Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i7 980x vs Thuban 1090T

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 11, 2011 9:28:31 PM

could anyone please give me Tom's hardware links of game comparisons between these 2 CPUs ? thanks

More about : core 980x thuban 1090t

February 11, 2011 11:02:45 PM

ethilen said:
could anyone please give me Tom's hardware links of game comparisons between these 2 CPUs ? thanks



The only comparisons required are that one is $1000 and the other is $229. If you want it for gaming the difference would let you get SLI or XFire and your eyes won't know the game is running at 70fps vs 90fps.

If you're doing some mission critical important work you shouldn't be looking at either.

TomZ has a comparison somewhere as do most other sites. Again it depends on whether you want to pay $1000 for just the processor.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 11, 2011 11:14:19 PM

Hi back in September Toms did the System Builder Marathon: TH's $2000 Hand-Picked Build. Which one of these was the six core I7-970 vs the 6 core Thuban.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/newegg-combo-toms-h...

I think after you read this you will be surprised which one looks to be better, but with Sandy Bridge out now there is really no point in looking at either.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 12:16:45 AM

Perhaps only a handful of games can utilize 6 CPU cores.Of those I only know 1 so far that can utilize hyperthreading (FSX) although perhaps a few other recent titles could as well.When one compares Core i7 980x vs Thuban 1090T in gaming obviously the Core i7 would win easily hands down compared to the Thuban.However in terms of price per performance the Thuban would win for the very few games that support 6 cores.The i7 980X CPU is outrageously costly.

In a way the 980X is not worthwhile for it's extravagant high cost.
A much better gaming CPU would be the much lower priced i7-2600K vs the i7-980X even with its 6 cores.Yet in comparison the i7-2600K is Intel's new line so comparing it with a old Phenom X6 line is not fair either.It would be better to compare it to AMD's upcoming Bulldozer line and as of yet we have no gaming benchmarks.

So far the only reasonable high performance gaming CPU would be the i7-2600K
over the too costly i7-980X and over the under performing older Phenom II X6.
Even the lesser 4 core with hyperthreading Core i7 -950's easily outperform the Phenom II X6 in gaming with even the few 6 core optimized games.

Bulldozer should come very close to the i7-2600k though and even the i7-980X.
Still there is several months wait on that.The i7-2600K's should have their corrected motherboards before that time so my vote would be not to consider either the ridiculous costly i7-980X or the Phenom II X6 for gaming
a c 133 à CPUs
February 12, 2011 1:01:03 AM

Yes the 980x is much more powerful we all know this, but at higher resolution like 1920x1080 most of the benchmarks even out and your final gaming experience will fall more on your GPU.
February 12, 2011 1:43:02 PM

jj463rd said:
Perhaps only a handful of games can utilize 6 CPU cores.Of those I only know 1 so far that can utilize hyperthreading (FSX) although perhaps a few other recent titles could as well.When one compares Core i7 980x vs Thuban 1090T in gaming obviously the Core i7 would win easily hands down compared to the Thuban.However in terms of price per performance the Thuban would win for the very few games that support 6 cores.The i7 980X CPU is outrageously costly.

In a way the 980X is not worthwhile for it's extravagant high cost.
A much better gaming CPU would be the much lower priced i7-2600K vs the i7-980X even with its 6 cores.Yet in comparison the i7-2600K is Intel's new line so comparing it with a old Phenom X6 line is not fair either.It would be better to compare it to AMD's upcoming Bulldozer line and as of yet we have no gaming benchmarks.

So far the only reasonable high performance gaming CPU would be the i7-2600K
over the too costly i7-980X and over the under performing older Phenom II X6.
Even the lesser 4 core with hyperthreading Core i7 -950's easily outperform the Phenom II X6 in gaming with even the few 6 core optimized games.

Bulldozer should come very close to the i7-2600k though and even the i7-980X.
Still there is several months wait on that.The i7-2600K's should have their corrected motherboards before that time so my vote would be not to consider either the ridiculous costly i7-980X or the Phenom II X6 for gaming



I do agree with you that Intel is better than the other one,but it costs much,I am planning on buying a CPU which can perform many current games and next 2 years and does cost me that much as i7 980x,I dont know how much i7-2600k costs,but I am sure it is expensive as well,my saved-up money for CPU is 260$ at the end,no more no less,,,,I am stuck,,and this Thuban is very tempting,,,,,thanks a million for your advice.
February 12, 2011 2:01:02 PM

Its an insult to any intel fanboy when we see threads which asks which is better.Mighty 980x or crappy 1090t.
February 12, 2011 2:20:39 PM

Pc Guru_07 said:
Its an insult to any intel fanboy when we see threads which asks which is better.Mighty 980x or crappy 1090t.


it is not an insult to compare these 2 technically,why would it be an insult? of course we all know that Intel is better and I myself have been using Intel CPUs since the first time I bought a PC,but it is the question of MONEY,the difference is 600$ compared to Thuban,and 600$ is a large amount of money in building a new system,and I did not ask if this was better than that,I just asked If anyone could give me links to comparison made on this site between these 2 CPUs.
February 12, 2011 2:23:52 PM

Considering the i5-760 obliterates any X6 in gaming, why is AMD still considered cost efficient?
February 12, 2011 2:33:02 PM

minitron815 said:
Considering the i5-760 obliterates any X6 in gaming, why is AMD still considered cost efficient?


because many people can not afford Intel expensive CPUs.
February 12, 2011 2:39:44 PM

The i5-760 is cheaper than the 1090T and 1100T. If you wanted to start an Intel vs AMD thread (more like Intel slapping the *** out of AMD) you should look less retarded.
February 12, 2011 3:38:19 PM

minitron815 said:
The i5-760 is cheaper than the 1090T and 1100T. If you wanted to start an Intel vs AMD thread (more like Intel slapping the *** out of AMD) you should look less retarded.


I just wanted to see some comparisons between these 2 and in my country i5-760 is not cheaper than those,and I didnt want to start anything,and if you call me a retarded person,so be it,not important at all,it shows one's make up.
February 12, 2011 3:54:56 PM

minitron815 said:
Considering the i5-760 obliterates any X6 in gaming, why is AMD still considered cost efficient?



You guys are really hung up on this AMD sucks compared to.. thing. Any game benchmarks I see show that at enthuisiast resolution - you know the resolution people actually buy $300 GPUs for - you know 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, there will be little noticeable difference in gameplay.

Anything above the Athlon II X4 will play high res games with XFire or SLI.

To say what you say imples that AMDs chips can't play the games not that Intel just gets a few % higher. Another thing about the average benchmark site is that everyone uses 890GX boards instead of the highend 890FX boards from ASUS and MSI.

But they'll get the best Intel boards.

I just giggle as I play HAWX at 1920 with a Phenom II X4.
February 12, 2011 6:30:14 PM

BaronMatrix said:
You guys are really hung up on this AMD sucks compared to.. thing. Any game benchmarks I see show that at enthuisiast resolution - you know the resolution people actually buy $300 GPUs for - you know 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, there will be little noticeable difference in gameplay.

Anything above the Athlon II X4 will play high res games with XFire or SLI.

To say what you say imples that AMDs chips can't play the games not that Intel just gets a few % higher. Another thing about the average benchmark site is that everyone uses 890GX boards instead of the highend 890FX boards from ASUS and MSI.

But they'll get the best Intel boards.

I just giggle as I play HAWX at 1920 with a Phenom II X4.



I say that even by comparing these 2 and their numbers in benchmarks,again we can make the most out of each too,because there's no game that can be played only by one of them,and I like AMD as well,why not?why should we stick just to Intel? it is true that there is always a better thing of all things,but I say one should see one's pocket and not stick to something just for showing off and prejudice and others' words.And I agree with you that one can see no noticeable difference in gameplay,either one uses a Thuban or i7-980x. Believe it or not,I myself have a core 2 duo E6750,and it can perform all games well and I play all of my games at 1920x1080 without any problem.
February 12, 2011 7:48:20 PM

Sigh... GPU > CPU at higher resolutions. What is so hard to understand about this?
a b à CPUs
February 12, 2011 9:50:39 PM

Quote:
Legion hardware? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Talk about a no name site and how many people do you actually believe run 2560X1600 resolution on this forum? My links are at 1080

PsychoSaysDie you are correct as some Games can be CPU dependent to a greater extent than GPU dependent or both possibly.FSX as an example is highly CPU dependent and the graphics card is only a minor player in that sim.
a c 127 à CPUs
February 12, 2011 10:28:02 PM

BaronMatrix said:
You guys are really hung up on this AMD sucks compared to.. thing. Any game benchmarks I see show that at enthuisiast resolution - you know the resolution people actually buy $300 GPUs for - you know 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, there will be little noticeable difference in gameplay.

Anything above the Athlon II X4 will play high res games with XFire or SLI.

To say what you say imples that AMDs chips can't play the games not that Intel just gets a few % higher. Another thing about the average benchmark site is that everyone uses 890GX boards instead of the highend 890FX boards from ASUS and MSI.

But they'll get the best Intel boards.

I just giggle as I play HAWX at 1920 with a Phenom II X4.


In terms of what can play most current games in CF/SLI from both I see it this way:

Intel: Core 2 Quad +

AMD: Athlon II X4+ (Phenom I just wasn't very friendly)

As for the mobos, I bet that there is probably no performance difference between a 890GX and a 890FX mobo short of the PCIe lanes in which dual 8x is not much slower than dual 16x unless you are tring to run tri SLI or quad CFX.

In most reviews you are comparing the LGA1156/LGA1155 mobos in which they have only dual PCIe 2.0 8x and are not the high end. In most reviews vs a X58 chipset, I see a 890FX chipset being compared because it has dual 16x PCIe 2.0 like the X58.

But in most cases, as long as you have a Core 2 Quad or a Athlon II X4 you should be able to SLI/CF nicely and max out any game out there.
!