AMD's Phenom X4 VS Phenom X6?

O would simply go with the X4-955 since most programs will not effectively use 6 cores for some time to come. Hell, most programs and games do not effectively use 4 cores yet.

The only program that I can think of that will use all 6 cores is Handbrake, but if you don't encode your Blu-Rays / DVDs using the x.264 codec, then that won't matter to you.

I would guess that a 6 core CPU might become "useful" for the average home user about 3 years (or more) from now.

as jaguar says most hex cores will not be used fully for years and by that time there will be far better hex cores for the price of what the 1055t is now. i personally would go for a higher clock over more cores most programs cant use quad cores properly nevermind hex cores.
dunno about the us but here in the uk the x4 970 BE is the same price as the 1055t.

Get the 955 or 965 because it is a black edition which can easily be over clocked safely to 3.8GHz on stock cooling with a simple multiplier bump in the bios. But even if you aren't in to overclocking, the single threaded performance of the 955 or 965 is higher than the 1055t because of the higher clocked cores.

I say most games out there barely make use of dual cores still! Only games released since the middle of 2010 really use 2-4 cores effectively.  

Hi Ron,
Your usage will depend a great deal. One newer title that utilizes more cores is WoW Cataclysm:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-c...

There will be more to come also, I think its worthwhile to invest in the hexacore.

However if overclocking is important than you may enjoy the unlocked mutliplier of the Black Edition. If not overclocking then I hardly see the point of buying a BE CPU.

If you are going to do any video encoding, then go for the 6 core cpu. The more cores you have, the more options you have.

It also depends on what you mean by life-time of the system. Just look at it in another way... if you buy a $2000 computer today, to get the latest tech... why not hold off a year or so and buy that same computer or better for $500? I can't associate the words life-time or future-proof with any computer these days. 1 year in computer years is like a month in realtime. Buying a $500 or $1000 CPU today will make you feel like crap next year when it is the mid or low end model getting phased out for $120 in a Microcenter bargain bin. A 3GHz Core 2 Duo is still fast... now they are cheap as dirt.

It's like buying a new car. As soon as you drive it off the lot it is worthless.

in my experiences with wow , its always been far more clock hungry than core hungry. i remember when they first added dual core support. I had been using a dual core at the time and there was about 3fps difference from it using a single core to a dual core.

i sould say it isnt worthwhile to invest in a hex core till they are atleast above 3ghz.

obviously it depends on what is used for. a hex core will most likely beat a quad in in decoding and encoding but in games a higher clock will do you better than 2 extra cores. games using dual cores is only just hitting the mainstream and they've been out years theres a few games that utilize a quad core properly. and ive yet to see a game that can use a hex core better than a higher clocked quad. most games these days ask for 2.6ghz dual core or higher and i cant see it being long before they need atleast 3ghz and in a game that isnt optimized to use your two extra cores to make up for that your not going to get good performance.

in my personal opinion a quad has more longevity than a hex because by the time hex's are bieng used properly there will be far better hex cores out there than the 1055t and then octo and maybe even deca cores will be becoming more mainstream . A quad provides better compatibility all around. and even then there are still dual cores that will outperform quads in some games. most quads are overkill for gaming as most games rely heavily on the gpu. allthough at the moment advancements in gpu's is slowing and peepple are starting to look at cpu's to make up for it.

obviously it's all personal preference and what you use it for. but ive seen alot of people buying hex cores just because they automatically think more cores = better but unfortunately it's never that simple with cpu's  

^+1 Agreed totally with Kinth.

Similar? Yes ... and no.

The hex core is an 'EO' stepping (PhII steppings go C2 --> C3 --> EO). From C2 to C3, power consumption was reduced 10% (pretty much at both idle and load) at similar clocks. The 'EO' stepping maintained the same power envelop as C3, but added 2 additional cores.

The EO stepping introduced a new lower-capacitance gating technology with Thuban. Folks are essentially advised that max volts should be <= 0.025-0.05v below that presented by Deneb C3. Even with the lower voltage, the EO hex cores tend to over-clock higher than the C3 Denebs.

EO also introduced AMD Turbo. On a single-thread load Turbo will boost the cpu multiplier (and voltage) raising the clock speed on an individual core (up to 3 cores, actually, IIRC) while reducing the cpu multipliers (and voltage) to other cores.

Turbo works well in applications, but it is generally advised when over-clocking (and gaming) to disable it in the BIOS (it sometimes confuses the OS thread scheduler which results in something called 'core hopping').