Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5 750 vs AMD Phenom II 955

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 22, 2010 4:40:37 AM

So...I was about to order and then of course, people's recommendations are making me second guess certain parts of my build for the 10 millionth time lol

I was going to go with the AMD Phenom II 955 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

but someone said that the Intel i5 750 ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... ) runs laps around it for only a little bit more...I would have to change my Mobo to correspond with it (I believe those are the only two things that have to match up with AMD vs intel correct? i know nothing about this computer parts haha)

I will be using the computer mostly for gaming and do not plan to overclock it as I have no idea what I am doing and would not want to mess it up.

Not sure what exactly it means but I see the AMD is 3.2 GHz vs the Intel being 2.66 Ghz.

If I am willing to spend the extra $30-40, is it worth going with the Intel? If so, any recommended Mobo's for around $100-120? Not planning on crossfiring but one that is crossfire capable is preferred I guess just in case.

Looking for some quick, honest opinions in layman's terms on which of these 2 CPU's I should go with..Looking to order in the next day.

Thanks!
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 5:33:41 AM

If gaming is your priority, then there is negligible difference between the performance of the 750 & 955, except in a few titles.Stick with the 955 as its 40$ cheaper and the P55 motherboards(with LGA 1156 socket that supports the i5 750) are costlier than most AM3 boards.
June 22, 2010 5:40:01 AM

This is the eternal debate, isn't it? Basically, the 750 is faster, but pricier, especially when you consider the relative cost of motherboards. If you aren't getting a really sick graphics card setup, you can't go wrong with a 955 gaming and probably won't notice the difference. Until you take a cute girl to a movie with the money saved.

Edit: Sorry, forgot about no-profanity
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 9:06:14 AM

Can't really add much to the debate. The i5-750 is faster across the board, but you will only notice this in productivity apps, not gaming. So depending on what you do with the PC, the extra cash may or may not be worth it.
June 22, 2010 9:31:39 AM

I think the socket AM3 is advantage for upgrade, so I will choose the AMD Phenom II 955.

Link
June 22, 2010 12:31:17 PM

Yeah, I probably should've said...going to be using the computer for mainly gaming and mostly playing WoW (World of Warcraft). Also going to be getting a 5870 GPU.

So the consensus seems to be the intel is slightly better but I won't see any real difference while gaming and only a slight difference while browsing on the internet and stuff?
a b à CPUs
June 22, 2010 3:06:47 PM

I hope you plan to do other stuff besides play WoW, because both CPU's are overkill for WoW, not to mention a 5870.
June 22, 2010 3:36:09 PM

Yes, I do plan on playing other games including Diablo 3 whenever it comes out and may try out crysis...however, for now it is mainly for WoW....I'm still a little undecided on which to go with...there's also the amd 965 which is an option...some more opinions on which of the 3 to go for and maybe an accompanying MoBo(preferably with crossfire capable) would be very much appreciated.

Also, I read somewhere that WoW only recognizes 2 cores...would having a quad core actually decrease performance, or would it just not make it much/any better?
June 22, 2010 3:38:41 PM

Yes wow runs better on dualcores but with cata it may enable quad, still have to find out
June 22, 2010 3:41:32 PM

A quad-core would actually increase performance anyways, as the extra two cores can pick up loose threads like Windows, antivirus, etc.

The 5870 is bigtime overkill, though, unless you are playing state-of-the-art games.

You will absolutely not notice a difference while "browsing the Internet." You will notice a difference with video conversion, rendering, virus scanning, etc - other very CPU-intensive tasks.

android also brought up the fact that AM3 is expected to support Bulldozer (AMD's next-gen CPU), while LGA-1156 is not expected to get meaningful updates.

Unless you play GTA IV or RTS games, I still recommend 955.

Edit: Oh, and FSX of course!
June 22, 2010 4:38:40 PM

what do you mean by the cpu would support bulldozer, their next-gen cpu...some kind of update to the cpu that you may eventually be able to buy or a full new cpu in the future? Again, sorry for my ignorance on these issues...

Also, I was thinking of going with http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...

but you can't crossfire with that...I doubt I will crossfire in the future as I only expect a computer to really last 2-3 years anyway..but it would be nice I guess to have a Mobo that can do it just in case
June 22, 2010 5:32:40 PM

Bulldozer is new. As in rebuilt-from-the-ground-up new.

If you are crossfiring 5870s, get at least an i5. If not, don't plan too. "Crossfiring later" sounds nice, but usually by the time you need more power, you are better off with a brand new GPU with more features, etc.
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2010 10:01:41 AM

What smithereen meant is that the AM3 chipset (thus, the motherboard) will likely also support the next generation of AMD CPU's (Bulldozer).
June 23, 2010 2:02:17 PM

smithereen said:
A quad-core would actually increase performance anyways, as the extra two cores can pick up loose threads like Windows, antivirus, etc.

The 5870 is bigtime overkill, though, unless you are playing state-of-the-art games.

You will absolutely not notice a difference while "browsing the Internet." You will notice a difference with video conversion, rendering, virus scanning, etc - other very CPU-intensive tasks.

android also brought up the fact that AM3 is expected to support Bulldozer (AMD's next-gen CPU), while LGA-1156 is not expected to get meaningful updates.

Unless you play GTA IV or RTS games, I still recommend 955.



i5 750 runs better this type of games?
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2010 5:29:12 PM

Yes, the i5 runs CPU-bound games better, especially if you overclock.

With a single 5870 you won't notice a difference between the 2 CPUs, like most people said here.

However, if you decide to throw a 2nd 5870 for crossfire in there the i5-750 would lead by a significant margin. (Unless you use eyefinity or 30" 1600p resolution) This has nothing to do with crossfire itself, but the GPU performance. With all those frames/calculations running the Phenom II lags behind the 750, and becomes the bottleneck.

To say the 750 'run laps around' the 955 is an overstatement though. The 955 is a strong CPU, and is more than enough for most gamers out there.
June 23, 2010 8:37:02 PM

Raidur said:

However, if you decide to throw a 2nd 5870 for crossfire in there the i5-750 would lead by a significant margin. (Unless you use eyefinity or 30" 1600p resolution) This has nothing to do with crossfire itself, but the GPU performance. With all those frames/calculations running the Phenom II lags behind the 750, and becomes the bottleneck.



The only available data shows that both Intel and AMD CPU scale exactly the same between single and dual GPU setups as the CPU is overclocked.

There is nothing in any of the available data that shows bottlenecking with either brand CPU.
a b à CPUs
June 23, 2010 11:49:57 PM

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_...

Here's the data. They stay the same on stalker and the avg fps in crysis (minimum shows obvious bottlenecking IMO).

You decide!

Hell don't believe me, ask tomshardware! (PS, the 875k and i5-750 perform exactly the same @ 4ghz in games)





See what happens when you use something stronger than a 5870? (A 5970 was used here)

Also notice when the resolution is lowered the i7 gains another ~5 FPS where as the Phenom gains ~2. Another sign of bottlenecking.
June 24, 2010 1:42:56 AM

Raidur said:
Also notice when the resolution is lowered the i7 gains another ~5 FPS where as the Phenom gains ~2. Another sign of bottlenecking.


Crysis: The Intel fanboy's favorite benchmark since it has anomalous behavior that favors Intel. Too bad it doesn't actually show average performance.

But regardless: The ~2 and ~5 fps you mention are within a margin of error. You have failed to show or demonstrate a bottleneck; the scaling is roughly about the same between brands even in the Tom's benchmark you showed.

Thank you for actually providing even more data showing that a 5970 does not bottleneck with the current Intel and AMD platforms.
!