Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom II X6 1055T

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 17, 2011 1:29:14 AM

Is this processor good? is it better than AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition ?
which processor would be the absouloute best for $200 or under?

More about : phenom 1055t

a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 1:33:51 AM

jjay2009 said:
Is this processor good? is it better than AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition ?
which processor would be the absouloute best for $200 or under?

it is a great cpu , yes .
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 1:34:58 AM

jerry6 said:
it is a great cpu , yes .

how much better is it than a amd athlon x2 5200+?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 1:41:02 AM

The dif is very noticeable , prog install in a blink , unreal . went from a opteron 185x2 and i can't believe how much faster everything goes .1 hour video conversion took 12 min on 185 takes 2 1/2 on x6 1100
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 4:17:46 AM



You are comparing a Hexacore with a Quad, 1055 T X6 belongs to one class higher then X4, no doubt 1055 t is better.

m
0
l
January 17, 2011 4:41:07 PM

In the uk the x4 970 and the 1055t are the same price , i personally went for the quad, to me a higher clock speed will beat out two cores that are pretty much never gonna get used in this generation of hardware and software. by the time programs that can use a hex core fully are out there will be much better hex core cpu's out.
as it stands at the moment there isn't many programs that can even use a quad properly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 5:06:27 PM


You have not said what your intended usage is, if we are talking mostly gaming, then the quad would be the best choice.

If we are talking best $200 CPU then as psycho said, the Intel i5 2400 (or $210 the i5 2500) would be the one to get.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 8:17:22 PM

kinth said:
In the uk the x4 970 and the 1055t are the same price , i personally went for the quad, to me a higher clock speed will beat out two cores that are pretty much never gonna get used in this generation of hardware and software. by the time programs that can use a hex core fully are out there will be much better hex core cpu's out.
as it stands at the moment there isn't many programs that can even use a quad properly.

turbo baby , turbo

3.4 970 3,3 1055
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 8:40:18 PM

jerry6 said:
turbo baby , turbo

3.4 970 3,3 1055


the 960 hits 3.4 in turbo ;)  the 970 BE is 3.5ghz at stock and can easily hit 4ghz stable on all 4 cores. whereas the 1055t would only have 3 cores running at 3.3ghz and the other 3 running at 800mhz and thats only when the cpu decides it's other cores are not being utilized enough. it would be far better with a switch although i'll probably eat those words as im guessing there is a mobo that does this :p 

while the turbo does make the 1055t a more viable option i still would personally go for the 970 BE for the same price. thank you for pointing out the turbo though i never knew about it :) .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2011 8:47:38 PM

when and if they optimize progs for 6 cores the x6 will be in the game . With a good board the 1055 can be clocked higher , and the 95watt version has a higher temp range , 71c as opposed to 62 for the others . Still think the x6 is the way to go , but I'm sure the x4 is more than enough cpu for 99.9% of the people
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 9:05:31 PM

jerry6 said:
when and if they optimize progs for 6 cores the x6 will be in the game . With a good board the 1055 can be clocked higher , and the 95watt version has a higher temp range , 71c as opposed to 62 for the others . Still think the x6 is the way to go , but I'm sure the x4 is more than enough cpu for 99.9% of the people


I certainly agree that when games are optimized for hex cores they will wipe the floor with quads. but the reality is dual cores have only just become main stream in gaming and they have been around years. games that support quads are few and far between and most still dont utilize it properly. as far as future proofing goes by the time hex cores are useful in a gaming enviroment there will be far better hex cores around for the price and by then the adoption rate for octo and 12 cores will be getting high amongst gamers.

as of the moment i can only see encoders/decoders and people who use folding@home putting a good hex core to use.

To be completely honest i can see hex cores getting bypassed pretty quickly like tri cores did. they've not been out for long and octo cores are already in development or maybe even released i haven't had a look into new cpu's in a while. at the moment intel and amd are fighting each other to see who can throw the most cores in a cpu and until they hit the limit we won't get a standard amount of cores to aim for in gaming. i can't see games developers optimizing for cpus with low adoption rates. but this is purely speculation on my own part unfortunately i can't predict the future :( 

as you say for 99.9% of people a quad core is more than sufficient
m
0
l
January 18, 2011 4:16:07 AM

The processor will mainly be used for the latest games out, crysis, cod etc and also recording off these games with programs like fraps so id need a high fps rate. so quad or hexa?????
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2011 7:27:43 AM

can't you also set which cores work on certain progs through windows ? set 4 for game 2 for recording , or am I mistaken , have not played with comps for 2 years . Have forgotten lots of info .
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 18, 2011 8:34:23 AM

I would save money and get the 955BE or spend more and get the intel 2500K
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2011 11:08:06 AM

+1 to the 955. If you don't need more than 4 cores, It's the best AMD quad with the unlocked multiplier. Same chip as the other PhenomII X4's.
m
0
l
January 18, 2011 11:33:42 AM

jjay2009 said:
The processor will mainly be used for the latest games out, crysis, cod etc and also recording off these games with programs like fraps so id need a high fps rate. so quad or hexa?????


allthough crysis touts quad core support it barely uses two in my own experinces but this may change in crysis 2. cod only uses two cores . for gaming a good high clocked wquad will beat the 1055t easily , a BE processor will hit 4ghz easily. no game supports hex cores at the moment very few support quad core to be honest but quad core support is starting to become a mainstream thing but it could be a year or so before we start seeing proper hex core support and even longer before it becames widely used. only the latest and greatest games have much quad core support such as bad company 2, crysis 2 will most likely have it. but mainly games like cod or anything that is mainly ported from a console will use 2 cores. my personal opinion is go for a good high clocked quad technically its more futureproof than the 1055t because by the time hex cores are widely supported there will be far better hex cores out there for the same price and a good quad will perform well for 3-4 years atleast.
m
0
l
January 18, 2011 10:44:29 PM

kinth said:
allthough crysis touts quad core support it barely uses two in my own experinces but this may change in crysis 2. cod only uses two cores . for gaming a good high clocked wquad will beat the 1055t easily , a BE processor will hit 4ghz easily. no game supports hex cores at the moment very few support quad core to be honest but quad core support is starting to become a mainstream thing but it could be a year or so before we start seeing proper hex core support and even longer before it becames widely used. only the latest and greatest games have much quad core support such as bad company 2, crysis 2 will most likely have it. but mainly games like cod or anything that is mainly ported from a console will use 2 cores. my personal opinion is go for a good high clocked quad technically its more futureproof than the 1055t because by the time hex cores are widely supported there will be far better hex cores out there for the same price and a good quad will perform well for 3-4 years atleast.

AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition any good?
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 1:53:31 PM

i think its great just my gpu is bottlenecking it at the moment :( . had a few problems with heat but thats mainly an airflow problem on my behalf (i have it sat in a tiny case that only just fits a micro atx mobo :p ) ive got the temps to around normal now just stripped my case and added a small extractor fan until i can afford a better case. but if you have a decent case and cooler you will be fine. if your going quad get an aftermarket cooler. they are fairly cheap and the stock coolers usually just dont cut it with quads.

i messed around with overclocking it last night and got it to 4ghz stable easily and i could probably get it to about 4.2 before i have to start getting fiddly :)  but thats overkill for most games anyway.
while playing bad company 2 on max settings it only uses 20% of each core and thats when its at stock :) 

if your going to get a quad. make sure your gpu isnt bottlenecking it like mine is. while mine has given me a big performance gain over my old dual core at 2.6ghz i have yet to see its true potential because my graphics card is holding it back.

dunno bout the us but the 965 BE in the uk is about £15 cheaper and stock clocked at 3.4ghz . i personally thought if im going to pay out quite of bit of money for a cpu i might aswell pay a tiny bit more to get some extra speed and a higher overclocking headroom :)  at 4ghz the 970 would run cooler that the 965 and probably need less volt.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 2:52:34 PM

kinth said:
i think its great just my gpu is bottlenecking it at the moment :( . had a few problems with heat but thats mainly an airflow problem on my behalf (i have it sat in a tiny case that only just fits a micro atx mobo :p ) ive got the temps to around normal now just stripped my case and added a small extractor fan until i can afford a better case. but if you have a decent case and cooler you will be fine. if your going quad get an aftermarket cooler. they are fairly cheap and the stock coolers usually just dont cut it with quads.

i messed around with overclocking it last night and got it to 4ghz stable easily and i could probably get it to about 4.2 before i have to start getting fiddly :)  but thats overkill for most games anyway.
while playing bad company 2 on max settings it only uses 20% of each core and thats when its at stock :) 

if your going to get a quad. make sure your gpu isnt bottlenecking it like mine is. while mine has given me a big performance gain over my old dual core at 2.6ghz i have yet to see its true potential because my graphics card is holding it back.

dunno bout the us but the 965 BE in the uk is about £15 cheaper and stock clocked at 3.4ghz . i personally thought if im going to pay out quite of bit of money for a cpu i might aswell pay a tiny bit more to get some extra speed and a higher overclocking headroom :)  at 4ghz the 970 would run cooler that the 965 and probably need less volt.

Are you syre it is the stock cooler causing heat probs ? I have stock cooler on my 1100t and idle am at 27-29 , at 100% running 6 cores with WCG BOINC it runs 47c-49c max , I have run other coolers in the past and they never give much better , unless you're talking water cooling . The factory coolers are pretty good , AMD does not want CPU's heading back under warranty .
It's like air cleaner filters for carsw , tets have shown the factory filters flow better and clean better , but wtf , advertisements from aftermarket always tell the truth
orig test no longer up , but mentioned in each of these goog results

found a copy
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 6:03:46 PM

jerry6 said:
Are you syre it is the stock cooler causing heat probs ? I have stock cooler on my 1100t and idle am at 27-29 , at 100% running 6 cores with WCG BOINC it runs 47c-49c max , I have run other coolers in the past and they never give much better , unless you're talking water cooling . The factory coolers are pretty good , AMD does not want CPU's heading back under warranty .
It's like air cleaner filters for carsw , tets have shown the factory filters flow better and clean better , but wtf , advertisements from aftermarket always tell the truth
orig test no longer up , but mentioned in each of these goog results

found a copy


i dont have a stock cooler i have an aftermarket cooler. the temp problem is my case is not meant for the sort of computer i have :p  its an old e machines case that was meant for really old computers that run intel celerons :p  it literally only just squeezes a mATX board in. the gpu is almost touching the bottom of the case. the heat problem is airflow i know this because i stripped the case and added an exhaust fan which dropped my temps to around normal :)  but the case looks bloody horrible stripped :p  unfortunately i cant afford a new case atm so will have to make do :p 

as for aftermarket coolers. obviously the stock coolers can do the job, but aftermarket coolers can do it far better. at idle temps are generally the exact same but under load theres usually 10c or more difference which when you wan't to get the most out of oc'ing makes a rather large difference. ive never bought a pc part based on advertisements i always check several reviews and benchmarks before deciding what to buy.

think of it this way if stock coolers are so good why do so many people buy aftermarket coolers? if they did nothing people wouldn't buy them. yeh fair enough some people buy them because they look cool but alot of people buy them because they run cooler and are generally quieter.
i dont see what its got to do with car air filters, its a completely different market and the only link is airflow. just because car stock air filters are better doesn't mean stock coolers are better on cpu's :S its a completely different subject. thats like saying stock exhausts on cars are better than aftermarket exhausts so all stock exhaust fans on computers must be good.

while i can see the point your making there are thousands of benchmarks on the net that show aftermarket coolers to run cooler. they are by no means a neccessity but if your going to spend hundreds of pounds/dollars on something why not spend a few more and get the absolute most out of it
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 7:38:52 PM

So you think I can drop my temps 10c at 100% with aftermarket cooler , non watercooled ?
The air cleaner test was just to show advertised claims are not true in real world . Just like the GM engineers designed or spec air cleaners for maximum cleaning /perf so the AMD engineers designed the coolers for maximum cooling chip life .
Aftermarket coolers will not be able to do much better , unless they choose a different method , ie water cooling , or using massive units that will stress the MB .
I have used aftermarket in the past and have never seen more than 2-4 degree difference , and that could be due to installation . The only thing I don't like with stock is the thermal pads they used to use and paste , that I always change . On laptop I always take apart clean and apply thermal paste and temps drop 5-10 c , factories apply with a spatula .
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 8:03:31 PM

well i never claimed it was from an advertisement i wouldn't recommend a product ive only seen an advertisement for. i recommend things from benchmarks ive seen or things ive owned.
i will agree with you that the thermal paste most stock coolers use is terrible but check benchmarks for the top coolers out there some of the differences can be massive. and if your into oc'ing every degree c counts. also they wouldn't release coolers if they were to heavey for the mobo i doubt they want to pay for every mobo that breaks because of of their coolers is to heavy for it.

also considering most top aftermarket coolers are fairly cheap i can't wee why people wouldn't want them.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

fairly old benchmark but it shows some of the coolers making over a 20c difference.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 8:47:14 PM

If it could drop my temps 20c , it would be amazing , at 4.0 ghz my 1100t runs 52c at 100% -20 would be 32c , a few deg over idle , if it could do that I'd buy it if it were $300.00 , but I doubt it could drop my temps that much .

sorry for thread drift !
m
0
l
a c 147 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 19, 2011 9:00:24 PM

The AMD X6's will overclock to the same 4ghz (there abouts) that the X4's will so that point is mute.

People are forgetting the most used program out there is already able to take advantage of all 6 cores .. and even more. And thats called Windows. I can be running Wow in a 25 man raid and have an A/V scan kick off and not drop a single frame all while the anti-spymare, Anti-malware, Windows Update, etc.. all run in the background too. Thats the true gem of 6 cores. If 4 are being hit heavy by a game, you still have 2 to do the rest of the work windows wants to do. 8core will be even better. <Sweet!>

edit - plus if you plan on OC'ing then there no real point in buying the highest clocked chip; they're all made from the same die, all overclock to about the same point so you might as well buy the lowest clocked chip and save a few dollars. The only thing the black edition gets you is an easy way to OC. Well thats my opinion anyways.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 9:03:04 PM

not sure i trust that site . OCZ cooler beats thermaldrek for 1/4 the price yet they claim it is ac great value ?? Talk about bias in testing ! An application of good paste well applied might give bettter results as well
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 9:05:10 PM

popatim said:
The AMD X6's will overclock to the same 4ghz (there abouts) that the X4's will so that point is mute.

People are forgetting the most used program out there is already able to take advantage of all 6 cores .. and even more. And thats called Windows. I can be running Wow in a 25 man raid and have an A/V scan kick off and not drop a single frame all while the anti-spymare, Anti-malware, Windows Update, etc.. all run in the background too. Thats the true gem of 6 cores. If 4 are being hit heavy by a game, you still have 2 to do the rest of the work windows wants to do. 8core will be even better. <Sweet!>

edit - plus if you plan on OC'ing then there no real point in buying the highest clocked chip; they're all made from the same die, all overclock to about the same point so you might as well buy the lowest clocked chip and save a few dollars. The only thing the black edition gets you is an easy way to OC. Well thats my opinion anyways.

+11ty billion !!
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 9:11:28 PM

yeh those reviews are fairly old , its hard to find benchmarks that compare to the stock cooler though.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1212/6/

more recent result for you 21c belows stock cooling on an overclocked i7 970
intels with 0 type stepping do tend to run a bit hotter though so i wouldn't expect that sort of result from an amd

i think if you got a decent cooler you could knock 10c off your current temps and maybe get your cpu running faster :) 
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 9:41:45 PM

popatim said:
The AMD X6's will overclock to the same 4ghz (there abouts) that the X4's will so that point is mute.

People are forgetting the most used program out there is already able to take advantage of all 6 cores .. and even more. And thats called Windows. I can be running Wow in a 25 man raid and have an A/V scan kick off and not drop a single frame all while the anti-spymare, Anti-malware, Windows Update, etc.. all run in the background too. Thats the true gem of 6 cores. If 4 are being hit heavy by a game, you still have 2 to do the rest of the work windows wants to do. 8core will be even better. <Sweet!>

edit - plus if you plan on OC'ing then there no real point in buying the highest clocked chip; they're all made from the same die, all overclock to about the same point so you might as well buy the lowest clocked chip and save a few dollars. The only thing the black edition gets you is an easy way to OC. Well thats my opinion anyways.


yeh but when it comes to pricepoint per performance the 1055t is the same price as the 970 BE, if you can get a 1055t that runs at a 2.6ghz stock to 4 ghz then great but your gonna maxing it at around 4ghz. wheares most quads can probably get alot higher than that. plus your gonna need some pretty heavy cooling on that and not everyone knows how to overclock.
the 1100 will beat any amd quad clock for clock. but its a more expensive chip and for that amount of money i'd rather go for an unlocked sandy bridge cpu which performs remarkably close at stock and will clock a alot higher on air cooling alone

i have also run wow while raiding and had a system scan going on in the background with no difference in fps. wow claims its optimized for multicores but it really isnt. it still does all its main processing on one cpu instead of spreading them out.

if your into decoding /encoding go for the 1055 by all means but for games its just not needed. and when it comes to windows you will never get the proper performance out of your cpu because hard drives will always hold it back. even an SSD can't keep up with fast cpu's
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2011 9:49:45 PM

42c at 4.0 Ghz 100% would take water cooling , don't think it can be done on air . Maybe I'm wrong though .
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 10:03:48 PM

you on about your processor or another?

edit: oh right your on about the coolers. and i cant see why that would only be possible with watercooling, there are very good air coolers out there
m
0
l
!