Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD processor or 980x?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 10, 2010 9:09:36 PM

A bit of an odd question perhaps..I was building a cpu around the 1090t amd processor because it offers performance that I can benefit from as far as gaming and multimedia is concerned...however I don't believe that AMD will put out more processors for the current gen mobo that are out..my question is, will AMD create an updated version of the 1090T or something better to utilize on a crosshair iv formula mobo? If not I may just build with an intel proc. and update to a 980x if and when the price drops...help would be greatly appreciated

More about : amd processor 980x

a b à CPUs
November 10, 2010 9:45:35 PM

AMD will launch Bulldozer CPUs next year and they will require an AM3+ motherboard. They will not work with AM3 boards, though I wouldn't be surprised to see ASRock or ASUS find some way to duct tape it into a few of their AM3 boards anyway :D . If you want something now and have the money then I say an i7 930 and good X58 board for overclocking would be the way to go. If you can wait a little bit (till Q2-Q3 2011) Intel's Sandybridge and AMDs Bulldozer will be out next year.
Score
0
November 10, 2010 11:12:30 PM

it depends though i would wait for bulldozer and sandy bridge to come out and then build a system around one of those. Besides what are you running currently?
It might be worthwhile to upgrade just that to hold you over till then.
Score
0
Related resources
November 10, 2010 11:25:04 PM

if budget is not your problem then go the 980 way, it'll stays high end for a long time. however if you choose to stick with amd, follow the advice two guys above said to wait for a bulldozer.
Score
0
November 11, 2010 12:01:14 AM

damn really? The waiting is the hardest part lol...Although I didn't actually plan on building everything until about January or February I thought maybe the 1090T was decent..I've done some extensive research on the processor in question, as well as the intel processors. The AMD processor doesn't seem that bad, but considering AMD strategically prices products for consumers with tight budgets it may be worthwhile to wait. However, although intel processors are a bit expensive they are extemely powerful. It's just so many decisions to make...I did want the 980x, but then intel's new procs will come out...I just want something future proof...And as far as my current rig is concerned I don't even feel like spending a cent on it. It's a dell xps 720 an intel q6600 processor, 8800 gtx vid. card, and 4GB of ram. I have had it for almost 4 years and it still operates well..but its not worth upgrading..parts are cheaper now, and better technology is coming out so I figure it makes sense to put my financial resources towards that..but I would like to hear input..cuz I need to make a firm decission man
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
November 11, 2010 4:29:16 AM

If you have the budget and the requirement (doesn't seems that way looking at your current setup) then surely go for the i7 980X.. It is the fastest desktop processor as of now and will remain so for a good amount of time.. AMD currently have no solution to compete with it in terms of raw computing strength.. The only competition it might face is when Intel decides to launch the LGA 2011 processors sometime towards the end of next year..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 8:48:53 AM

Quote:
Of course go for 980x.Plz donot compare a monster 980x to a X6.980x will be the flagship intel cpu for quite some time.


You don't give AMD much love, do you?

The 980X may be the fastest CPU desktop in existence, but it is priced way above what the average Joe can afford. Most of us don't have unlimited funds, you know. $1000 just for the CPU? I could build a VERY decent mid-to high-range PC that does everything I ask or want for the next three years with that same $1000.

OP, you'll have to decide what fits your budget and how long you are willing to wait. If six months is to long, go for a current generation platform.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 9:23:11 AM

Quote:
^Woh! it took you so long to find out that i hate amd cpu and love intel.I thought you were a clever chap.

As for 980x price it is the fastest cpu right now.You have to pay more when you want ultimate performance. If you donot have 1000$ then there is i5 760 which BTW also beats 1090t in every games.Hell even i3 beats x6 in games.
Amd provides no competetion(performance wise) to iseries so 980x deserves its 1000$ price.


Fair if you can afford it, but not everyone can or needs to. Also, not everyone is interested purely in gaming. With a tight budget and looking at all-round system performance, I would recommend an Athlon II X4 over an i3 any day of the week. Not because of fanboyism *cough cough* but purely because of value for money.
Score
0
November 11, 2010 10:19:25 AM

I am an admitted AMD fanboy. I recognize the raw power of the 980X but to claim that any i5 is gonna beat out the 1090T BE has to be based on synthetic benchmarks that will not have any real significant impact on your noticable performance.

If your intent is to process Gaussian blur at 10 pixels on a 40 mb tiff file while fragging in a 50 man BFBC2 server and simultaneously running a 3D render while folding, by all means throw a grand at the 980X. Then you will at least be able to brag that you have one. How many games are truly CPU limited?

If you want to be able to play the latest games at high FPS and have great multi-tasking, save yourself the $700 by getting the 1090. OC it and spend some of your savings on a killer GPU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 11:28:41 AM

Intel is king when it comes to IPC, which AMD has answered with by including more cores. AMD has a much more refined bidirectional bus architecture between the processors and memory (HyperTransport), though QPI is much much better than the quad-pumped front end bus that Intel used to push on us.

To be honest, I see AMD pushing new technology out to AM3+ boards, but I think we haven't seen the last of AM3 quite yet. There is still plenty of room for AMD to sell die shrinks of the current processor lines and see performance improvements over and above what they are currently stocking without having to go to a new socket architecture.

For my own needs, I am currently running two gaming rigs. On one side, I have just finished an i7 920 for my wife, and on the other side, a 1055T for myself. Both have finally been overclocked stable (3.9 Ghz on the 920, 4.1 Ghz on the 1055T) and to be quite honest, I have a hard time noticing the performance differences between the two. I know there is a performance difference, but in most cases it is a matter of bare percentages and milliseconds off the clock and is not perceptible in everyday use. I did this intentionally, since I am not a fanboy of either Intel or AMD. I think they both make awesome kit.

If absolute creme de la creme (and the bragging rights that come with it), sure, go out there and spend the extra cash and go Intel Extreme. For my own self, I would rather save the money and be near the leading edge of technology rather than on the bleeding edge of technology.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 11:44:22 AM

I love it when people talk sense.. :-)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 12:33:11 PM

I put a single 5850 on both. Neither one of us are extreme gamers (some WoW for both of us, and for me, a few FPS and SC2). My feeling is that if the video card comes up short,I can always plop in another 5850 and bump up the performance a bit.

On my end, I like being able to drive both screens on my desk at 1920 x 1200. For my wife, not so much about driving two screens...just wanted to be sure she didn't have to turn down the eye candy when she gets together with her girlfriends in ICC.
Score
0
November 11, 2010 8:04:42 PM

I definitely hear what everyone is saying..Honestly I have always been the type of person where I prefer quality over anything...even if it does come at a cost... I have always used intel processors, however AMD isn't bad either... I have seen some of the benchmarks between AMD's latest proc and some of intels (920, 930, 950) and the 1090T didn't do as well as I had hoped...but I still consider it because, as far as my needs are concerned, it may do the job...but simply because I'm very interested in the 980x im thinking about getting an intel mobo and simply getting the 980x in a couple months...the new generation of processors sounds great..but if I had the 980x and a good video card (5970/gtx 580) perhaps that may be all I need for the next 3-5 years..right? I just recently entered the realm of pc gaming all things that pertain to it, and I just want some professional, and honest opinions from the experienced ppl here :) 
Score
0
November 11, 2010 8:09:32 PM

jimmyzline said:
I am an admitted AMD fanboy. I recognize the raw power of the 980X but to claim that any i5 is gonna beat out the 1090T BE has to be based on synthetic benchmarks that will not have any real significant impact on your noticable performance.

If your intent is to process Gaussian blur at 10 pixels on a 40 mb tiff file while fragging in a 50 man BFBC2 server and simultaneously running a 3D render while folding, by all means throw a grand at the 980X. Then you will at least be able to brag that you have one. How many games are truly CPU limited?

If you want to be able to play the latest games at high FPS and have great multi-tasking, save yourself the $700 by getting the 1090. OC it and spend some of your savings on a killer GPU.


Yeah see...you make a good point..and thats basically how I perceived it initially...the processor seems suitable and may last me a good amount of time! I guess its more psychological than anything that I have the 980x because I have always been the type of person to want the latest and greatest...indeed it is costly, but I guess it's justified due to the quality and technology...isnt the 980x based on 32nm tech? im just trying to pour most of my money into the processor, mobo, and video card so that it lasts
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 8:16:55 PM

Yes, the 980x will probably last you a couple years, but if you are anything like me, you will be salivating over the new hotness well before the sticker shock of the old hotness has worn off. In that case, you are going to find that you will almost always want to be on the bleeding edge.

I guess the best advice is price to what you can afford for now and plan on upgrading down the road. The way I have been going, I have been upgrading about every 18-24 months. Sometimes it's a new hard drive, sometimes a new processor, and other time, new graphics cards.

This most recent upgrade just happened to be whole new machines (just about) for both my wife and I, though I did keep the cases (Lian Li, good lord, they never go bad!) and the power supplies, since they were more than adequate for the task. But for both machines, I was extremely frugal and bought all the parts as they went on sale, and was able to get everything for both boxes for just under $1,200 (processors, memory, hard drives, mainboards, operating systems and graphics cards). And both of these machines, I expect, will last us for at least the next 2-3 years.

Buy what you feel comfortable being able to afford. In my case, the wife was complaining about how slow her game machine was running, and I am frugal to a fault (my wife calls me cheap), so I would only buy when it was on sale. Thank God for Fry's, Microcenter and NewEgg! Granted, she had to wait about a month, but in the end, her system is the pips and mine ain't no slouch either.
Score
0
November 11, 2010 8:21:51 PM

Houndsteeth said:
Intel is king when it comes to IPC, which AMD has answered with by including more cores. AMD has a much more refined bidirectional bus architecture between the processors and memory (HyperTransport), though QPI is much much better than the quad-pumped front end bus that Intel used to push on us.

To be honest, I see AMD pushing new technology out to AM3+ boards, but I think we haven't seen the last of AM3 quite yet. There is still plenty of room for AMD to sell die shrinks of the current processor lines and see performance improvements over and above what they are currently stocking without having to go to a new socket architecture.

For my own needs, I am currently running two gaming rigs. On one side, I have just finished an i7 920 for my wife, and on the other side, a 1055T for myself. Both have finally been overclocked stable (3.9 Ghz on the 920, 4.1 Ghz on the 1055T) and to be quite honest, I have a hard time noticing the performance differences between the two. I know there is a performance difference, but in most cases it is a matter of bare percentages and milliseconds off the clock and is not perceptible in everyday use. I did this intentionally, since I am not a fanboy of either Intel or AMD. I think they both make awesome kit.

If absolute creme de la creme (and the bragging rights that come with it), sure, go out there and spend the extra cash and go Intel Extreme. For my own self, I would rather save the money and be near the leading edge of technology rather than on the bleeding edge of technology.


Very well said! I feel as though I am close to making a more confident decision based on what your saying, and what everyone in this thread has mentioned. I appreciate the unbiased opinions, and the benefits for both procs. And one of the reasons why I wanted to get the 980x is because I cannot afford it now, so I would have purchased an i7950 for the time being...just knowing that I can upgrade later to something more powerful is comforting, you know? After looking at some benchmarks and reading reviews the 1090t seemed only to rival intels 920 and 930, which I found disappointing...if I get the 1090t and have no option to upgrade because of AMD's new offerings sometime next year (which would require an AM3+ mobo) it kinda makes me feel...left out ....


Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 9:09:26 PM

You know, even if you have to get a new mainboard, you will probably spend less on an AMD mainboard+processor combo than you would on the 980x alone...consider that into your equation. And chances are very good that you will be more than able to reuse the memory and just about every other part of your build.

To add to it, you would then be able to sell the old AMD mainboard+processor for a nominal sum and offset some of the cost of the new purchase. Or you could gift it to a friend or relative who isn't as close to the edge as you are, who would probably be ecstatic to get it.

The only difference in performance between the i7 920, 930 and 950 is clock speed. Since all three processors have locked multipliers (the 965 has an unlocked multiplier, just like the 980x), you have to finagle the FSB numbers in order to get a decent overclock. I had pretty good luck on my wife's 920. It will beat the pants off a stock 965, let alone a 950, and there was no downside since I have stable temps at load of about 49 Celsius and I didn't even have to push the voltage beyond 1.35V. And judging from what I have seen out there, you would be hard-pressed to get even a 950 up to 3.9 Ghz. It's all about how comfortable you are with the hardware you buy.
Score
0
November 11, 2010 10:47:06 PM

Houndsteeth said:
You know, even if you have to get a new mainboard, you will probably spend less on an AMD mainboard+processor combo than you would on the 980x alone...consider that into your equation. And chances are very good that you will be more than able to reuse the memory and just about every other part of your build.

To add to it, you would then be able to sell the old AMD mainboard+processor for a nominal sum and offset some of the cost of the new purchase. Or you could gift it to a friend or relative who isn't as close to the edge as you are, who would probably be ecstatic to get it.

The only difference in performance between the i7 920, 930 and 950 is clock speed. Since all three processors have locked multipliers (the 965 has an unlocked multiplier, just like the 980x), you have to finagle the FSB numbers in order to get a decent overclock. I had pretty good luck on my wife's 920. It will beat the pants off a stock 965, let alone a 950, and there was no downside since I have stable temps at load of about 49 Celsius and I didn't even have to push the voltage beyond 1.35V. And judging from what I have seen out there, you would be hard-pressed to get even a 950 up to 3.9 Ghz. It's all about how comfortable you are with the hardware you buy.


That makes a lot of sense...because I do not mind paying a little extra for my AMD parts considering that I want longevity. Even gettin an enthusiast type mobo like the crosshair iv, 1090t wont be that much when compared to the 980x...it actually makes more financial sense to build my pc around the AMD proc so that I can get a good HD and video card...the performance will be there and I have no issue with the brand at all...benchmarks aside, I think that processor will do just what I need it to!

One question though...you said you oc your 1055t to 4.1 ghz? How much do you think that will diminish the quality or health of the cpu? Because I want to oc the 1090t when I get it..but not at the expense of shortening the life span of the cpu..

And your right..even when the new AMD processors and motherboards debut I think that it may actually cost less than the 980x alone which is pretty crazy
Score
0
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 11, 2010 10:59:07 PM

asantesoul said:
Very well said! I feel as though I am close to making a more confident decision based on what your saying, and what everyone in this thread has mentioned. I appreciate the unbiased opinions, and the benefits for both procs. And one of the reasons why I wanted to get the 980x is because I cannot afford it now, so I would have purchased an i7950 for the time being...just knowing that I can upgrade later to something more powerful is comforting, you know? After looking at some benchmarks and reading reviews the 1090t seemed only to rival intels 920 and 930, which I found disappointing...if I get the 1090t and have no option to upgrade because of AMD's new offerings sometime next year (which would require an AM3+ mobo) it kinda makes me feel...left out ....


Your Phenom x6 1090T and DDR3 will move to the new AM3+ motherboard - not sure how that would make you feel left out. Not really sure either how you may feel disappointed about the x6 Thubans in comparison to the i7s. The x6s do what they are meant to do with their advantage in software running parallel threads -- more cores beat hyper threads.

There is a reason to be disappointed in AMD in the matter by which they handled Bulldozer Zambezi and AM3--AM3+ at the end of last year, as it was apparent initial compatibility was targeted with AM3. The bumbling way in which they leaked the 'requirement' of AM3+ and followed it by an official release may or may not be done intentionally -- but at least they 'raised the flag' about AM3/BD. I was as guilty as anyone else -- but my quilt was based upon 'official information' released by AMD.

But I also understand that a new chipset is necessary to take advantage of what BD Zambezi brings to the table so I'm not overly torqued by it. And as megamanx00 noted in the second post, some vendors will most likely work-around the limitations in AM3 with regard to BD even though it may limit maximum performance.

If you wish to be disappointed in something --- look at other socket compatibility moving forward and over the previous two years. That has caused some major torque in a good many wallets. AMD may have handled AM3+ awkwardly but from various flavors of s775 to s1336/1156 to LGA2011 in three years is not a sparkling record no matter how you look at it.


Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 11, 2010 11:55:41 PM

asantesoul said:
That makes a lot of sense...because I do not mind paying a little extra for my AMD parts considering that I want longevity. Even gettin an enthusiast type mobo like the crosshair iv, 1090t wont be that much when compared to the 980x...it actually makes more financial sense to build my pc around the AMD proc so that I can get a good HD and video card...the performance will be there and I have no issue with the brand at all...benchmarks aside, I think that processor will do just what I need it to!

One question though...you said you oc your 1055t to 4.1 ghz? How much do you think that will diminish the quality or health of the cpu? Because I want to oc the 1090t when I get it..but not at the expense of shortening the life span of the cpu..

And your right..even when the new AMD processors and motherboards debut I think that it may actually cost less than the 980x alone which is pretty crazy


Overclocking will only stress your CPU if you push your voltages too much. Sure, there is the whole "electron-pathway drift" theory, but the truth is that as long as your voltages remain stable and your CPU remains cool you will not experience any issues from overclocking. In fact, you stress your mainboard and memory far more than your processor. Hence, you are right...if you splurge, get some solid memory and a mainboard with good overclocking tools.

The biggest issue you want to address when you overclock is stability. I won't go into too many details here, Tom's has some excellent guides (or links to some excellent guides elsewhere), but if you follow them closely, you will have a very fast and stable machine. Bulletproof your system at stock first, and then you can slowly crank it up.

For the lifetime of your processor, I would expect that you would have no issues if you decide to overclock. If you do, you can always RMA. In fact, you could do a very modest overclock to get a 920 up to 950 performance levels, and then crank up the processor every time you feel it getting a little slow. I have done this also in the past, and it does help extend the life of your build, not to mention allowing you to get later BIOS revisions that might enhance mainboard clocking performance.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 12:05:02 AM

Houndsteeth said:
Overclocking will only stress your CPU if you push your voltages too much. Sure, there is the whole "electron-pathway drift" theory, but the truth is that as long as your voltages remain stable and your CPU remains cool you will not experience any issues from overclocking. In fact, you stress your mainboard and memory far more than your processor. Hence, you are right...if you splurge, get some solid memory and a mainboard with good overclocking tools.

The biggest issue you want to address when you overclock is stability. I won't go into too many details here, Tom's has some excellent guides (or links to some excellent guides elsewhere), but if you follow them closely, you will have a very fast and stable machine. Bulletproof your system at stock first, and then you can slowly crank it up.

For the lifetime of your processor, I would expect that you would have no issues if you decide to overclock. If you do, you can always RMA. In fact, you could do a very modest overclock to get a 920 up to 950 performance levels, and then crank up the processor every time you feel it getting a little slow. I have done this also in the past, and it does help extend the life of your build, not to mention allowing you to get later BIOS revisions that might enhance mainboard clocking performance.


oh really? I have heard and spoken to some people that oc right away! Some do wait, but a lot of people say it isn't necessary. Honestly, I don't think I need to oc the cpu that much. Perhaps leave it for about 2-3 months. But, your saying that you can oc as time goes by? I'm sort of new to this, but it sounds counter productive..I only see it that way because as time goes by doesn't the processor become weaker? Say, over the course of 2 years? Wouldn't an oc put more strain on it? Or as long as the voltages are set correctly it isn't a problem?

As far as the motherboard is concerned I was looking at the crosshair iv formula mobo which seems to be oc friendly and have some features that I may benefit from as time progresses.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2010 12:23:42 AM

When I said "extend the life of you build" I meant that it made you build seem faster when it started to get a little more dated and newer and faster kit starts hitting the market. My last build before the 1055T was a Q6600, and that one ran at 4.0 Ghz for nearly 3 years without any issues. It has since made its way to my nephew as a birthday present, who is now enjoying it thoroughly.

I tend to be much more Gigabit-friendly when it comes to mainboards, but Asus has some good boards (the RoG boards being among them), so go for the Crosshair.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 1:16:22 AM

Houndsteeth said:
When I said "extend the life of you build" I meant that it made you build seem faster when it started to get a little more dated and newer and faster kit starts hitting the market. My last build before the 1055T was a Q6600, and that one ran at 4.0 Ghz for nearly 3 years without any issues. It has since made its way to my nephew as a birthday present, who is now enjoying it thoroughly.

I tend to be much more Gigabit-friendly when it comes to mainboards, but Asus has some good boards (the RoG boards being among them), so go for the Crosshair.


q6600 at 4.0ghz? thats pretty good..I have the same processor but I got mine in 2007 from dell..so unfortunately I don't think I can oc because the bios are locked apparently..I tried finding ways around this, but I dont think there is
Score
0
November 12, 2010 3:33:05 PM

Its hard for me to see the logic in paying $1000 for a 980x when it will be hard to notice real world performance diffs, unless someone has specific and intensive needs. I'd GUESS (just a guess) that most of the 980x setups are people who are very focused on having "the best" and who are happy spending significant $$ as such. They derive psychological benefit from knowing they have a monster chip. They can run some benchs and laugh at how awesomely powerful their computer is. Then they go back to surfing Tom's forum and Newegg, or maybe pop open a game for which their 980x is coasting along, underutilized.

Exactly like when you pull up to a restaurant and there is a Mercedes AMG gullwing that cost $500,000 and can go 200mph. Whoever bought it probably has never actually driven it anywhere close to 200mph, and lawd knows they could have gotten a killer performing car for 1/10th the price that still would allow them to go as fast as reasonable, but they derive psychological satisfaction knowing that they have it.

Nothing wrong with this I guess.....Intel is just filling that market niche with a low-volume specialty product just like Mercedes. Also same "halo effect" at play....Intel wants to make sure that its always an Intel product that is the "BEST" at any given time.

I just won't be the guy spending $1000 on a chip vs $250. Plus, you go get the 980x now, and yet it will be undoubtedly trumped mid next year with the socket 2011 SB chips.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 4:03:24 PM

hogan773 said:
Its hard for me to see the logic in paying $1000 for a 980x when it will be hard to notice real world performance diffs, unless someone has specific and intensive needs. I'd GUESS (just a guess) that most of the 980x setups are people who are very focused on having "the best" and who are happy spending significant $$ as such. They derive psychological benefit from knowing they have a monster chip. They can run some benchs and laugh at how awesomely powerful their computer is. Then they go back to surfing Tom's forum and Newegg, or maybe pop open a game for which their 980x is coasting along, underutilized.

Exactly like when you pull up to a restaurant and there is a Mercedes AMG gullwing that cost $500,000 and can go 200mph. Whoever bought it probably has never actually driven it anywhere close to 200mph, and lawd knows they could have gotten a killer performing car for 1/10th the price that still would allow them to go as fast as reasonable, but they derive psychological satisfaction knowing that they have it.

Nothing wrong with this I guess.....Intel is just filling that market niche with a low-volume specialty product just like Mercedes. Also same "halo effect" at play....Intel wants to make sure that its always an Intel product that is the "BEST" at any given time.

I just won't be the guy spending $1000 on a chip vs $250. Plus, you go get the 980x now, and yet it will be undoubtedly trumped mid next year with the socket 2011 SB chips.


lol..know what? That was a deal breaker for me...simply making that comparison puts thing's in perspective for me...I did mention that I was getting it simply to feel good about it, and thats obviously absurd. I am now convinced that purchasing the amd processor with a suitable mobo is the best thing to do..I actually determined I could get about 4 different things (proc, mobo, vid card, ssd) and it would still be under 1000. So, I'm definitely convinced at this point man
Score
0
November 12, 2010 4:24:55 PM

Quote:
This is why i hate amd.
www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/301651-15-5870-crossfire-p...
junk six core cpus.

Quote:
I would love to blame it on drivers but the same games ran significantly better on my old system. Unless my i7 920 at 3.2 made that much of a difference over my 1090T at 3.7. Im confused and dont know much about this stuff.

Post after the 12th reply in that thread.


Just when I thought I had made up my mind lol...okay, so I visited that thread and am now back to being undecided...I mean, the 1090t seems really good..but now your saying that, as far as gaming is concrned, I would be better off with an intel processor? Because after I'm done building I'll mainly be running games as well as doing light vid/pic editing...nothing too crazy you know? And i'll constantly be watching hi def movies if that matters..so, maybe an i7950?
Score
0
a c 108 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2010 4:35:20 PM

asantesoul said:
Just when I thought I had made up my mind lol...okay, so I visited that thread and am now back to being undecided...I mean, the 1090t seems really good..but now your saying that, as far as gaming is concrned, I would be better off with an intel processor? Because after I'm done building I'll mainly be running games as well as doing light vid/pic editing...nothing too crazy you know? And i'll constantly be watching hi def movies if that matters..so, maybe an i7950?





Edited to remove irrelevant, large illustration.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 5:33:06 PM

Yes but I think this 1090T vs 980x is a weird comparison. Again to use my car analogy, its like saying should I get an Infiniti M car for $50k or should I get the limited edition Mercedes gullwing for $500k. Are there not many choices in between that are a better comparison?

In this case why wouldn't the OP consider an i7 950, which can be had for the same price as the 1090T, yet is inherently a faster processor than the 1090T? Maybe the mobo is a few bucks more, and the i7 950 has 4 cores vs 6 on AMD, but those 4 cores are each more powerful than the cores on the 1090T.

I am scratching head as to why the only Intel option must be the "BEST".

Sorry I guess to amend my example, its like you've decided you must get the "BEST" of either company, so you look at the "BEST" Honda and the "BEST" BMW, even though many of the less-than-best BMWs will wipe the pavement with the best Honda.....

Score
0
November 12, 2010 5:37:22 PM

Again the only arguments are benchmarks? My gaming machine has the 1055t with CF 5770's and I run FPS of a respectable 40 in Crysis and mid 50-60 in BFBC2. No problems whatsoever.
I'm not trying to convince anyone toward one CPU or the other. But if my "sucky" 1055t does that and cost 1/5 the price of the 980x I am thrilled. The 1090t oc'd to 4.0 will be beyond what you need.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 6:26:27 PM

Quote:
If OP has the money he should definitely buy 980x.Or he can also buy i5 which BTW ALSO HAMMERS X6 IN GAMES.OR I7.



Not sure this is true......the 1090T beats the i5 750 in many of the benchmarks.

This is a weird thread.....not sure why "if he has the money he should definitely buy the 980x"

980x is bleeding edge pricing so you're paying 5x the cost for relatively small NOTICEABLE performance increase. Maybe not noticeable at all if you're doing tasks that wouldn't bottleneck a 1090T or i7 950 or i5 760. So beyond the chick-magnet qualities of knowing you've got a 980x "under the hood", why again is this THE chip to buy if you can afford it? It looks like the new SB chips may equal the 980x on some benchmarks.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 7:05:01 PM

hogan773 said:
Yes but I think this 1090T vs 980x is a weird comparison. Again to use my car analogy, its like saying should I get an Infiniti M car for $50k or should I get the limited edition Mercedes gullwing for $500k. Are there not many choices in between that are a better comparison?

In this case why wouldn't the OP consider an i7 950, which can be had for the same price as the 1090T, yet is inherently a faster processor than the 1090T? Maybe the mobo is a few bucks more, and the i7 950 has 4 cores vs 6 on AMD, but those 4 cores are each more powerful than the cores on the 1090T.

I am scratching head as to why the only Intel option must be the "BEST".

Sorry I guess to amend my example, its like you've decided you must get the "BEST" of either company, so you look at the "BEST" Honda and the "BEST" BMW, even though many of the less-than-best BMWs will wipe the pavement with the best Honda.....


Yeah I hear you...and what your saying makes perfect sense. But, if intel is good for gaming then I would prefer to get the 950 as it may handle my games better. But, I also do not mind waiting for the new processors coming out. I want something that will last me a very long time. And I wanna know that what I'm getting can handle future tasks and games without having to replace often. If the sb and bulldozer processors are waiting for then maybe I should wait...I just want a mobo and proc combo that will last for years.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 7:21:13 PM

yeah that's great and that's also what I'm wrestling with, but getting a 980x is a somewhat different cost/benefit analysis.

If you're only looking at the 980x because it is the BEST right now, and therefore it will give you a (slightly) longer period of being "future proof" or will last for years, as you say, then you have to ask yourself what price you are paying for that extra longevity. Lets say an i7 950 has a performance index of 90 (I'm just making this up) and a 980x is 110. 4 years from now you will be able to buy a mainstream 8-core CPU with a performance index of 160 and it will cost you $200. 4 years from now there will be a 16-core "best" chip with a performance index of 225 and it will cost $1000. Again I'm just making a hypothetical.

The real question for you is WILL you benefit from the difference between a 980x and an i7 950 TODAY, TOMORROW, or 2 YEARS FROM NOW? And if yes, at what price? If you're gaming and neither processor is ever maxed out, then you won't see a difference, and you're "wasting" $750 just so you can say you have the best. If you're doing some complex video editing as a job or hobby and the ability to render that file saves you 10 minutes at a time, and your time is money, then maybe its worth it to you.

In any case, in 4-5 years your awesome 980x will be rather pedestrian and average among chips that are much much cheaper, so its not as if buying an i7 950 means you MUST upgrade in only 2 years but somehow the 980x will still be the fastest chip 6 years from now.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am a "best value" guy and I challenge anyone to make the case that 980x is "best value" when measuring price and performance together. Again, it has its place for certain people who are willing to pay any price to know that they have the BEST (for right now). But those people will have upgraded again to the next BEST in a few years, and again a few years after that, and each time they'll be spending $1000 for that privilege. That's OK and maybe you are one of those guys who is happy spending whatever it takes, but when you're honest with yourself, its hard to make a rational case for why to buy the 980x. Better to spend $250 today, put that $750 into other parts (better graphics card) OR put it into the bank, and then spend another $250 to upgrade 2 years from now, and another $250 2 years after that. I can pretty much guarantee that at the end of year 6, the processor you'll be buying for that $250 will kick the daylights out of the 980x you bought today.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2010 9:09:56 PM

OP if it helps I have a Q6600 here running at 3.2 with a 260GTX and I also have a 1090T with 2 X 5850's in CF.

As far as normal messing around on the next and productivity either is much of a muchness.

When it come to gaming at higher resolutions there is no comparison ... the 1090T hammers the Q6600.

Why?

Well the IMC and superior graphics are basically the answer.

The X6 is also very good for rendering and as newer games and modifications to operating systems increasingly make better use of the additional cores.

The last post from hogan made some good points too.

the X6 and midrange graphics card solutions in SLI or CF are compelling financially - in terms of bang for your buck.

Take a look at the monthly graphics car reviews, and the CPU reviews in order to make your decision.

Good luck.
Score
0
November 12, 2010 10:29:36 PM

You both make good points...I'm still very undecided as to what I'll be doing...I'm leaning towards an AMD simply because it offers good value at a good price...I can get very good parts and it wont cost me more than about 1500...and then perhaps I can build a new cpu 2 years from now with the processors that are coming out soon...by then it should be cheap! But, everyone has been really helpful..I just want good value for now until maybe 2-3 years down the road, and I want to be able to run my games with decent fps
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 13, 2010 4:32:26 AM

Ok seriously this thread is out of control.

dipankar, if we go by your definition, the 980X is a "junk CPU" when paired with triple SLI GTX580s because that setup will be CPU limited. Stop posting useless comments with no context and promoting flame wars.

Ok so the op really needs to determine their video card first, their pricepoint etc. How often do they want to upgrade? There are a lot of other unanswered questions. But this is only if you want build advice, which wasn't part of your original question.

A bit of an odd question perhaps..I was building a cpu around the 1090t amd processor because it offers performance that I can benefit from as far as gaming and multimedia is concerned...however I don't believe that AMD will put out more processors for the current gen mobo that are out..
This is true. The newer AMD processors next year will be AM3+ socket specific. But this is also true for intel, their new CPUs next year will be on two new sockets.
Personally, I advise not worrying about it too much. What's wrong with upgrading the motherboard and cpu? Ram would not need to be changed.

my question is, will AMD create an updated version of the 1090T or something better to utilize on a crosshair iv formula mobo?
Based on their track record, they may release a 0.1GHz higher clocked x4 or x6 before they move to bulldozer. Nothing significant though, especially if you overclock.

If not I may just build with an intel proc. and update to a 980x if and when the price drops...help would be greatly appreciated

Based on everything you have said so far, I would like to ask how much of an emphasis will be on gaming vs multithreaded programs.
The Phenom IIx6 is a better option for multi-threaded applications but it is cutting it too close to the minimum if you plan to run a 5970 card. It would simply mean that your gaming power would be CPU limited.
The i5/ phenom II x4 are excellent alternatives but only sport 4 cores. The phenoms being cheaper (anything above the 955 is mostly less worth the money, at which point the i5 would be recommended over the 970, which is at the same price as the phenom II x4 970). Basically the phenom IIx4 is the value and the i5 is the performance. The i5 sports better overclocking results to boost. Can they handle the 5970? About as well as the 1090t or better.
Spend more and you will find yourself with an i7 system. i5s basically but with hyperthreading. Which can be useful if your programs are able to take advantage of it properly.
The 980x? Worth $1000 vs performance? Definitely not. But it is the best and will be very good for the 3-5 years you want. As a comparison: 3 years ago the best was the Q6600. 5 years ago it was the Athlon 64 x2. Would you think it a wise choice to purchase either of these for $1000 then and keep it for 3 or 5 years? That's up to you.

My opinions on the current CPUs in general:
Anything over $300 suddenly decreases the performance/cost drastically.
I still don't trust hyperthreading.
The phenom IIx6 1090t is overpriced. The 1055t is better performance/cost.
The i5 is a good choice and worth the cost.
So is the phenom IIx4 955. I would say don't go past the 945 for performance/price ratio but no one seems to sell that model anymore. Performs worse than the i5 but has a lower price, accordingly.
There's also the alternative of getting an Athlon IIx4 now and waiting for bulldozer/ Sandy Bridge options to either drop current CPU prices or look like affordable upgrades.

Just my thoughts.
Score
0
November 13, 2010 6:03:27 AM

enzo matrix said:
Ok seriously this thread is out of control.

dipankar, if we go by your definition, the 980X is a "junk CPU" when paired with triple SLI GTX580s because that setup will be CPU limited. Stop posting useless comments with no context and promoting flame wars.

Ok so the op really needs to determine their video card first, their pricepoint etc. How often do they want to upgrade? There are a lot of other unanswered questions. But this is only if you want build advice, which wasn't part of your original question.

A bit of an odd question perhaps..I was building a cpu around the 1090t amd processor because it offers performance that I can benefit from as far as gaming and multimedia is concerned...however I don't believe that AMD will put out more processors for the current gen mobo that are out..
This is true. The newer AMD processors next year will be AM3+ socket specific. But this is also true for intel, their new CPUs next year will be on two new sockets.
Personally, I advise not worrying about it too much. What's wrong with upgrading the motherboard and cpu? Ram would not need to be changed.

my question is, will AMD create an updated version of the 1090T or something better to utilize on a crosshair iv formula mobo?
Based on their track record, they may release a 0.1GHz higher clocked x4 or x6 before they move to bulldozer. Nothing significant though, especially if you overclock.

If not I may just build with an intel proc. and update to a 980x if and when the price drops...help would be greatly appreciated

Based on everything you have said so far, I would like to ask how much of an emphasis will be on gaming vs multithreaded programs.
The Phenom IIx6 is a better option for multi-threaded applications but it is cutting it too close to the minimum if you plan to run a 5970 card. It would simply mean that your gaming power would be CPU limited.
The i5/ phenom II x4 are excellent alternatives but only sport 4 cores. The phenoms being cheaper (anything above the 955 is mostly less worth the money, at which point the i5 would be recommended over the 970, which is at the same price as the phenom II x4 970). Basically the phenom IIx4 is the value and the i5 is the performance. The i5 sports better overclocking results to boost. Can they handle the 5970? About as well as the 1090t or better.
Spend more and you will find yourself with an i7 system. i5s basically but with hyperthreading. Which can be useful if your programs are able to take advantage of it properly.
The 980x? Worth $1000 vs performance? Definitely not. But it is the best and will be very good for the 3-5 years you want. As a comparison: 3 years ago the best was the Q6600. 5 years ago it was the Athlon 64 x2. Would you think it a wise choice to purchase either of these for $1000 then and keep it for 3 or 5 years? That's up to you.

My opinions on the current CPUs in general:
Anything over $300 suddenly decreases the performance/cost drastically.
I still don't trust hyperthreading.
The phenom IIx6 1090t is overpriced. The 1055t is better performance/cost.
The i5 is a good choice and worth the cost.
So is the phenom IIx4 955. I would say don't go past the 945 for performance/price ratio but no one seems to sell that model anymore. Performs worse than the i5 but has a lower price, accordingly.
There's also the alternative of getting an Athlon IIx4 now and waiting for bulldozer/ Sandy Bridge options to either drop current CPU prices or look like affordable upgrades.

Just my thoughts.


Yeah your thoughts are much appreciated and also useful...I would be using it for general uses, multimedia and gaming..so if those amd processors you mentioned are suitable then ill get that..I just want to be able to build my system and not have to worry about it for 2-3 years..thats the only reason why I wanted the 1090t..simply because it is the latest amd offering..but as far as my needs are concerned..perhaps the 1055 or 4 core amd processor may work?
Score
0

Best solution

a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 13, 2010 2:22:30 PM

asantesoul said:
Yeah your thoughts are much appreciated and also useful...I would be using it for general uses, multimedia and gaming..so if those amd processors you mentioned are suitable then ill get that..I just want to be able to build my system and not have to worry about it for 2-3 years..thats the only reason why I wanted the 1090t..simply because it is the latest amd offering..but as far as my needs are concerned..perhaps the 1055 or 4 core amd processor may work?

They would work, especially if you overclock. But if you get anything better than a 5970 setup you would be pushing it. You would probably want to overclock with the 5970 if you want to boost gaming performance past the cpu limited levels.

Here is a perfect illustrating benchmark:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...

This is with a radeon 5870, single setup. Crysis can only use 2 CPU cores.
As we can see, at the lowest resolution, the 1090 and 1055 are the holding back factor by about 7 fps. At any higher resolutions, we can see that the GPU is definitely the limiting factor and all CPUs there can easily handle things.

As for everything that can use 6+ cores, it seems the i7 models and the x6 exchange blows. Sometimes the x6 is worse than the i7 920 and sometimes it is better than the higher end quad i7.

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

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

Dipankar linked this for gaming:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-...

Obvious GPU limited in everything but dawn of war and dragon age. (note how the i7 975 is being beaten by a core 2 quad... or course by less than 1 FPS)
I know dragon age is pretty CPU intensive and likes more cores (I'm glad I got my Athlon IIx4 as opposed to a phenom IIx2). But it seems they really prefer the core i architecture. I find it odd that they removed the core 2 quad for that test. I would have liked to see how it compares.
Note that this is also with a 5870.
Share
November 13, 2010 2:52:03 PM

enzo matrix said:
They would work, especially if you overclock. But if you get anything better than a 5970 setup you would be pushing it. You would probably want to overclock with the 5970 if you want to boost gaming performance past the cpu limited levels.

Here is a perfect illustrating benchmark:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-...

This is with a radeon 5870, single setup. Crysis can only use 2 CPU cores.
As we can see, at the lowest resolution, the 1090 and 1055 are the holding back factor by about 7 fps. At any higher resolutions, we can see that the GPU is definitely the limiting factor and all CPUs there can easily handle things.

As for everything that can use 6+ cores, it seems the i7 models and the x6 exchange blows. Sometimes the x6 is worse than the i7 920 and sometimes it is better than the higher end quad i7.

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

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

Dipankar linked this for gaming:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-...

Obvious GPU limited in everything but dawn of war and dragon age. (note how the i7 975 is being beaten by a core 2 quad... or course by less than 1 FPS)
I know dragon age is pretty CPU intensive and likes more cores (I'm glad I got my Athlon IIx4 as opposed to a phenom IIx2). But it seems they really prefer the core i architecture. I find it odd that they removed the core 2 quad for that test. I would have liked to see how it compares.
Note that this is also with a 5870.


Thats pretty interesting...as far as gaming is concerned maybe I would be paying too much for a 1090T since I wont be doing anything that requires a lot of threading...maybe an 17 930 or 950 would suffice...or the amd phenom II x4? But, I am getting close to deciding..I'm going to be picking up all my parts 2nd week of December...the benchmarks I saw were interesting though...I realize, with everybody's input, I can build a great computer without breaking the bank...and a lot of people are saying the i7's will be ideal for my needs
Score
0
November 15, 2010 2:12:09 PM

Why not consider the i7 950 as I said in my other posts? Same general price as a 1090T but much faster core-for-core. I don't agree with the other poster here who says any AMD chip is "junk" for gaming but it does appear that unless you are using an application that can really take advantage of 6 cores vs 4 (w/hyperthreading) then the Intel is a better option. The AMD is a less-refined architecture and therefore is inherently slower clock-for-clock. So unless you have a program that can truly max out its 6 cores, it will tend to trail the Intels. And with the price of the i7 950 about the same, not sure why you wouldn't consider it?
Score
0
November 15, 2010 11:45:03 PM

hogan773 said:
Why not consider the i7 950 as I said in my other posts? Same general price as a 1090T but much faster core-for-core. I don't agree with the other poster here who says any AMD chip is "junk" for gaming but it does appear that unless you are using an application that can really take advantage of 6 cores vs 4 (w/hyperthreading) then the Intel is a better option. The AMD is a less-refined architecture and therefore is inherently slower clock-for-clock. So unless you have a program that can truly max out its 6 cores, it will tend to trail the Intels. And with the price of the i7 950 about the same, not sure why you wouldn't consider it?


Yeah everything you said put things into perspective for me..I have seen many benchmarks, and have spoken to people about the matter. And, the majority agree that the i7950 is the way to go, especially after the price drop...Now the only problem I have is getting a good motherboard that will last me about 3-4 years...I was considering the amd processor because the mobo I wanted was pretty cheap for the features it has (crosshair iv)...now I need to find a nice mobo with similar features to accommodate the intel proc..any suggestions?
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
November 16, 2010 1:28:34 AM

You can look in to the Asus Rampage III Formula..
Score
0
November 20, 2010 3:13:17 PM

Best answer selected by asantesoul.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 2:06:32 AM

Awesome ... well done Enzo.

Score
0
!