it was released to get a cpu in the budgte sector under 100$, it is cheap, but it isnt a very good deal, considering AMD's home field is under 100$, and there are plenty of AMD cpus that beat it at that price point. Its called a pentium to set it apart from the i3 series, but it isnt really an old pentium. and yes, there is only one type in the G series. and core 2 duo is done, so why call a new cpu that.
Hmmmm....see I want to build a new gaming rig. Trying to decide between an overclocked i3 @ 4.2ghz....or should i move up to the next price bracket in which case I would either get an i5 750, i7 8xx (1156) or the Phenom x6.
Will prob bolt it all to a GTX 465 (or 470 if the price diff not too much)
All sitting on a mini itx socket 1156 (hence the 8XX series 1156 i7 dual channel)
I thought the GTX 465 was a goof GPU...£240 price tag with it.
I don't want to be sucked into the "i5 and i7 are revolutionary, amazing, super fast". I will also be using it for some design work and some database programming (32 bit) so not sure if I would need the Phenom x6?
I know battle field bad company can use up to 6 cores. And people say 4 real cores better than 4 HT cores (as the instruction set is different).
So would 6 real AMD cores be better than 8 HT cores from intel (i7). Think the various benchamarks put it between the i5 750 and i7 930, coming above them in a few real world tests.
overall, from a non-biased stand point, the 1090T is better than the i7 930. The i7 is slightly better for gaming, but as more games come out utilizing more cores, the 1090T will get to an even level. 1090T wins in synthetics and applications. However, what makes the 1090T better is that it is cooler, more energy efficient, the overall build is much cheaper, and it is more future proof. so if for some reason you wanted to get a high level cpu, i would get the 1090T instead of the i7 930.