Amd 1090t vs fx 4100 vs Phenom II X4 965

[cortex5x]

Which of these cpu`s have the best overall performance in order?
Also which is the best bang for the buck?

 

[cortex5x]

1100t vs fx 8120 is also interesting

 

[wh3resmycar]

just go intel, 2500k and you'll be alright.

 

[cortex5x]

Keep in mind i have the am3+ motherboard. SO i have no other choice than to buy an amd cpu.

 

[HostileDonut]

Grab a X6 CPU if you plan on gaming. The 1090t and 8120 are basically the same performance wise.

 

[-Fran-]

Nope, for Gaming the 965 is better and cheaper.

So, P/P is 965 (OC to 4Ghz or 3.9Ghz would be good enough), then could be the FX-4100 (but taking it to 4.5Ghz is a must) and then the 1090T.

Keep in mind that's gaming only. If you want threading power, then the 1090T comes before the 965 IMO.

Cheers!

EDIT: lil' mistake

 

[HostileDonut]

Nope, for Gaming the 965 is better and cheaper.

So, P/P is 965 (OC to 4Ghz or 3.9Ghz would be good enough), then could be the FX-4100 (but taking it to 4.5Ghz is a must) and then the 1090T.

Keep in mind that's gaming only. If you want threading power, then the 1090T comes before the 965 IMO.

Cheers!

EDIT: lil' mistake

No, the 8 core FX 8150 competes with the 1090t and is bassically on par on benches that take advantage of all cores. BD is not very quick. For new games like BF3, BFBC2, Mafia two, etc. the two cores really come in handy. The new quad core bulldozer is a waste of money considering the that the phenom ii X4 is faster. Don't advise him a BD quad core that will perform like garbage.... 1090t is the perfect AMD gaming CPU now days because games still don't use all 8 threads a 8120 or 8150 has to offer but will destroy a X4 in modern games.

 

[-Fran-]

While I do agree that the FX4100 could be a waste down the road, I don't agree that a 8120 is a better buy than the 1090T at all.

I'll give you that, down the road, the 965 could be put in third place easily, right now is not far behind (in games) to justify the extra price for the 1090T or the 8120.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

If you look at the CPU testing for the games, the 965 (represented by the 980) still has a lot to give and hardly become obsolete in the near future. And since I cannot guarantee that "new" games will use more than 4 cores actively, the 1090T and 8120 are hard to recommend right now IMO.

Cheers!

 

[HostileDonut]

While I do agree that the FX4100 could be a waste down the road, I don't agree that a 8120 is a better buy than the 1090T at all.

I'll give you that, down the road, the 965 could be put in third place easily, right now is not far behind (in games) to justify the extra price for the 1090T or the 8120.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

If you look at the CPU testing for the games, the 965 (represented by the 980) still has a lot to give and hardly become obsolete in the near future. And since I cannot guarantee that "new" games will use more than 4 cores actively, the 1090T and 8120 are hard to recommend right now IMO.

Cheers!

I would not recommend a 8120, they are not very good unless are cores are active. The 1090t on the other hand can be used in modern games. Not the COD series, but BFBC2 and BF3, Mafia II, and there are a few more I cannot remember, but it will be more widely used soon. If he has the money, go for it.

 

[FALC0N]

Nope, for Gaming the 965 is better and cheaper.

Its cheaper, not better. The 965 and the 1090 are close to identical in gaming.

 

[-Fran-]

Its cheaper, not better. The 965 and the 1090 are close to identical in gaming.

Yeah, forgot to edit that to "for gaming the 965 is better in P/P".

Cheers!

 

[HostileDonut]

Yeah, forgot to edit that to "for gaming the 965 is better in P/P".

Cheers!

But barely. Only by .4Ghz when all cores are active. But when you do anything that supports more cores, especially in the near future, the 1090t will blow away the X4.

 

[-Fran-]

But barely. Only by .4Ghz when all cores are active. But when you do anything that supports more cores, especially in the near future, the 1090t will blow away the X4.

I got mine running at 4.1Ghz with stock voltage, I really doubt a 1090T could reach that high with stock voltages. So I'm a little biased towards the 965

I wonder what's the price difference for the OP, now that we got down to it. I've seen price differences as high as 40USD. Got any counter examples for that?

Cheers!

 

[cortex5x]

I ordered x4 955 be yesterday, going to try to oc it to 3.7 ghz with the stock cooler.

 

[FALC0N]

I ordered x4 955 be yesterday, going to try to oc it to 3.7 ghz with the stock cooler.

3.7 Should be no problem at all.

 

[-Fran-]

And what was the price difference between them?

Cheers!

 

[FALC0N]

And what was the price difference between them?

Cheers!

Depends on where your at, but $40 for me. Im assuming you mean the 955 vs the 1090.

Worth it though if you will still be using your system in some capacity 5 years from now. The extra core matters more as system loads increase. And they always do over time.

For example, Intel had quads and duals 4 years ago that had about the same performance, but today the quads have a clear advantage. Same will hold true with the X6 vs the X4 in 4 years.

 

[-Fran-]

I really understand what you're saying, but I'm sure the 4 cores will run a long 4 years. Dual cores have been around since 2003 (or close) in x86, right? So we've had at least 6 or 7 years of "service" for dual cores at the top/middle.

I really think quads will last a solid 4 years from now even (making it another 6-7 years cycle). What worries me though, is the throughput of next gens. But that's another story.

Cheers!

 

[HostileDonut]

I really understand what you're saying, but I'm sure the 4 cores will run a long 4 years. Dual cores have been around since 2003 (or close) in x86, right? So we've had at least 6 or 7 years of "service" for dual cores at the top/middle.

I really think quads will last a solid 4 years from now even (making it another 6-7 years cycle). What worries me though, is the throughput of next gens. But that's another story.

Cheers!

Phenom II X4 is already starting to show some age compared to it's Intel counterpart. I would grab the X6. An X4 will not hold four more years. It is already two years old. Give it another 2 or 3 if your lucky.

 

[Dave1990]

Phenom II X4 is already starting to show some age compared to it's Intel counterpart. I would grab the X6. An X4 will not hold four more years. It is already two years old. Give it another 2 or 3 if your lucky.

There are no video games here or in the near future that require 6 cores. You are advising people to deliberately waste money.

Why not just recommend a mac? You're under this assumption that CPUs have a big effect in video games, but they very much don't. Not only that, but you're recommending a CPU that's more expensive and hardly better. I wouldn't even call it better. And the things it's considered "better" for have absolutely nothing to do with video games.

Please don't recommend people X6 cores when 80% of the games today don't utilize more than 2. It makes you look stupid.

And the 965 is not "showing it's age". It's one of the best price-performance CPUs out there. I don't own one anymore since I switched to an i2500K, but you certainly don't need a better CPU than a 965 for video games. There will be no performance gain in doing so.

 

[The Mysterious Guy]

I got mine running at 4.1Ghz with stock voltage, I really doubt a 1090T could reach that high with stock voltages. So I'm a little biased towards the 965

I wonder what's the price difference for the OP, now that we got down to it. I've seen price differences as high as 40USD. Got any counter examples for that?

Cheers!

Just Help Me to Overclock my 955. How Far will it go on stock voltage ?

 

[HostileDonut]

There are no video games here or in the near future that require 6 cores. You are advising people to deliberately waste money.

Why not just recommend a mac? You're under this assumption that CPUs have a big effect in video games, but they very much don't. Not only that, but you're recommending a CPU that's more expensive and hardly better. I wouldn't even call it better. And the things it's considered "better" for have absolutely nothing to do with video games.

Please don't recommend people X6 cores when 80% of the games today don't utilize more than 2. It makes you look stupid.

And the 965 is not "showing it's age". It's one of the best price-performance CPUs out there. I don't own one anymore since I switched to an i2500K, but you certainly don't need a better CPU than a 965 for video games. There will be no performance gain in doing so.

I can name some 6-threaded apps. BF3, BFBC2, Mafia2, and from what I can tell, games are heading that direction.

 

[HostileDonut]

Just Help Me to Overclock my 955. How Far will it go on stock voltage ?

I would bet you could hit 3.7 pretty easily on stock voltage. If you are lucky, somewhere in the 4Ghz area. Maybe up the voltage .1 if it isn't stable. P2s don't actually need the stock voltage they come with. You could down-volt.

 

[Motopsychojdn]

Just Help Me to Overclock my 955. How Far will it go on stock voltage ?

Quite aside from the fighting going off, check this out mate
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/258573-11-black-edition-overclock-guide-raising-multiplier
let us know what O/c you get stable
Moto

 

[FALC0N]

There are no video games here or in the near future that require 6 cores. You are advising people to deliberately waste money.

Why not just recommend a mac? You're under this assumption that CPUs have a big effect in video games, but they very much don't. Not only that, but you're recommending a CPU that's more expensive and hardly better. I wouldn't even call it better. And the things it's considered "better" for have absolutely nothing to do with video games.

Please don't recommend people X6 cores when 80% of the games today don't utilize more than 2. It makes you look stupid.

And the 965 is not "showing it's age". It's one of the best price-performance CPUs out there. I don't own one anymore since I switched to an i2500K, but you certainly don't need a better CPU than a 965 for video games. There will be no performance gain in doing so.

I am just stunned at how many people think computer are just expensive gaming consoles. The vast majority of users do not use computers for gaming. At least not gaming as you would think of it.

Unless I missed something, and maybe I did, the OP said nothing about gaming.