Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dev box: Phenom II x4 965 vs i5 750 vs Phenom II x6 1055t

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 6:20:36 AM

HI,

I am looking to build a dev box and have a tough time deciding between these three processors:
- Phenom II x4 965 - $155
- i5 750 - $199
- Phenom II x6 1055t - $199

Purpose: I do NOT play any games. I work on app and web development (multiple platforms) I usually have the following running on my machine
Eclipse, Visual Studio, multiple smartphone emulators running (palm, android, windows phone etc) and usually multiple browsers running as well.

I do not intend to overclock it much..I might just do any OC that is possible with stock fan/cooling.

I have a limited budget. I will most likely get 6 or 8GB RAM and not get a video card unless absolutely required.

It would be great if you can suggest me which processor route to go?

thanks in advance.
dave
August 23, 2010 6:33:27 AM

the X6 is a solid way to go. having 6 cores can help out a lot with all that. I'd look into virtualization technology on those chips if your emulators support it. I know intel has Intel-VT that helps with virtual machines for PC OS'; I'm not sure on the AMD cpus.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 6:44:23 AM

One thing that might be taken into account is that going the AMD route would enable you to get a inexpensive 785G chipset based motherboard (under $100)with a great Radeon 4200 Integrated Graphics Processor.So if you want to save some money going the AMD route would be less expensive overall.

However the i5 750 is a more powerful CPU but with most LGA 1156 motherboards one would need an aftermarket Graphics Card (not too expensive though).
Intel Integrated Graphics well basically sucks.
Hard to say but if you want the more powerful CPU go the i5-750 route otherwise if you want to save money (and it would be an easier build with a 785G motherboard) go the AMD route.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 23, 2010 6:56:31 AM

intel integrated on a i5 750 should easily be enough for a non-gaming dev machine. Unless he needs to run several monitors (which he would've said so upfront).
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 6:59:13 AM

the X6 is a solid way to go. having 6 cores can help out a lot with all that. I'd look into virtualization technology on those chips if your emulators support it. I know intel has Intel-VT that helps with virtual machines for PC OS'; I'm not sure on the AMD cpus. said:
the X6 is a solid way to go. having 6 cores can help out a lot with all that. I'd look into virtualization technology on those chips if your emulators support it. I know intel has Intel-VT that helps with virtual machines for PC OS'; I'm not sure on the AMD cpus.


amd has hyper-v.

Purpose: I do NOT play any games. [b said:
I work on app and web development (multiple platforms) I usually have the following running on my machine Eclipse, Visual Studio, multiple smartphone emulators running (palm, android, windows phone etc) and usually multiple browsers running as well.]Purpose: I do NOT play any games. I work on app and web development (multiple platforms) I usually have the following running on my machine Eclipse, Visual Studio, multiple smartphone emulators running (palm, android, windows phone etc) and usually multiple browsers running as well.
[/b]

if you're web apps are sql driven i'd go with the 6 core amd, my pov.
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 7:03:17 AM

intel integrated on a i5 750 should easily be enough for a non-gaming dev machine. Unless he needs to run several monitors (which he would've said so upfront) said:
intel integrated on a i5 750 should easily be enough for a non-gaming dev machine. Unless he needs to run several monitors (which he would've said so upfront)


??????

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 7:10:39 AM

sorry for not mentioning this.. I am looking to connect 2 monitors (already have them one is 24inches and the other is older 17 or 19inches LCD monitors). so looks like AMD route is the cheaper route.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 7:45:08 AM

That's correct. I know your doing programing since i ran Eclipse when i was doing it in my computer programming class. The Phenom 965 or 955 is already suitable enough. Eclipse isn't exactly CPU intensive or at least when i was using it, it didn't 100% load my CPU all the time. Plus that was a dual core. Plus most of the things you are going to do don't require insane computing level CPUs.

As for multi-monitors, low-end ATI graphics are good or the 4200. As Eyefinity is pretty cool. 8gbs is the better choice since your going for AMD. Since AMD doesn't run triple channel and 8gbs can be run in 2(2x2gb dual channel) or 2x4gb dual channel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 7:47:59 AM

Yes 785G based motherboards have multi-monitor support.See here under the paragraph Visual Experience.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/chipsets/7-serie...
You might need a secondary Radeon 3450 card though inexpensive under $50
I have never used the multi-monitor feature on a 785G board myself.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 8:07:21 AM

1055T is a nice one for you. Since you dont game, then i5 750 would be a waste of money. You can save the money and get a 1095T as well. Although that would really be an overkill for the Apps that you mention. Get some good 6GB DDR3 RAM's. That would be enough.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 10:43:10 AM

:p  Not exactly, Eclipse is a pretty memory using program, i just suggested 8gbs because he can actually use dual channel and get the speed he wants, unlike triple channel, because then he can only run a single channel and a dual channel much slower :p 
m
0
l
August 23, 2010 1:28:17 PM

without overclok:
- Phenom II x4 965 - mid-range processor, only to save money
- i5 750 - $199 - generally good processor
- Phenom II x6 1055t - excellent processor for multitasking, bad for games

video onboard: AMD
but economical video card, it would be my preference

socket 1156 has dual channel memory, as well as AMD: 2x2gb or 4x2gb

I hope to give you some help.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 5:07:25 PM

thanks everyone. If I am willing to do moderate Overclocking without much heat/wattage increase then which proc would be better? I hear 1055t is excellent for OC but wattage increases dramatically as well ?

Reading the forums more I see people mention/recommend buying 955 vs 965 since it is cheaper and almost identical ? Is that the case - what advantages does 965 have over 955 ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 7:03:50 PM

None just a higher stock clock :p  You can OC it though (the 955) to 3.4 without changing the voltages.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2010 10:12:16 PM


if I am looking to OC without changing the voltages which amongst the following will provide the biggest leap ?

965 vs 955 vs 1055T ?

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2010 10:07:04 PM

gfg said:
without overclok:
- Phenom II x4 965 - mid-range processor, only to save money
- i5 750 - $199 - generally good processor
- Phenom II x6 1055t - excellent processor for multitasking, bad for games

video onboard: AMD
but economical video card, it would be my preference

socket 1156 has dual channel memory, as well as AMD: 2x2gb or 4x2gb

I hope to give you some help.






so why is 1055t bad for games? it oc's to 4ghz with changing multiplyer in less than 3 minutes, can go higher even still. thats 6 cores each at 4ghz or more! so why is that bad? plus its only $179-$199.

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @ 2.80GHz benchmark score(passmark)5,146 $194.99*

Intel Core i5 750 @ 2.67GHz benchmark score (passmark)4,210 $194.99* [/b][/u]
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2010 11:23:07 PM

It's bad for gaming because the Thuban utilizes 3 cores during gaming not 4. Instead of the 955/965 and i5 750 that have solid 4 cores for gaming and multi-tasking.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=147

Look at the gaming benches, although the 1055T isn't really that much lower in FPS as games are more GPU dependent, the 955 still pulls ahead in all the Gaming Benchmarks.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 1:05:05 AM

aznshinobi said:
It's bad for gaming because the Thuban utilizes 3 cores during gaming not 4. Instead of the 955/965 and i5 750 that have solid 4 cores for gaming and multi-tasking.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=147

Look at the gaming benches, although the 1055T isn't really that much lower in FPS as games are more GPU dependent, the 955 still pulls ahead in all the Gaming Benchmarks.



the use of BAD is incorrect. it is far from being BAD.
right, they are gpu dependedant, its malnly speed the games require and if you have 6 cores at 4ghz , don't be calling that bad.

i can see maybe at stock speed but all it takes is like 5 minutes or less to get it at 4ghz or higher.

really, 6 cores at 4ghz or higher each each, bad? $ghz or higher not fast enough? come on now.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 1:37:42 AM

aznshinobi said:
It's bad for gaming because the Thuban utilizes 3 cores during gaming not 4. Instead of the 955/965 and i5 750 that have solid 4 cores for gaming and multi-tasking.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=147

Look at the gaming benches, although the 1055T isn't really that much lower in FPS as games are more GPU dependent, the 955 still pulls ahead in all the Gaming Benchmarks.



please show me that the 1055t only uses 3 cores for games.

monitors are like 60 fps so if you have over 60 your monitor will not be able to use that extra refreshing. anything over 50 fps is good to the eye so its just being picky nad saying my gets this amount". who cares if its not really needed or the price tag is huge.

the fps are all good from the cpu's listed, so to say it is bad is crazy. again you can pop that 1055t to 4ghz easily and beyond. yes showing that bench mark one at 3.2 stock and one at 2.8 will be a little difference. But even with it not oc'd it still is plenty of gusto for only $199 and has more usable with the multi tasking,.

right now 2 cores at 4ghz will get you use for a long long time. make that 6 cores at 4ghz and your good to go for real long time. put a price tag on that at $179-$199 and i say *** intel and their $300-$900 chips!

don't need those high priced chips anyhow, not in these days, when we actually do they will be obsolete and cheap as *** then.

its a steal at that price and anyone who says is bad or slow is retarded.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 2:02:29 AM

Quote:
so why is 1055t bad for games?


God damn your a flamer, I said Bad because i was using your choice of words.

Plus I never said it was a bad chip, it's just that for the apps he's running he doesn't need to go into the 195$+ chips when a 145$ (955 because of the price cuts) is sufficient. Also do you even realize that Eclipse doesn't require more than a single core? App and web development don't require insane computing either. A quad is enough, you may be thinking future proofing but 955 is sufficient for his needs. Also not to support Intel or AMD but the benchmark you showed of the passmark scores prove nothing as the 750 beats 1055T in a lot more benchmarks :p 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=147

When you account for the fact Adobe actually most of it's programs favor Intel CPU (Although i perfer AMD) Such as Photoshop and Flash. And asuuming he is in Web Dev. Dreamweaver is something that would favor the 750 as well. But since it doesn't require insane CPU computing the 955 is the best choice even the 945 would be good enough.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 4:29:06 AM

2162257,21,497688 said:
God damn your a flamer, I said Bad because i was using your choice of words.

Plus I never said it was a bad chip, it's just that for the apps he's running he doesn't need to go into the 195$+ chips when a 145$ (955 because of the price cuts) is sufficient. Also do you even realize that Eclipse doesn't require more than a single core? App and web development don't require insane computing either. A quad is enough, you may be thinking future proofing but 955 is sufficient for his needs. Also not to support Intel or AMD but the benchmark you showed of the passmark scores prove nothing as the 750 beats 1055T in a lot more benchmarks :p 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=147

When you account for the fact Adobe actually most of it's programs favor Intel CPU (Although i perfer AMD) Such as Photoshop and Flash. And asuuming he is in Web Dev. Dreamweaver is something that would favor the 750 as well. But since it doesn't require insane CPU computing the 955 is the best choice even the 945 would be good enough.[/quotemsg



i wansn't calling YOU a retard or anything, i know you were responding to what i had responded to another! to those that do say it is bad, that is who i was. Did i start off calling you a name like you did to me? nope! i never quoted you as saying it either or pointing it out as being BAD either.

point is that for like $30 dollars more you get 2 extra cores. you can boost the 1055t to 4.0 - 4.3 ghz with air and just a 3 minute tweak.

they are all sweet chips. most of the bencharmarks look good on paper, you don't see or really need anything the insanely priced cpu's offer. do you think you going to see or feel the difference between 100 fps and 140fps. No.

ps3 and xbox 360 use like 30-60 fps and you see no lag or breakdown.

its like buying a ferrari but only able to go(use) it to a certain speed(point). its all for show. who cares. For a chip $200 or less and being able to go longetivity and usefulness the x6 1055t is the best deal you can get to date.

out of all the chips out there id get the amd x6 - its the only one that make sense pricewise and cost ratio and uselfulness
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 7:42:57 AM

OMG LOOK AT THE APPS HE'S RUNNING, and lets assume he doesn't go with Amazon or Ebay. and instead goes with Newegg. He saves 48$ from 955 - 1055T and the same logic of OCing to "4.0 - 4.3ghz" that can be applied to the methodology of any OC. But your not going to OC to 4.0 and get it stable immediately... Plus he doesn't need high clocks. Let alone spending more for something he doesn't need. Also, Java is a single-threaded program giving the 955 an advantage, Eclipse is also a single thread, and that gives the 955 an advantage. Just because your arguing about things that would matter if he wasn't specific doesn't mean anything. He clearly stated what he wished to use his computer for. Almost all of which are single-thread apps. He's not gaming so sure the 1055T or 955 wouldn't matter at all. But he's not going to OC. He says "Might do some Ocing with the stock heatsink." which inturn your not hitting 4.0ghz with the 1055T on stock. Also with the 955 your not hitting 4.0ghz either with stock. He'll probably hit 3.6 or 3.7 Not sure about the 1055T. But anywho, dave please end this argument and pick the best answer.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 3:26:17 PM

aznshinobi said:
OMG LOOK AT THE APPS HE'S RUNNING, and lets assume he doesn't go with Amazon or Ebay. and instead goes with Newegg. He saves 48$ from 955 - 1055T and the same logic of OCing to "4.0 - 4.3ghz" that can be applied to the methodology of any OC. But your not going to OC to 4.0 and get it stable immediately... Plus he doesn't need high clocks. Let alone spending more for something he doesn't need. Also, Java is a single-threaded program giving the 955 an advantage, Eclipse is also a single thread, and that gives the 955 an advantage. Just because your arguing about things that would matter if he wasn't specific doesn't mean anything. He clearly stated what he wished to use his computer for. Almost all of which are single-thread apps. He's not gaming so sure the 1055T or 955 wouldn't matter at all. But he's not going to OC. He says "Might do some Ocing with the stock heatsink." which inturn your not hitting 4.0ghz with the 1055T on stock. Also with the 955 your not hitting 4.0ghz either with stock. He'll probably hit 3.6 or 3.7 Not sure about the 1055T. But anywho, dave please end this argument and pick the best answer.




just air the 1055t gets up to 3.2-3.4.

if you don't do any oc'ing then your talking about a .4 difference. one will have 2 more cores to help and the other won't. I don't think a .4 difference will make you regret buying the 6 core!

they are neck and neck. they are so close plus the x6 will give him an advantage to also do multithreaded stuff.

To up the multiplyer is no major task and anyone can do it. Get a m4a89gtd-pro or m4a88td-v-evo or m4a785td-v-evo and it has a simple push of the button approach to get to that. takes like 3 minutes

Dave your better off in the long run gettin the x6 for sure and it like $30-40 more. if you look you can get deals. the other day it was on sale for $179.

multitasking with 6 cores @ 3.2-4.2ghz is way better than 4 cores @ 3.2-4.2ghz very minor oc'ing .


yes it does stay stable without any problems at 4.0 easily and can go beyond that even!

1055t / m4a88td-v-evo/usb3 / 8 gb g.skill 1600 ----- perfect performace to price ratio.this is all you will truely need and with leftovers for a long long time. unless you think your cool having a overpriced cpu then spend away on $300-$800 chip that looks good on paper in benchmarks but not much noticable via eye or work load to justify the huge price gap.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 3:56:27 PM

aznshinobi said:
OMG LOOK AT THE APPS HE'S RUNNING, and lets assume he doesn't go with Amazon or Ebay. and instead goes with Newegg. He saves 48$ from 955 - 1055T and the same logic of OCing to "4.0 - 4.3ghz" that can be applied to the methodology of any OC. But your not going to OC to 4.0 and get it stable immediately... Plus he doesn't need high clocks. Let alone spending more for something he doesn't need. Also, Java is a single-threaded program giving the 955 an advantage, Eclipse is also a single thread, and that gives the 955 an advantage. Just because your arguing about things that would matter if he wasn't specific doesn't mean anything. He clearly stated what he wished to use his computer for. Almost all of which are single-thread apps. He's not gaming so sure the 1055T or 955 wouldn't matter at all. But he's not going to OC. He says "Might do some Ocing with the stock heatsink." which inturn your not hitting 4.0ghz with the 1055T on stock. Also with the 955 your not hitting 4.0ghz either with stock. He'll probably hit 3.6 or 3.7 Not sure about the 1055T. But anywho, dave please end this argument and pick the best answer.



oh and another thing, if you wanna take that route about LOOK AT THE PROGRAMS HE's USING and why buy more than needed as you say, then he could save about $100 getting any of the lower x4's or higher x2's and save a lot.

i have a e7300 that does all that easily.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2010 6:15:44 PM

If the apps aren't CPU intensive go for Athlon II x2/x3 throw saved cash into hardware you'll actually use.

If they are CPU intensive, but are single threaded and you aren't multi-tasking, i3 @ 4ghz stock cooler/volts is where i'd aim.
m
0
l
!