Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930 (rendering)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 16, 2010 10:20:31 PM

Hey,

Basically the story is that I and one other guy are discussing build workstation/rendering pc.

AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930 Our fight basically is about choice of CPU :/ 

I say that AMD x6 cpu would because:
*cheaper for one(mobo, cpu) it takes of at least 200$ from cost of build.
*We can spend that spare money for more ram that workstations for multimedia edition so like to eat up.
*power difference between amd and intel cpu is not so big(most likely user wouldn't notice the difference).
*Intel over expensive/overkill in this case, 3way memory and HT(which gives 15-20% performance increase) anyways inst better that few more cores, especially for these kinds of takst(multimedia as I mentioned before).

His points:
*better upgrade options
*more power(on which I really dissagre, adobe or CAD programs really wouldn't care, and x6 1055t/1099t have proved to be quite a monsters for these kind of task at least by reviews).
*3way ram memory

Any comments/suggestions for our discussion?
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2010 11:37:22 PM

Removing money from the equation, the i7 pisses over everything AMD has in the multimedia arena. The X6 only just catch up with the i7 950 and below (sometimes beats them, sometimes now).

Factor in money however and the X6 will give you similar ability for less money.
Score
0
September 17, 2010 4:39:22 AM

yea Intel's i7 series CPU does that :D  but is that little performance gap worth those extra 250$ ? At least if were taking X6 1055T as I said I might as well add that money in memory budget. I'm thinking about 8gigs or more cause 4-6 get's eaten quite fast when designers get to they toys and start working. And second six cores better than quad even with HT << and basically all design apps have multi-thread compatibility and they gain really much from those spare cores, If Intel's six-core model wouldn't cost like a whole PC I would go for it :D  and they could live happy for some 3-5 years with that power....
Score
0
Related resources
a c 81 à CPUs
September 17, 2010 5:30:29 AM

Which apps do you use primarily?
Score
0
September 17, 2010 6:48:05 AM

The build we are discussing here is not for me but, as far as my knowledge goes they mainly
use a lot of Adobe apps(Photoshop, Illustrator, etc) and Cad apps (3max mostly, using ray renderers
and those plug-ins appreciate good multi-core cpu power and a lot of ram).

the build I was thinking of was:

Cpu: amd phenom II X6 1055T of 1090T
Mobo: still looking into it(but not as important in thread discussion.
RAM: 2x4gig kit of two 1333mhz modules
video card: GeForce GTX465 (cause of good performance/price, nvidia is better if gpu support for
task like multimedia is necessary, cuda, and driver quality).
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
September 17, 2010 7:22:52 AM

The X6 is what you should be looking at.. The X6 1055T to be precise.. Rest of your decisions look good.. The GTX 460 768MB should replace the GTX 465.. I'll recommend a Gigabyte make for the motherboard.. And make sure not to skimp on the PSU.. A good 550W (Corsair, Antec, Seasonic) should do good..
Score
0
September 17, 2010 9:13:21 AM

Yes, X6 series 1055T is exactly the thing I'm suggesting for this build, but as I said
other guy is suggesting to buy i7-930 which would cost about 220% more(including mobo costs).

and quoting my self "it is and overkill and waste of budget" :/ 
More ram or storage would pay off much more in the long run.

Btw, My I ask why are you suggesting GTX460? if I remember correctly from reviews GTX465 overpowers it
is much more friendly in cost and power consumption zones << but correct me if I'm wrong. =]

BTW, as for storage I would go for Hitachi << heard really good things about then on low failure percentage <<

and sorry for going into off topic :S
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2010 10:03:10 AM

I'd skimp on the graphics card really if you don't game. Something like a GTS 250 should honestly be enough for the Mercury playback engine (CS5 only). If you use CS4 or lower, the GPU accleration is all for OpenGL, so you could look at AMD's offerings, although I do recommend Nvidia, just in case you upgrade.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2010 10:21:50 AM

The Phenom is only really good for encoding. Skimp on the graphics and get an i7. Or wait for Sandy Bridge.
Score
0
September 17, 2010 1:04:19 PM

Quote:
The Phenom is only really good for encoding. Skimp on the graphics and get an i7. Or wait for Sandy Bridge.


Unfortunately I can't skip that video card cause this pc is for freelancer that time to time likes to play some game :D  and this card will also be useful if some of rendering software needs gpu support with more power, it's not the complete high end but it's good for gaming and good for rendering, as I said CUDA and nvidia still has better drivers(still ATI improves their drivers quite fast lately also, but still). Also he will use extreme resolutions 2560x1600 and 1920x1200 multiple monitors 2-3.


And why is phenom only good at encoding, I my self use Phenom II 965 and it performs quite well, of course not as well as 1055T or 1090T would (not talking about Intel here).


The question is "AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930" would that little gap of performance between these two cpu's be worth that money? And I know that for most of the time it might not. let's speculate in the long run (I also doubt that he will need to upgrade it in nearest 3-5 year's next step would simply be rendering farm(which I would love to build)).

1. intel - less ram for beginning in this option
2. amd - more ram and two extra cores << rendering loves eating up dual core power and ram :p 

Also I prefer more real cores that HT virtual ones :p  (but I still like that technology, Only not in this case).


Score
0
September 17, 2010 1:42:11 PM

I know that :p  review/benchmarks showed it quite clearly, both have some advantages.
Score
0
September 17, 2010 1:47:37 PM

My bad, no real advantage except for the price.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 17, 2010 5:23:32 PM

Quote:
Here's one. ANY benchmark that uses more than 4 cores, the X6 wins. As more apps start using more cores, the X6 will really shine more than it does today.

Go to Tom's cpu chart and compare i7-930 to 1090T, you'll see the 1090T win's quite a few benchmarks.

+1

Personally, I think the 1090t is overpriced. The 1055t is the best performance per dollar. But then again, for you that might not be enough performance. You sound like a professional environment so I don't expect any overclocking to be happening.

My advice is to wait if you can though. All new CPUs that are coming out will not support AM3, 1156 or 1366 motherboards. Bulldozer will not be backwards compatible with the desktop version, nor will sandy bridge (AM3r2: AM3 will work in it and BD will work in it but BD will not work in AM3).

increased ram channels translates to not much of a performance increase. I also say buy for the now, not the future. By the time you want a new upgrade option you will only be able to get a core i7 980X. I mean, look at the prices of core 2. They have shot up because no one is buying them. I say just factor a new motherboard into your upgrade costs.
Score
0
September 19, 2010 12:56:07 PM

1075T appeared in quite recently on our vendor stocks :p  nothing yet on 1035T must wait for review and see what these models can do for us, and then maybe include then in selection options <<
Score
0
September 19, 2010 2:42:10 PM

That's pretty much out of the box the 1090t will beat an i7 930 but running at the
same clock speeds the two extra cores matters for nothing it will still lose to a 4 core i7.
Score
0
September 19, 2010 3:48:51 PM

Quote:
Why would anyone run a 1090T at 2.8ghz?? You would just buy a 1055T.



My point was to overclock the i7 to the speeds equal to the 1090t and the 2 extra cores will not matter.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 20, 2010 12:57:58 AM

Quote:
i7 stock can beat any x6.

*Facepalm*

Are you a troll or what?
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
September 20, 2010 1:11:27 PM

Check out the benchmarks.. Concentrate on the app performances relevant to your work.. That way things will become a lot clearer.. Don't jump on to the conclusions page straight away.. The verdict there is the collective observation from all the benchmarks which would include gaming, single threaded apps and all that which are (safe to say might be) highly irrelevant to your cause..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2010 2:00:41 PM

Quote:
Except in apps that use more than 4 cores.


Like these apps?







I don't know about you but it looks like this claim you made doesn't materialize under most instances.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2010 2:09:30 PM

Pretty happy with our 1090T and the two 5850's in CF.

Having a few memory issues at present ... kids have had it a couple of weeks.

Was looking to overclock it a bit ... once the memory issues are sorted.

I think we have a bad stick of RAM ... anyway ... moving on.

Those benchies were interesting ... hoping I might be able to run a few and see what overclocking can achieve.

The main issue for us was the price vs performance ... the X6 seemed pretty good.

In saying that I still have my old Q6600@3.46 and E5300@ 3.5 here too ... both very good ... even in todays terms.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 12:31:02 PM

Quote:
Poor people who bought into s1366. I really feel for you guys. You really took it in the butt.


What are you going on about? So your telling me, my i7 930 is obsolete as soon as Sandy Bridge comes out? Get a grip man.. All cause a new Architecture comes out and technology progresses, doesnt make the previous dead and gone.

People who have just bought the i7 9xx are still well incontention in having a decent setup and certainly not "took in the butt" as you so speak it.

Just like saying the new Honda 10 plate cars come out, Warranty is void on the Honda 09 plates due to the new style being progressed!

Idiot

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 1:57:00 PM

Quote:
Nice how you handpicked the losers. Like I said, 10 out of 30 benchmarks the X6 takes the i7-930 in Tom's comparison tests. I'm sorry your in denial and refuse to look at Tom's tests. I can't link them, you have to look for yourself. The link does not work.

Pretty much ANY encoding benchmark the X6 takes.

Handbrake (wins by a full minute!), Mpeg 2 to Mpeg 4 encoding (divx), Mpeg 2 to H.264, Autodesk 3ds max, 7-Zip........

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1075t-...

**This is the 1075t***^^^^

The others in Tom's test that the 1090T wins over the i7-930 are:

Cinebench 11.5
Encryption: SiSoftware Sandra 2010 Pro
Logic: Fritz Chess
Encryption: SiSoftware Sandra 2010 Pro (SHA256)SHA256 Encryption
Encryption: SiSoftware Sandra 2010 Pro (AES256)AES256 Encryption
Video Editing: Adobe After Effects CS5 Rendering 3 Streams into 1
Image Rendering: 3DS Max 2010 Image Rendering (1440x1080)


Cinebench is not an application and neither are Sisoft Sandra etc.

Adobe After Effects and 3DS Max 2010 are.

You just listed a bunch of synthetic tests. I listed actual applications that the user above stated he used. How about being honest for once?

Is this perhaps you?

"Wow man! lookerz at muh Cinebench score dude! skeet skeet skeet... damn the keys are now sticky"

Off the link you listed Corei7 wins 5, Phenom II X6 wins 2 and they tie in two (tie being equal or within 1 point of one another).

You just solidified the position I presented.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:02:49 PM

Quote:
That's right, a LOT more. Plus you have to buy a new motherboard every time a new chip comes out. s1156 and s1366 are already being replaced.

Poor people who bought into s1366. I really feel for you guys. You really took it in the butt.


How so?

"I feel sorry for people who bought AM3... they really took it in the butt. Bulldozer won't run on AMD3 (will require AM3+ due to new features)."

Is that your logic?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:13:33 PM

Quote:
No but AM3 will run on AM3+. Too bad s1156 wont run on s1155.

Application score, benchmark, only a fanboy would try argue there's a difference between the two.

I'm sorry the truth hurt. I proved you wrong with the benchmarks, I'm done with this thread wolfboy.


So you'll be buying a new motherboard for your older AM3 processor?

How is that any different than buying a new motherboard for your new Sandybridge CPU?

End result is: Buying a new motherboard.

BTW... I'm not a "fanboy". I've been looking forward to Bulldozer for quite some time. I'm what you call a realist. I tell it like it is.


Wolfboy? Hehehe... I'll just leave that comment there as it speaks for itself.

PS. Early adopters of Socket 1366 have been getting Phenom II X6 performance for ~1 year prior to the X6 being released. That's right we had 1 year of great performance. Now AMD caught up with higher clocks and more cores.

I think that speaks to the architectural beauty that is Nehalem. To be fair... Bulldozer appears to be also of architectural beauty. But Phenom is... well... meh.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:39:49 PM

Quote:
New motherboard?? What?

Socket AM3 cpu's will work on Bulldozer AM3+ boards. What part aren't you getting?

What I'm saying is if you want to upgrade to Bulldozer, you can buy the motherboard and ram and save up for the new cpu while using your old AM3 cpu. You don't have to buy all 3 at the same time like you will if you already own a i7/i5 and want to upgrade to SB. A lot of people will like that because not everyone can afford to buy it all at one time.

I was simply responding to DIP-ankars idiotic spam posts saying X6 beats i7-930 in nothing. He stated "name one benchmark X6 wins". I posted 10. Now he is silent.


So what you're saying is that people who will be buying a new AM3+ Motherboard in conjunction with a new AM3 CPU when the AM3+ motherboards are released. So the end result is they'll be buying both.

Or do you mean that current AM3 owners can purchase a new AM3+ motherboard and install their AM3 CPU in it? So the end result is a new motherboard purchase.

Either way... you're talking about a new motherboard purchase. LOL!

Sure.. you have to buy a CPU and motherboard for sandybridge... but so what? I don't get the advantage you're speaking of here?

Why would I upgrade my current socket 1366 motherboard to another socket 1366+ motherboard and wait on the CPU upgrade? Why not wait till I get both at the same time? Either way... I'm buying a new CPU and motherboard in the end no?

You seem to adhere to a narrative and are looking for any advantage which justifies your strong beliefs and adherence to that narrative. In other words... you're attempting to spin reality to suit your narrative. You're acting like Fox News.

As for your response.. you stated that Phenom II X6 outperforms the Core i7 930 in applications that make use of 6 cores. This is not factual. Phenom II X6 does not always beat Core i7 930 when the application uses all 6 cores. In fact, most of the time, the Core i7 930 comes out on top even when all cores are utilized. This is due to other variables which are a testament to Nehalem's magnificent architecture such as, but not only, caching performance, Hyperthreading, memory controller performance, SSE extension support and overall IPC.

These advantages give an Core i7 4 core processor the ability to generally best an equally clocked Phenom II X6 core processor.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:46:17 PM

Zippy I have deleted a few of your posts for being a bit inflammatory mate.

Lets try to keep things focussed on the discussion ... not butts / idiots / and other commentary that simply upsets other users.

I found the graphs / benchies interesting ... thanks.

Cheers !!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 2:53:43 PM

Quote:
OMG your not getting it.

No I'm saying if you have a AM3 cpu NOW, you can get a BD board next year and use your current DDR3 and AM3 cpu in your NEW AM3+ motheboard until you can afford a new AM3 cpu (when prices drop).

Yes i7-930 has the advantage. That's because very few apps use 6 actual cores as of right now. This will change.

The biggest advantage i7 has over x6 is the price. LOL


No and No.

Because the benchmarks clearly show the 980x (a 6 core CPU) with a clear lead over the entire pack (therefore showing that these applications do make use of 6+ cores). And in those applications the Core i7 930 still comes out on top most of time.

So this fallacy that you and others are spreading (that things will improve over time in these applications) is just that... a fallacy.

I know you're saying that, but what sort of advantage is that? Are you insinuating that people are impatient and won't save up for both a new CPU and Motherboard? That somehow people need to first purchase the motherboard and then the new CPU? I don't get the advantage there as you have to rebuild your entire rig with the new motherboard and then tear it apart again a month later to install the new CPU.

Why not wait and buy both at once? I don't get the advantage you speak of. To me it sounds like a non-issue and more like you clinging to a talking point spread by AMD fans.

As for your pricing joke, there are Core i5s and i7s that are priced competitively with their respective AMD competing products. Anything over a Core i7 930 is superior to anything AMD has right now and thus, based on the laws of Capitalism, priced accordingly.

Again another talking point that really is a non-issue. Sure a 980x is expensive to a person like you and others. For you $200-300 is likely equal to what $900-$1100 is to me.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 3:02:50 PM

I am not sure about the spending equivalence thing?

I'll spend over half a mill on a house ... but I'll only spend $200 on a CPU ... or less ... and overclock it.

Mind you I'll spend more than $300 on a Graphics card ... even with 5 gaming boxes.

So not all AMD fans are cheap ... that's my point.

Getting a better graphics card is usually a good answer these days ... unless you have some shabby low end dual core that won't overclock well (S939 X2 or a P4 anything).

Be careful about saying all AMD fans are poor ... that isn't the case ... call us cheap assed instead.

:) 



Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 3:53:02 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-...

To quote anand (who managed to push the 1090T to 4Ghz)

Today's conclusion is no different than what we've been saying about AMD's CPU lineup for several months now. If you're running applications that are well threaded and you're looking to improve performance in them, AMD generally offers you better performance for the same money as Intel. It all boils down to AMD selling you more cores than Intel at the same price point.

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6. And thanks to Turbo Core, you don't give up any performance in less threaded applications compared to a Phenom II X4. The 1090T can easily trump the Core i7 860 and the 1055T can do even better against the Core i5 750.

You start running into problems when you look at lightly threaded applications or mixed workloads that aren't always stressing all six cores. In these situations Intel's quad-core Lynnfield processors (Core i5 700 series and Core i7 800 series) are better buys. They give you better performance in these light or mixed workload scenarios, not to mention lower overall power consumption.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2010 4:14:21 PM

Good point.

I can buy 3 AMD X6's for one Intel 6 core CPU ...

The top end Intel i7 is also more expensive than any X6 AMD cpu ...

Both these Intel CPU's will beat the X6 on almost every application.

But on price ... nope.

That was my only point really ...

:) 

Score
0
September 21, 2010 4:15:21 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
BTW... I'm not a "fanboy".


That statement is humorous when said by one of the biggest fanboys on this forum.

Luckily this forum has a search engine so anyone interested can easily find out the veracity of that statement. (I.e., it has none.)

It seems apparent that in this case you are miffed that AMD has actually switched to doing the same thing that Intel has been doing for years. The only "confusing" thing that people are seeing is you do everything in your power to spin that negative for AMD. (While in the past "unbiased" Intel fanboys such as yourself completely saw absolutely nothing wrong with this business practice when Intel was doing it.)

Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 21, 2010 4:17:52 PM

Quote:
why not compare Amd six core to intel six core or top end i7 quard core.To keep the comparism fair.

How is that fair? The intel is obvious a superior architecture at the same clockspeeds with the addition of hyperthreading. This is why the intel x6 is $1000 and the amd x6 is $300. Fair to me means comparing processors of the same pricerange, which changes over time.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 6:03:47 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Like these apps?


Maybe these ones?











ElMoIsEviL said:
So this fallacy that you and others are spreading (that things will improve over time in these applications) is just that... a fallacy.


It seems reasonable enough to say when the software works properly the 6 core Phenom 2's pull ahead of the 4 core i7's. If that wasn't true wouldn't the intel quadcores win all the time? So its also reasonable to say that things will improve for the 6 core phenom 2s over time.
Score
0
September 21, 2010 6:04:13 PM

enzo matrix said:
How is that fair? The intel is obvious a superior architecture at the same clockspeeds with the addition of hyperthreading. This is why the intel x6 is $1000 and the amd x6 is $300. Fair to me means comparing processors of the same pricerange, which changes over time.


Get used to that happening.

Hypothetically what do you think will happen if a Bulldozer with 4 AMD modules is priced exactly the same as an Intel chip with four Intel cores? (In other words AMD's solution compared to Intel's solution.)

The flame wars on various forums are going to be epic.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 21, 2010 9:04:20 PM

This thread is fast becoming a flame war. Let's try to answer your question.

gunmetal said:
Quote:
The question is "AMD x6 1050t/1090t vs Intel i7-930" would that little gap of performance between these two cpu's be worth that money? And I know that for most of the time it might not. let's speculate in the long run (I also doubt that he will need to upgrade it in nearest 3-5 year's next step would simply be rendering farm(which I would love to build)).

1. intel - less ram for beginning in this option
2. amd - more ram and two extra cores << rendering loves eating up dual core power and ram :p 

Also I prefer more real cores that HT virtual ones :p  (but I still like that technology, Only not in this case).
Quote:

With your price claims, the 1090t will cost you less and you can put that money towards more memory. I highly recommend this, since as you saw with the 3dsMax benchmark posted, although the i7 will perform better, it is not by a significant margin. I suppose it is up to the person you are building this for if the decrease in render time is worth the extra money.
I'd check where you are getting your prices from though because the last I saw the i7 930 was at $285 and the x6 at $295.

I'd like to point out also that the x6 1075T is out at 3GHz stock, for a much more reasonable $250 now (at least at newegg prices).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2010 6:19:14 AM

I still think the 2,8Ghz one is more reasonable for the price.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2010 12:27:35 PM

amdfangirl said:
I still think the 2,8Ghz one is more reasonable for the price.

I completely agree.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2010 1:08:48 PM

Keith I am an AMD fan but my X6 trails the high end i7's ... end of story.

I am not bitter about it, I am pretty happy with the performance I got for the price.

I don't see any of the Intel fans arguing that point.

The i7 cores just have a slightly higher IPC ... and the end of the day their cache seems more effective.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2010 2:42:16 PM

If you're just doing rendering it makes sense to save money... by buying a cheap 880G mobo and using the IGP.
Score
0
September 22, 2010 3:09:38 PM

Progression is progression, people like AMD and people like Intel.

Intel is better here where as AMD is better there. Simple as. Sandybridge vs Bulldozer. i7 vs X6. Honda vs Ford. All have ups, downs, lefts and rights. The fact is that the user is the one who makes one more effective over the other. Simple as.

My i7 930 is the best chip in the world, but someone else Phenom II x6 is better than mine, somewhere out there someones P4 Northbridge is incontention of that prize.

These companies are progressing technology futher each day/week/month to satisfy the pockets of the MD's and to grab as much profits as they can, but they HAVE to utilise the researching knowleadge base moving forwards in the computer world. Weather AMD or Intel, both have there gains and margins.

Quick before my i7 blows up! :) 
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2010 3:16:58 PM

reccy said:
My i7 930 is the best chip in the world, but someone else Phenom II x6 is better than mine, somewhere out there someones P4 Northbridge is incontention of that prize.


I think I am misunderstanding that sentence
Score
0
September 22, 2010 3:21:39 PM

enzo matrix said:
I think I am misunderstanding that sentence


Basically ive bought a chip im happy with and what i wanted, regardless of the brand new Sandybridge out shortly.

People out there doing their thing on old P4's K8's etc.. meaning, no matter what the manufactors provide in terms of new technology, the user is in his own right to upgrade or not given what they think is best for there line of budget/use.

Meaning, If an AMD Athlon X2 4200+ Plays WOW flawlessly, why spend money upgrading something not worth it in the eyes of the user?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2010 7:01:31 AM

I agree, but hoe does it relate to the topic again?
Score
0
September 30, 2010 1:55:05 AM

Like it or not, most apps will probably be tested and optimized on Intel CPUs first. So, even if the AMD X6 has more cores, it will probably take some time before apps are optimized for it. For real world usage, I think Intel will always run faster unless you're able to re-write and re-compile the app to take advantage of the AMD architecture.
Score
0
October 1, 2010 1:06:49 PM

Quote:
Thats how i7 crush those useless x6.


Are you freakin serious? Your such a lamer and intel fanboi. Only the i7 980x outperforms the 1090t in most benchmarks. Also lets see the amd oc'd at 4.0 ghz. The 1090t destroys / "crush" most of the i7 models out there. The 980x is 1000 bucks compared to 280 ? Also if you look at the scores, the 1090t pretty much beats every single one of them besides the flagship cpu (980x). You're so ignorant and naive dude. You made yourself look like a fool. Just b/c a product is more expensive does not mean it is better.

http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/processors/A...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:20:15 PM

^ Some mod needs to close this sorry thread. Zippy already got a temp ban out of it, and it appears some others are headed for the barn as well.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 1:33:47 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
^ Some mod needs to close this sorry thread. Zippy already got a temp ban out of it, and it appears some others are headed for the barn as well.


Sigh...another i7 vs 1090T thread turned flame war. Ive done like 100 of these threads, and always come to the same conclusion:

Gaming: i7>1090T
Video Editing: 1090T>i7
Price: 1090T beats i7
Clock for Clock: i7>1090T
Stock: 1090T>i7
Overclocking: Generally a tie for max OC. AMD can generally go the highest, but thru conventional means, the i7 generally gets higher on air or water. Thats max OC, considering the i7s start lower, they obviously OC higher from stock.
Future Proof: 1090T. While it wont be AM3 compatible with BD, atleast you can put the 1090T into a AM3+ board. More importantly however, as time goes on, more apps use more cores. NOW, the i7 might beat the 1090T in CS4, but some time from now, the 1090T might beat it in CS6 due to added cores. Just an example, i have no knowledge of CS6 core usage.

Now, put all that together. Generally, i recommend the 1055T for video editing, and the i5 750 for gaming. So basically, scale that up and you have 1090T for video editing, and i7 950 for gaming. As this deals with video editing, id say 1055/1075/1090T is the way to go. You likely wont even be able to tell the difference. And for those die hard fanboys on both sides...stop. For one, i7 is faster clock for clock in the vast majority of situations. Just how it is. For the intel fanboys saying it takes 2 more cores and it still loses....no. For one, it doesnt lose every single benchmark. Secondly, if AMD can fit 2 more cores and there, and sell it at the price its at, why not?
Share
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 1, 2010 2:18:48 PM

ares1214 said:
Sigh...another i7 vs 1090T thread turned flame war. Ive done like 100 of these threads, and always come to the same conclusion:

Gaming: i7>1090T
Video Editing: 1090T>i7
Price: 1090T beats i7
Clock for Clock: i7>1090T
Stock: 1090T>i7
Overclocking: Generally a tie for max OC. AMD can generally go the highest, but thru conventional means, the i7 generally gets higher on air or water. Thats max OC, considering the i7s start lower, they obviously OC higher from stock.
Future Proof: 1090T. While it wont be AM3 compatible with BD, atleast you can put the 1090T into a AM3+ board. More importantly however, as time goes on, more apps use more cores. NOW, the i7 might beat the 1090T in CS4, but some time from now, the 1090T might beat it in CS6 due to added cores. Just an example, i have no knowledge of CS6 core usage.

Now, put all that together. Generally, i recommend the 1055T for video editing, and the i5 750 for gaming. So basically, scale that up and you have 1090T for video editing, and i7 950 for gaming. As this deals with video editing, id say 1055/1075/1090T is the way to go. You likely wont even be able to tell the difference. And for those die hard fanboys on both sides...stop. For one, i7 is faster clock for clock in the vast majority of situations. Just how it is. For the intel fanboys saying it takes 2 more cores and it still loses....no. For one, it doesnt lose every single benchmark. Secondly, if AMD can fit 2 more cores and there, and sell it at the price its at, why not?

i think you should save this post and post it on every degraded and flaming thread you come accross :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 2:31:01 PM

enzo matrix said:
i think you should save this post and post it on every degraded and flaming thread you come accross :D 


Repetition is the best way to break a fanboy! This is thread 101 thats ive done this...absolutely no offense aimed at the OP, but to stop Flame War 3, id recommend just looking at the 100 other threads with this topic. This thread has also been hit pretty hard with Flame War...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2010 3:54:54 PM

Best answer selected by reynod.
Score
0
!