Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Amd phenom ii x6 1090T vs intel core i7 920

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 10, 2010 4:13:22 AM

Guys, I am going to use my system entirely for gaming (not a hardcore gamer although), a bit of ms word, bluej and Internet, with a lot of tabs open. I would also often do winrar compressions and extractions and will be burning CDs with Nero. I also want to future proof this computer for another 5-7 years, without an upgrade. So which of the two is better
a c 81 à CPUs
September 10, 2010 4:22:33 AM

Please go through the forum first.. There are loads of threads with the very same query..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 5:57:05 AM

Quote:
I7 920 will smoke x6 in any games.


Agreed.
Score
0
Related resources
September 10, 2010 9:40:48 AM

X6 will smoke i7 in winrar compressions
Score
0
September 10, 2010 11:19:34 AM

X6 wins in 64 bit applications, so if you know you will be using windows alot, or other 64 bit apps, go AMD, other then that, intel ftw.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 6:59:04 PM

Savag3Vim said:
X6 will smoke i7 in winrar compressions


Atotalnoob said:
X6 wins in 64 bit applications, so if you know you will be using windows alot, or other 64 bit apps, go AMD, other then that, intel ftw.


Sigh... Go check Anandtech CPU benchmark:

i7@2.66GHz vs. 1090T@3.2GHz
i7@3.20GHz vs. 1090T@3.2GHz
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 7:51:42 PM

Video editing (not CS4): 1090T>i7 920

Gaming (most games, but not all): i7 920> 1090T

General Use: 1090T=i7 920

Stock: 1090T>i7 920

Clock for Clock: i7 920>1090T

Ive said this 100's of times in threads asking the same question.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:10:27 PM

ares1214 said:
Video editing (not CS4): 1090T>i7 920


.........

i7@3.20GHz vs. 1090T@3.2GHz

It shows that at the same frequency i7 beats 1090T in 3 out of 4 video encoding benchmark. AND the difference between the two is minimal in the benchmark that 1090T wins.

BTW, I bet most AMD owners don't even know how to do video encoding anyway.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:14:39 PM

Yes, but since he's aiming for 5-7 years without upgrade maybe it's better to go 6 cores, that's a long time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:18:03 PM

video encoding are multi-threaded which are the app type you are going to see in the future. X6 loses to i7 now and so it still will in the future.
Score
0
September 10, 2010 8:26:07 PM

Cost? You can stick the x6 in a £30 motherboard, even if the CPU costs the same, that will pay for your next upgrade, and really, I have both an i7 at work and a x6 at home, in day to day use and HD editing there really is *** all between them, *** the benchmarks, you will probably never get those scores anyway.

And another thing, don't even bother with a 1090T, even *** motherboards can get a 1055 to 3.6-3.8, often with the stock cooler - now you are really saving huge amounts of money.

If you want to win willy waving contests in forums and have $$$, go intel (or your boss is paying), if you want a really fast PC that will last 5 years, go AMD, and take your girl on holiday with the difference.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:37:28 PM

joeythellama said:
Cost? You can stick the x6 in a £30 motherboard, even if the CPU costs the same, that will pay for your next upgrade, and really, I have both an i7 at work and a x6 at home, in day to day use and HD editing there really is *** all between them, *** the benchmarks, you will probably never get those scores anyway.

And another thing, don't even bother with a 1090T, even *** motherboards can get a 1055 to 3.6-3.8, often with the stock cooler - now you are really saving huge amounts of money.

If you want to win willy waving contests in forums and have $$$, go intel (or your boss is paying), if you want a really fast PC that will last 5 years, go AMD, and take your girl on holiday with the difference.

.....fine, let's talk about cost-performance.

i5 750@2.66 vs. 1055T@2.8GHz

Performance-wise: 750 beats 1055T in 2 out of 4 video encoding benchmark and almost all other apps even at lower frequency.
Cost-wise: 750+P55A-UD5 and 1055T+890FXA-UD5 cost about the same

p.s. Stop complaining i7's cost, because it was priced so that no fine would be given to Intel from EU for not letting AMD survive.
AMD is going to bankrupted for sure if Intel sell 980X at the same price as 1090T.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 8:39:29 PM

X6 performs worse while costing about the same. This is what I call "fail".

i7 performance wise, i5 cost-performance wise and X6....

Oh and stop creating new accounts again and again for trolling, AMD fanboys.
(joeythellama joined on Sep 10, 2010 which is TODAY)
Score
0
September 10, 2010 9:00:27 PM

Oh dear, been reading this site for years, thought I would join up, really wish I had not bothered.

Keep reading the benchmarks.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 9:04:33 PM

We wish you didn't.

Reading the benchmarks is at least better than "day-dreaming" talking. :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 10:21:11 PM


No offense, but I don't agree with this site.

Why?
Because

Quote:
cost-performance ratio = performance/cost


and

Quote:
i5 750@2.66 vs. 1055T@2.8GHz

Performance-wise: 750 beats 1055T in 2 out of 4 video encoding benchmark and almost all other apps even at lower frequency.
Cost-wise: 750+P55A-UD5 and 1055T+890FXA-UD5 cost about the same
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 10:43:19 PM

He also can get a very good AM3 mobo that's much cheaper than the 890FXA-UD5.

Two more cores might give at least some better longevity, it depends on what kind of applications will be in the future but even if we disregard that, when a CPU is obsolete, some other CPU that is 10% or even 20% faster is also obsolete. For instance the Core 2 Duo E6550 is just as obsolete as the Core 2 Duo E4700.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm against long term builds BTW, I think it's better to get something cheaper now and keep on upgrading.

Score
0
September 10, 2010 11:04:29 PM


Anyway, going back to the original question, if what you say is all you are going to do, bluntly, either system is complete overkill, if you need a PC now, look at the Best Gaming CPU's for the Price articles and get something off that list - if you don't want crazy settings go for the X3 Athlon and a decent GPU (5850, 460 etc) and go on another holiday until Sandybridge and Bulldozer are out, both look very interesting.

Both the CPU's you mention are essentially dead-ends as far as upgrades go, investing considerable money on either platform now is probably not a great idea.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2010 11:19:33 PM

He said 5-7 years without an upgrade, so it doesnt matter about upgrade path, bulldozer, sandy bridge, or anything. and at iqvl. when i said video editing i meant at stock. Which is why i have i7 winning clock for clock ;)  It depends if he overclocks.
Score
0
September 11, 2010 7:22:16 AM

...sol'n is sooo easy...go Phenom II and buy an eyefinity card with the money you save...three nice monitors and edit as much as you want, game at full res over all three monitors, or why not game while you edit. AMD can do it all....What else is there?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 12:30:18 PM

Not another AMD fanboy... :pfff:  Ok, heres my opinion on this. Gaming=save money on CPU, spend money on GPU. In this scenario, id recommend the X4 965 if you dont plan to overclock, and the i5 750 if you do plan to overclock. Best thing to do in all honesty though is wait for sandy bridge. Its shaping up to be about the same price as both of them, yet blowing them out of the water stock, and maybe 10-15% clock for clock. The 6xxx series is shaping up to basically make Nvidia in the same position as AMD, 1 generation behind, even though AMD is a lot closer. The 6870 has been shown by many individual ways and people to get 30-35% better performance than the 5870. That blew me out of the water, also, they all got almost the exact same results. Better yet, AMD wasnt lying much about the performance gains on this little beasty. With full EVERYTHING, its minimum FPS are higher than the 480 and 5870s max (or average, but that speaks for itself). Tesselation was the same way with the 480, min=max. So, if you can, might be wise to wait till Christmas, save up some money, and maybe upgrade what you have now a little bit.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 5:39:51 PM

ares1214 said:
Video editing (not CS4): 1090T>i7 920

Gaming (most games, but not all): i7 920> 1090T

General Use: 1090T=i7 920

Stock: 1090T>i7 920

Clock for Clock: i7 920>1090T


Ive said this 100's of times in threads asking the same question.


Those 2 do not make sense in that fashion. Heres how it should be to make sense:

Stock: 920 > 1090T
Clock for clock: 920 > 1090T
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
September 11, 2010 6:48:05 PM

ares1214 said:
Not another AMD fanboy... :pfff:  Ok, heres my opinion on this. Gaming=save money on CPU, spend money on GPU. In this scenario, id recommend the X4 965 if you dont plan to overclock, and the i5 750 if you do plan to overclock. Best thing to do in all honesty though is wait for sandy bridge. Its shaping up to be about the same price as both of them, yet blowing them out of the water stock, and maybe 10-15% clock for clock. The 6xxx series is shaping up to basically make Nvidia in the same position as AMD, 1 generation behind, even though AMD is a lot closer. The 6870 has been shown by many individual ways and people to get 30-35% better performance than the 5870. That blew me out of the water, also, they all got almost the exact same results. Better yet, AMD wasnt lying much about the performance gains on this little beasty. With full EVERYTHING, its minimum FPS are higher than the 480 and 5870s max (or average, but that speaks for itself). Tesselation was the same way with the 480, min=max. So, if you can, might be wise to wait till Christmas, save up some money, and maybe upgrade what you have now a little bit.


Atlast one sensible post among the various other stupid ones where all are indulged in a flaming war fueled by fanboism.. Good points Ares..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 7:35:34 PM

ares1214 said:
Not another AMD fanboy... :pfff:  Ok, heres my opinion on this. Gaming=save money on CPU, spend money on GPU. In this scenario, id recommend the X4 965 if you dont plan to overclock, and the i5 750 if you do plan to overclock. Best thing to do in all honesty though is wait for sandy bridge. Its shaping up to be about the same price as both of them, yet blowing them out of the water stock, and maybe 10-15% clock for clock. The 6xxx series is shaping up to basically make Nvidia in the same position as AMD, 1 generation behind, even though AMD is a lot closer. The 6870 has been shown by many individual ways and people to get 30-35% better performance than the 5870. That blew me out of the water, also, they all got almost the exact same results. Better yet, AMD wasnt lying much about the performance gains on this little beasty. With full EVERYTHING, its minimum FPS are higher than the 480 and 5870s max (or average, but that speaks for itself). Tesselation was the same way with the 480, min=max. So, if you can, might be wise to wait till Christmas, save up some money, and maybe upgrade what you have now a little bit.



snipped , not relevant to the OPS question :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 8:01:14 PM

werxen said:
Those 2 do not make sense in that fashion. Heres how it should be to make sense:

Stock: 920 > 1090T
Clock for clock: 920 > 1090T


What i meant was at 2.66 GHz, the 920 loses to the 1090T more than it wins, and its an overall loss, HOWEVER, those are 2 of the closest CPU's there are, and this is only because the CPU isnt that important for gaming, which is where i7 beats it most. HOWEVER, get the i7 up to 3.2 GHz, and it beats it, by a decent margin, 600 MHz clock increase tend to do that :lol:  Get them both to max frequency, lets say 4.2 GHz for all intents and purposes, and once again, i7>1090T as going from 2.66 GHz to 4.2 is a little less than a 1.6 GHz increase, where as going from 3.2 GHz to 4.2 GHz is just a 1 GHz clock increase. Therefore, at stock frequencies, id give the nod to the 1090T. Granted it took them 2 more cores and an extra 600 MHz to just barely beat out the 920, and very much so tie the 930. Clock for clock, saying both at the same frequency, the i7 wins, not too much question there. Max frequency, i7 wins again. This is why lately, i recommend AMD to lower end builds, gaming builds on a smaller budget, and for those who dont OC. For those who do OC, Intel right now is the way to go. If the rumors of the Non-K edition SB are true, this might change, but not much has been confirmed, and the motherboard manufacturers still might have time to fix it, if they even started :lol: 

@ Notty

He said "entirely for gaming..." and then a few other things like winrar. Considering my entire post was about what he should do, and about gaming, id call it pretty relevant. The 6xxx stuff was going a bit off, but i was trying to show what he gets if he upgrades and waits ;) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2010 8:05:40 PM

WOW :o  Im an addict now! :lol:  They should make this harder in the future :lol:  Anyway, in a more relevant post, we should be more comparing this to a i7 950, as they are all floating around the same price, and in that case, AMD loses the stock one.
Score
0
September 11, 2010 9:09:21 PM

As much as I love amd (im a bit of a fanboy), there is no question in this price range.

intel wins. :( 

Score
0
September 12, 2010 10:37:48 AM

EEEEK!!! AMD loses a in benchmarks to the i720 at stock...let me say whoopy chook to that...fan boy yes..is it greener on this side of the divide yes...today it's more about system v system.

..the phenom is so fast that cpu benchmarks matter so little. If you're making a living out of your pc...maybe worth the investment to go Intel, but for the most of us AMD has the grunt, the eye candy to do the job to a very high level.. why not expand the system and actually get it to do more than just simply be a miniscule quicker in blasting through some arbitary synthetic benchmarks.

We all know that the real world with unoptomised software code changes the picture anyway...takes years for developers to incorporate the latest features, that's why the synthetics are used to try and show case the potential of the new hardware, but in reality we don't see that performance on the ground.

...and then there is the perception of a level playing field...


Intel's compiler cripples code on AMD and VIA chips
Anti-competitive at the machine code level
By Nick Farrell
Monday, 4 January 2010, 10:57
THE US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) apparently is interested in the fact that Intel's compiler deliberately cripples performance for non-Intel processors such as those made by AMD and VIA.

Writing in his blog, programming expert Agner Fog said that it appears that Chipzilla's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set. The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly.
But it also checks what instruction sets are supported by the CPU and it also checks the vendor ID string. If the string says 'Genuine Intel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will use the slowest version of the code it can find.

While this is known, few Intel compiler users actually seem to know about it. Chipzilla does not say that the compiler is Intel-specific, either.
Fog said that if more programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler as everyone wants their code to run just as well on AMD's processors as on Intel's.

Some benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself.
It seems that in the fine print of the AMD settlement Intel has agreed to fix this problem. But apparently the FTC will still be interested because VIA could still be disadvantaged. µ
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2010 12:44:08 PM

Ok. Wrap your head around this, and please, lets not try to take this to an out of context flame war. I have an X4 955 @3.8 GHz. It doesn't sweat for just about anything i do, not even close. Highest i get on a normal basis is 75%, and this is video editing, picture editing, rendering, 50 tabs open, and what not. Now, sure, i love in NOW. But what happens in 5-7 years? Hardware advances, software advances, and slowly my CPU becomes more and more obsolete, and less able to complete tasks, or tasks as fast as it does now. Now, granted, my CPU should be getting optimised shortly when more and more things use 4 cores, but after that, it goes on a downward slope. Considering he wants this thing for 5-7 years, instead of getting the X4 965 and keeping it for 3 years and being able to do things decently, then needing an upgrade, wouldnt it be better to get the i7 930 and last for atleast 5 years. I usually dont recommend upgrading dead sockets far past their death, but in 5 years, if he can find a cheap 980x, he can pop that in there and last for a while longer. Overclocking as well. i7 930 starts as 2.8 GHz. X4 965 starts at 3.4 GHz. This means that X4 965 has to OC an extra 600 MHz just to stay on par with its stock performance vs the i7. Considering its already behind, and add a 600 MHz lead to the i7, and you are looking at a pretty convincing argument, not to mention overclocking any of these will extend their useful lifetime. Now, while i do agree with you in some ways, think to yourself, would you rather have "good enough" or better? I like AMD and all, but as idoln95 wisely said, at this price range, they lose for his particular needs.
Score
0
September 17, 2010 3:29:45 AM

lol, I don't consider myself a fanboy(I own intel), but Intel is definitly the way to go... All the points made in here are coming to a point..... Intel core i7 920 is 280ish.... and the Phenom II X6 1090T is 300ish.... I see Intel core i7 950's for about 300, now granted he will have to pay more for a mobo, but he is going be able to spend a little more, and get a Fundamentally better computer.... He will have to pay more for ram, since he has to buy in threes....

NOW KEEP THIS THREAD NICE, NO FLAMES, LET'S SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY!!!
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2010 6:25:46 PM

1st of all amd 1090t wins intell in the all the way price and performance... . IF u check how much u spend for intel and for amd its like 200 less! If u buy amd maxed inside for 1600 euros the same performance uneed the give for intel that it can be faster in all things with same graphic 2000 euros so childrends i was user intel inside since 1992 486 all the way to pentium4 after that amd because amd have good market prizze why we need ferarri when we can drive bmw.... More space for less money lossers... and same speed in performance prizze. ferarri to 100 4.0 bmw 4.8 sec to 100 BLA.


THE TEST OF AMD VS INTEL.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

and btw if u check prizze how much cost 980x for gaming only few fps more u get... its pointlees.... at all
for 5 to 20 fps max u get more maybe 20 fps more and u pay 4 times more... POINTLESSS its only how u think AHA i afford intel and u show to ur frriends ... and i say i ownd amd and i bouth 4 way CROSS .. and u have only 1 graphic card.... amd gets in bennchmark score 59000 in vantage......

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...
amd wins intel 980x in game FAR CRY .. guys if u plan to play games on high resolution amd wins...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2010 6:36:55 PM

Quote:
1st of all amd 1090t wins intell in the all the way price and performance... . IF u check how much u spend for intel and for amd its like 200 less! If u buy amd maxed inside for 1600 euros the same performance uneed the give for intel that it can be faster in all things with same graphic 2000 euros so childrends i was user intel inside since 1992 486 all the way to pentium4 after that amd because amd have good market prizze why we need ferarri when we can drive bmw.... More space for less money lossers... and same speed in performance prizze. ferarri to 100 4.0 bmw 4.8 sec to 100 BLA.


THE TEST OF AMD VS INTEL.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...

and btw if u check prizze how much cost 980x for gaming only few fps more u get... its pointlees.... at all
for 5 to 20 fps max u get more maybe 20 fps more and u pay 4 times more... POINTLESSS its only how u think AHA i afford intel and u show to ur frriends ... and i say i ownd amd and i bouth 4 way CROSS .. and u have only 1 graphic card.... amd gets in bennchmark score 59000 in vantage......

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom2_x6_...
amd wins intel 980x in game FAR CRY .. guys if u plan to play games on high resolution amd wins...


No, AMD CPU's are sold for less because they are slower. If AMD had something that trampled the 980x, you can be sure they would sell it for $1000+. Lets not forget when AMD beat Intel and sold their high end CPU's for about $1000.
Score
0
November 1, 2010 6:37:09 PM

Quote:
1st of all amd 1090t wins intell in the all the way price and performance... .
Um, not really, 1090T is like equal to a 930.....
Quote:
IF u check how much u spend for intel and for amd its like 200 less!
more like 30$, and you can buy a 959 for the same price as a 1090T.
Quote:
If u buy amd maxed inside for 1600 euros the same performance uneed the give for intel that it can be faster in all things with same graphic 2000 euros so childrends i was user intel inside since 1992 486 all the way to pentium4 after that amd because amd have good market prizze why we need ferarri when we can drive bmw....
I'm sorry WHAT??? I don't get it.... your saying that 2000 intel = 1600 AMD? go read some more reviews, try Tomshardwares.....
Quote:
More space for less money lossers... and same speed in performance prizze. ferarri to 100 4.0 bmw 4.8 sec to 100 BLA.
I don't get cars? Dude 950 is like a good 20FPS better then a 1090T, I still don't get what you are driving at.



Quote:
and btw if u check prizze how much cost 980x for gaming only few fps more u get... its pointlees.... at all
for 5 to 20 fps max u get more maybe 20 fps more and u pay 4 times more... POINTLESSS its only how u think AHA i afford intel and u show to ur frriends ... and i say i ownd amd and i bouth 4 way CROSS .. and u have only 1 graphic card.... amd gets in bennchmark score 59000 in vantage......
I still don't get this. fanboy....... it is more then 5-20FPS.... Plus all those reviews say the 1090T has been OCed... plus it doesn't tell you the GPU that was in the system. All in all, they are bad reviews.

Quote:
amd wins intel 980x in game FAR CRY .. guys if u plan to play games on high resolution amd wins...
Not really.
Score
0
November 1, 2010 6:39:08 PM

The reviews 1. say it is OCed, 2. the only reason there is AMD is because Intel doesn't want a fine for knocking out AMD.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2010 6:40:24 PM

Oh i just noticed this thread was seriously necro'ed. Way to beat a dead horse! :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2010 6:42:19 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!