Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom II x4 970 vs x6 1055t

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 10, 2011 7:36:36 PM

Hello everyone!
I've got everything for my new gaming PC (4GB DDR3, Asus M4A89GTD PRO, 2x HD 6850 crossfire!) apart from the CPU. I will ONLY be using this PC for gaming (Fallout New Vegas, Metro 2033, Assassin's Creed 2, Mafia 2, Dirt 2 at the moment), and will probably end up upgrading to sandy bridge in six months time. I have narrowed my processors down to TWO that cost exactly the same price. The x4 970 or the 1055t. Now I realize that hardly any games can use six cores at the moment, and the quad Phenom IIs tend to be better in games because they have more L3 cache per core, but the six cores will do much better in benchmarks, and I consider this an advantage. And HOPEFULLY I will be able to overclock the 1055 to 4GHz ( I have a good cooler), but if I bought the x4 970, hopefully I will be able to overclock it to 4.1 or 4.2GHz ( my mobo is good at overclocking)

So the question is, four cores at 4.1 or 4.2 OR six cores at 4GHz???

Please dont suggest getting a 965 or anything else, because I have the money - hey, I might as well use it!
But my budget is £140, which is what both the 970 and 1055t cost (I cannot go over my budget though)
So what do you think? Cheers guys! :D 

More about : phenom 970 1055t

a b à CPUs
January 10, 2011 9:09:53 PM

Is there gonna be a price drop?? Can you hold out for a 1090T, the OC ing is awesome on this chip.

Otherwise I'd say get the 970 for now but you'll be gutted if in a few weeks the 1090T is cheaper. :sarcastic: 
January 11, 2011 3:31:08 AM

Yeah, surely the 1090T gonna go down, and so will the 1055. In all honesty, 4.0ghz vs 4.2ghz, there is no major performance difference even with 4 cores. So, get the 6 cores I say. :)  GL
Related resources
January 11, 2011 3:57:13 AM

Well, if your gaming and not willing to spend a but load of cash just go with the X4.
January 11, 2011 5:43:18 AM

beanoslim said:
Is there gonna be a price drop?? Can you hold out for a 1090T, the OC ing is awesome on this chip.

Otherwise I'd say get the 970 for now but you'll be gutted if in a few weeks the 1090T is cheaper. :sarcastic: 


Hmm.. when do you think this price drop will happen? If I can OC the 1055t to 4GHz then I'm happy :) 
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 8:35:31 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=147

I'd get a 970 and push for as many clocks as possible on 4 cores, to push your GPU's. Very few games benefit from more than 4 cores, and even then it isn't by much.

Check out this review using 5870 crossfire compared to a single GTX 480 with First Generation Core i7 and Phenom II in gaming with proper resolutions. As you can see its plenty for 25x1600 resolutions, but it struggles at 1920x1200 and even worse at 1680x1050 and below.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22167&page=12

Not like it matters much, with the system you're getting you'll be able to max out any game anyways. Have fun. :) 
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 11:32:50 AM

1000FPS said:
I've already bought the motherboard.
Sorry but I dont want to waste my money on Intel


:lol: 

a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 11:39:28 AM

1000FPS said:
Hmm.. when do you think this price drop will happen? If I can OC the 1055t to 4GHz then I'm happy :) 


Well once the dust settles with the SB release and things beging to pan out price drops must happen.
I don't know but unless your desperate I'd give it a few weeks, even if they don't drop they should announce when.

If you can bag the 1090T theres 2 advantages.

1. Just up the multiplier and voltage to OC, easy.
2. You'll get a much better OC, a mate of mine is at 4.2ghz without even pushing it.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 2:36:03 PM

mal BC2 is awsome :D  though psycho thinks i'm playing it wrong with my gts 450's in sli is and i'm paraphrasing "not good enough for all the visiuals pumped isn't good enough" but peopel enjoy games differently .

as for the OP i would get the 1055 , but as stated i expect a 20-40 dollar cut across the board and am hoping the 1055 hits 130-140 as the wake of SB hits, cause SB really is that good. i will be using a 2500k in my wife's build in a few months once the initial prices settle a bit (marked up a little higher than msrp now due to release)

as you have the chip though i can't imagine having a mobo and no cpu for a few weeks so i'd probably be willign to spend the 20-40 now to not wait a few months but thats just me

add * excuse me i am mis paraphrasing... i was playign it wrong on my 8500gt >_< but i still had fun even if it was at low settings :D 
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 2:53:19 PM

yea i added, it was on my 8500 gt ... i had to play on low and got 10-20 fps( sometimes spikes down to single digets fps)... but the single player wa still fun.. now my 450's in sli i play at not quite max but close to max
January 11, 2011 3:06:28 PM

Quote:
Facepalm... Another dumbass fanboy who hates everything intel. Enjoy wasting your money on overpriced garbage


You think AMD is "overpriced garbage"?
Then how come AMD has six core processors that beat nearly all the i7s in encoding for nearly half the price. I'm not a fanboy, I admit that most of the i7 smoke the Phenom IIs in games, but the i7s are just so freakin' expensive. You're the fanboy.
January 11, 2011 3:14:35 PM

Raidur said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=147

I'd get a 970 and push for as many clocks as possible on 4 cores, to push your GPU's. Very few games benefit from more than 4 cores, and even then it isn't by much.

Check out this review using 5870 crossfire compared to a single GTX 480 with First Generation Core i7 and Phenom II in gaming with proper resolutions. As you can see its plenty for 25x1600 resolutions, but it struggles at 1920x1200 and even worse at 1680x1050 and below.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22167&page=12

Not like it matters much, with the system you're getting you'll be able to max out any game anyways. Have fun. :) 


Ive already seen that benchmark, and I was actually quite impressed at how well the Phenoms did at 1920 (which is the res I will be gaming at)
But after all, I think I will go with the six core simply for bragging rights and benchmarks :)  Foolish I know, but I think its a bit unrealistic that I could get a 970 to 4.2GHz anyway.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 3:24:07 PM

He's already got all the other components though so the 1090T is his best option to complete his build. IMO anyways.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 3:33:13 PM

its pretty universal among people to know by now the SB are beating the AMD solutions in the 200+ market

my little athlon II x4 still bEats the intel 100 cpu's... but yea as he already has the mobo unless he can bring it back he's prettymuch stuck. besides even if intel does release somethign better than my athlon at the pricepoint... i already have to athlon and mobo so nto much i can do but enjoy the system i have :D 


imo though for a enw build from scratch today i'd rather have a 32nm 4 core over a 6 core 45nm... but thats just me and i like an efficient machine (though pulled a $400 power bill out my mailbox yesterday still don't know HOW that happened >_<)



a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 3:34:27 PM

And you've actually compared an 1100T that is faster than the cpu's we are discussing anyway.

I had an i7 950 build lined up but was let down, could be the best letdown I've ever had.

i7 2600k / P8P67PRO time. :D  At the minute it hardly costs anymore than the i7 950 / P6X58D-E that I was getting.
January 11, 2011 3:56:57 PM

Quote:
I totally understand that. He stated that the X6 beats down on intel for encoding. I'm just proving him wrong


Why are you comparing to sandy bridge. Obviously sandy bridge is going to win.



1055t = £130
i7 930 = £210

Yes, I still think the x6 is worth it.
a c 131 à CPUs
January 11, 2011 4:23:22 PM

1000FPS said:
So the question is, four cores at 4.1 or 4.2 OR six cores at 4GHz???

Please dont suggest getting a 965 or anything else, because I have the money - hey, I might as well use it!
But my budget is £140, which is what both the 970 and 1055t cost (I cannot go over my budget though)
So what do you think? Cheers guys! :D 

I think you mean to ask:

So the question is, four cores at 3.9-4.1 OR six cores at 4.0-4.2???

Based on the overclocking results I've read about.

And I know you said don't suggest something else, but I just have to say that the 965 and 970 are not worth their price. Honestly the good value CPUs are the 955 and the 1055t. I say save that money to put towards the sandy upgrade in 6 months and get the 955.

That said, you'll probably get more resale value from the 1055t than you would from the 970, so out of the two, that is the direction I would go, since they are the same price AND you are overclocking.

I personally have a 1055t. I can't overclock higher than 3.3GHz because my motherboard is crap past FSB 245MHz+ so I just leave turbo on. Free 1100t performance I guess? Anyway, I use a 4850 for gaming and I expect this CPU to last me through my next video card upgrade (to get an idea, I went from 3870 I got jan. 2010 for $40 to a 4850 I got in sept. 2010 for $20).
My next upgrades will be the video card, memory and motherboard.

Facepalm... Another dumbass fanboy who hates everything intel. Enjoy wasting your money on overpriced garbage
Psycho, please don't generalize, or degrade yourself so low as to insult others on this forum.
If you have something valuable to say about the topic, please tell us your opinion.
I personally think the 965 and 970 are overpriced for their performance. The 955 is excellent value on the other hand. Basically, if going higher than 955, you might as well just get an i5.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 4:28:52 PM

The AMD cpu's are still great cpu's and will be even greater when they drop in price.

I agree an i7 950 is still a great setup to own.

If its new build, seeing the prices its gotta be SB.
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 4:32:58 PM

^ i'd modify that to if you're build a rig and spending over $750 then go SB
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2011 4:47:01 PM

Yeah I mean't if its between the i7 950 and SB because they are about the same price, if you already own a i7 950 then I'd stick with it.

Hopefully with a price drop some of the AMD builds will fall into a completely different price bracket and become value for money.

January 11, 2011 5:34:37 PM

enzo matrix said:
I think you mean to ask:

So the question is, four cores at 3.9-4.1 OR six cores at 4.0-4.2???

Based on the overclocking results I've read about.

And I know you said don't suggest something else, but I just have to say that the 965 and 970 are not worth their price. Honestly the good value CPUs are the 955 and the 1055t. I say save that money to put towards the sandy upgrade in 6 months and get the 955.

That said, you'll probably get more resale value from the 1055t than you would from the 970, so out of the two, that is the direction I would go, since they are the same price AND you are overclocking.

I personally have a 1055t. I can't overclock higher than 3.3GHz because my motherboard is crap past FSB 245MHz+ so I just leave turbo on. Free 1100t performance I guess? Anyway, I use a 4850 for gaming and I expect this CPU to last me through my next video card upgrade (to get an idea, I went from 3870 I got jan. 2010 for $40 to a 4850 I got in sept. 2010 for $20).
My next upgrades will be the video card, memory and motherboard.

Facepalm... Another dumbass fanboy who hates everything intel. Enjoy wasting your money on overpriced garbage
Psycho, please don't generalize, or degrade yourself so low as to insult others on this forum.
If you have something valuable to say about the topic, please tell us your opinion.
I personally think the 965 and 970 are overpriced for their performance. The 955 is excellent value on the other hand. Basically, if going higher than 955, you might as well just get an i5.


Yeah I realize that presuming I could overclock a 1055t to 4GHz is a bit unrealistic, but I do have an awesome chipset + mobo. But I've had a 955 before, and the max I could OC it to was 3.6 (it was with a different mobo though), and I know the 955 is best for the money, but it is less likely to OC higher, and if I have the money to spend, I might as well use it all :) 
January 11, 2011 6:05:49 PM

Quote:
^
on a 955BE and you could only clock it to 3.6GHz or just the 955.?


I did have an x4 955 BE, and it could only get to 3.6, but I was using the C2 version and a cheap motherboard, so that probably explains why.
January 11, 2011 7:23:13 PM

Ok guys, I think I have decided to go with the 1055t because its a brilliant overclocker and six cores is and advantage in some games (like Bad Copmany 2, Dirt 2, I play both of them) and maybe some new games in the near future will support six cores. But even though my cooler is decent (Its a katana 3), I realise I will probably need to replace it if I want to get to 4GHz. Probably a Xigmatek dark knight because its fairly cheap and has good reviews. BTW, does anyone know how many cores Just Cause 2 supports? Because I play that game a lot.
a c 131 à CPUs
January 11, 2011 10:26:23 PM

1000FPS said:
Ok guys, I think I have decided to go with the 1055t because its a brilliant overclocker and six cores is and advantage in some games (like Bad Copmany 2, Dirt 2, I play both of them) and maybe some new games in the near future will support six cores. But even though my cooler is decent (Its a katana 3), I realise I will probably need to replace it if I want to get to 4GHz. Probably a Xigmatek dark knight because its fairly cheap and has good reviews. BTW, does anyone know how many cores Just Cause 2 supports? Because I play that game a lot.

I have the exact same cooler. I can tell you my temperatures don't go past 45*C on all 4 cores loaded. And yes, I did adjust for the x6 thermal sensor issues by adding 10*C to my number. No voltage modifications yet due to a crappy motherboard though.
January 12, 2011 5:54:34 AM

enzo matrix said:
I have the exact same cooler. I can tell you my temperatures don't go past 45*C on all 4 cores loaded. And yes, I did adjust for the x6 thermal sensor issues by adding 10*C to my number. No voltage modifications yet due to a crappy motherboard though.


You mean you've got a katana 3? With my x4 955 it used to load at 50c, which is a little more that I expected. And yes, I used Arctic silver 5 as well. Maybe I put on too much? Another thing, will my motherboard support the x6 1055t without a BIOS update? I bought the motherboard a month ago, do motherboards usually ship with the latest BIOS update?
a c 131 à CPUs
January 12, 2011 10:17:24 AM

1000FPS said:
You mean you've got a katana 3? With my x4 955 it used to load at 50c, which is a little more that I expected. And yes, I used Arctic silver 5 as well. Maybe I put on too much? Another thing, will my motherboard support the x6 1055t without a BIOS update? I bought the motherboard a month ago, do motherboards usually ship with the latest BIOS update?

Hmm that's strange.
I used the MX-2 but I wouldn't think there would be that much of a temperature difference between using the old AS5 and the MX-2. Then again, the temperatures would fall in line if you are talking about overclocking with a voltage increase.
http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/041/scktn3000_det...
January 12, 2011 12:23:02 PM

1000FPS said:
So the question is, four cores at 4.1 or 4.2 OR six cores at 4GHz???

OK, jumping in on this thread late in the game... But I have a question about AMD X4 vs. X6. I see that their X6 cores have their speed boost capability - reduce the number of operating cores so the remaining active cores can run faster and stay within the TDP budget. AMD have not released x4 processors with this technology.

It seems to me that provides an advantage to the X6 chip when running stuff that won't fully utilize all cores. Is this already factored into the potential OC frequency? Does the speed boost work when overclocking? Perhaps the increased thermal load reduces the opportunity to do that.

thanks,
hank
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2011 2:37:05 PM

1000FPS said:
Yes but I cant update the bios because I haven't got a CPU yet! So I'm wondering which BIOS version the board comes with, hopefully its 1301 or later


I seeeeeeeee, fingers crossed, the 1301 is pretty early so you've got a good chance.

Raises a good point though, I had this with a 775 board and a C2D, had to buy a cheap Celeron to change bios!
January 12, 2011 3:01:00 PM

beanoslim said:
I seeeeeeeee, fingers crossed, the 1301 is pretty early so you've got a good chance.

Raises a good point though, I had this with a 775 board and a C2D, had to buy a cheap Celeron to change bios!


Yes I might have to buy a crappy sempron or something just to flash the BIOS, and then sell it on again :??:  A bit of a nuance :( 
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2011 3:03:30 PM

1000FPS said:
Yes I might have to buy a crappy sempron or something just to flash the BIOS, and then sell it on again :??:  A bit of a nuance :( 


Mine only cost £5, still sits in my junk drawer.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2011 3:05:51 PM

The 970 is a Black Edition and the multiplier is already unlocked. The 1090T is also unlocked. If you get a 1055t, you usually need to play with other crap to OC. Just get the 970 or wait for the 1090T to drop is my 2 cents.
January 12, 2011 3:08:55 PM

1965ohio said:
The 970 is a Black Edition and the multiplier is already unlocked. The 1090T is also unlocked. If you get a 1055t, you usually need to play with other crap to OC. Just get the 970 or wait for the 1090T to drop is my 2 cents.


I dont mind overclocking using the FSB, its not much harder.
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2011 3:19:50 PM

Then get the 6 core! I usually just get BE so I don't have to stress anything else. Just raise the clock, restart... the end... LOL
August 14, 2011 5:06:47 AM

What I don't understand about all these peoples recommendations about quad vs. hex is that they say games only use 2 or 4 so why get 6. Well for the first thing, they are the same cost, and 6 will be used eventually so you don't have to get 4 now and then 6 later. Operating systems like Win 7 do however use 4 and 6. This means while you are using 2 or 3 or 4 for your game, they are not also tied up with windows. Just because you won't fully be using all 6 now doesn't mean you shouldn't get it. Not FULLY using 6 is the advantage because you are not maxing out your hardware, so you have more overhead for everything to run smoothly. You have to remember that when gaming with a PC you are not just running the game you are also running your OS. If games were using all 6 right now you really would be wanting something more yet, because of running so many threads and handles and processes besides those of your game. Like your AV and system utilities or whatever. There is a reason they make these things you know. I am running 6 and Windows uses every one of them all the time. When I am gaming I see the game get spread across all 6 because of Windows. Windows allocates programs amongst the cores to balance the load, and that is the advantage. SO even if the program doesn't explicitly use all 6, Windows still takes advantage of them on behalf of the game while it is running.

95 Watt Tray Phenom II X6 1055t OC 3.6 from 2.8
GTX 465 1Gb GDDR5
8 Gb XMS 2 DDR2
770E 6.4 Mainboard
32 Gb Nova SSD System drive
2X WD Black 500 Gb storage
1000 W quad rail Coolmax PSU
Dual DVD/CD burners
Window 7 Ultimate 32/64
All hacked or free software, no issues
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2011 8:45:01 PM

1000FPS said:

Sorry but I dont want to waste my money on Intel


Long as know that even if the X4 gets to 4.2 G, it will still be outframed by stock i5-2400
August 17, 2011 3:15:54 AM

Intel is great, and awesome to support, and their processors rock! However I feel being on the bleeding edge isn't necessarilly the most important thing. Let them feel into new territory, while getting bang for your buck with AMD. Here's the deal. My system blows the suxbox 3susxty and Piece-of-Shit3 away, and will continue to completely max out all games for the next few years. I can do like 500 things at once seriously and run all I MEAN ALL games maxed at the same time. Hell I can do 500 things and have 5 intense new games paused and minimized and still play a game like Dragon Age II maxed with no problems. My main issue is AMD's stuff does all this, and they are the underdog. However they are not the underdog because they know not what they are doing. Intel is on the bleeding edge because they have the money to be there. AMD is hot on their heels (even if they are a year behind) because Intel's progress forces them to innovate. SO you should own an intel machine, but own 3 AMD machines for every one. Support them, support them, support them, need I say it again SUPPORT THEM. They rock and there is now other way around it. You can sell a machine to someone that saves them money,and at the same time and does things they could never even imagine. To most people a high end AMD machine that doesn't compare to a low end Intel machine seems like something out of Star Trek. I don't really think they are in such direct competition as all the fan boys think they are, and even if they were they still deserve love ;]
!