to get another one. but if u just waited for the new one to come out, you would save yourself some money, and a rig. "Futureproofing" is simply not true, as new tecnologies come out, and components get old. but it is allways worth it to invest in new technology.
Back to the question though, it will not be worth investing in any Phoenom CPUs, because the new Bulldozer/Zambezi architecture will be a serious advancement in AMDs CPUs. But, on the other hand, if your desperate for one now, the 965 is better at games, while the 1055 is better in demanding apps. One last thing...What about the 1095?
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 21, 2010 5:03:36 PM

p4nz3rm4d said:
Your system sees the CPU as 16 cores, even though there are only 8 physical ones.

This is incorrect. AMD considers each module to be two physical cores.

Correction: You cannot correct me, as everything i said was true.
Touchy. Sorry I didn't mean to insult you or anything. Though yes, I suppose I meant additional information, not correction. :p 

What about the 1095?
What about the 1095?
June 22, 2010 6:37:44 AM

Well, if ur going to upgrade, then UPgrade. the 1095 costs only a little more, and you get a Black Edition...
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 1:09:15 PM

Good points there Enzo.

Although the clocks have not significantly increased, the IPC has ...

The X6 seems to have a slightly higher (hard to tell with the cores jumping around like cats on a hot tin roof though) IPC than the Phenom II (current X4's) which have a marked performance increase over the original Phenom I series (00's with the TLB issue).

Intel's i series vs core 2 45nm (Yorky / Wolfy) .. .vs core2 65nm (Conroe / Kenty) are likewise improvements in IPC ... given the same clocks.

Even with a 32nm process I don't see standard CPU's clocking past 3.6 (except for us adventurers!!) in the next couple of quarters but I do see improvements in core design / increases in physical / logical cores being the area of growth.

If only the software can make better use of the additional cores.

Then there are the real slow spots (winding roads) like secondary storage / peripherals ... I can't afford to put 2 SSD's in RAID0 ... <sigh>

The X6 review here is a pretty good read.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
June 22, 2010 3:01:45 PM

p4nz3rm4d said:
Well, if ur going to upgrade, then UPgrade. the 1095 costs only a little more, and you get a Black Edition...

This is true. But I prefer real processors, like the 1055t or the 1090t. :p 
June 23, 2010 7:46:27 AM

I just built a rig and I had trouble choosing between the 1090T and 965 too. I settled on the 965 and I'm running it stock. When technology advances, I'll just overclock it. That's all the future proofing I need. And of course adding another 5770 to Crossfire with eventually. :p 

The way I see it is that if your gonna use it for gaming, games are advancing in the hardware they use, but nowhere near as fast as processors available. I can't see most games looking better than they already do, or using more processor resources, anytime in the next few years (3D aside), so you're probably safe for a few years with a 965.

Especially since AMD processors are so nicely priced, you can even afford to settle for the 965 now and then upgrade in a few years for probably the same price you paid. $200 now and $200 in 3-4 years seems reasonable to me.

Pros feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that's my take on it.
!