Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Phenom II X4 980 or x6 1090T for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 6, 2012 1:54:06 AM

Currently, I have an ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 motherboard with an AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU installed.

But I have a GTX 570 SLI setup, I think the CPU is underpowered, so I decided to upgrade my CPU before those major games come out at 2012.

I was looking at the Newegg.com for choices between the

Phenom II X4 980 at $160
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Phenom II X6 1090T at 180
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I'm playing Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Men of War, RAGE, Red Orchestra 2, GTA IV, Skyrim, Star Wars The Old Republic, EVE Online, World of Tanks etc atm.

Which CPU can perform the best between my current games and future games like Diablo 3, Metro 2, GTA V and ME 3.
February 6, 2012 2:07:17 AM

hmmm, the performance on softwares/games between this two are very different... yet really close. :o 

still cant decide....
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 2:05:39 PM

if they are clocked the same they will perform equal, if not, the one with the higher clock will win
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 2:07:19 PM

i would get the 1090t just for the 2 extra cores for the future or multitasking
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 4:09:04 PM

It's a waste of money IMO. You won't have a huge increase. I think the only way to proper drive this SLI is going with a sandy bridge architecture.

Just look at google for some SLI/Crossfire CPU scaling, you gonna see that this is an area where sandy bridge really shines.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 4:20:06 PM

Buying old architecture is never a good idea. Stick with what you have and save towards newer AMD/Intel chips
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 4:46:14 PM

Since no one else is saying it...

Save your money and overclock the 965 to 4+ Ghz. If you have good aftermarket air cooling (i.e., Hyper212+, etc.), then you aren't ricking anything at all by turning up the CPU multiplier in your BIOS and then stability testing for the new clock.

If you find it isn't fast enough, or you can't get a stable overclock for nothing our of the 965, then you can weigh the decision to upgrade to the 980 or 1090T, or even ditching AMD altogether and banging down $350-450 on an Intel CPU and mainboard. You may even have to buy new memory depending on how finicky your Intel chipset is with voltages (i.e., not all DDR3 memory is the same).
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 5:15:16 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...



Its close; both are practically identical. But both are already bottlenecks when compared to Intel SB CPU's. Point being, in the majority of titles, the both CPU's will limit the effects of the SLI'd 570's.
Share
February 6, 2012 6:28:41 PM

I sold my phenom CPU and Board to get an i5 2500k and board. This is the only noticable gain in performance you will get for changing cpu's, and that still depends on the game. In most cases i've noticed alot better performance. Especially when runnning crossfire/SLI. Consider a switch or waiting to see what piledriver brings, but i wouldn't hold my breath...
Score
0
February 6, 2012 6:33:03 PM

omega21xx said:
I sold my phenom CPU and Board to get an i5 2500k and board. This is the only noticable gain in performance you will get for changing cpu's, and that still depends on the game. In most cases i've noticed alot better performance. Especially when runnning crossfire/SLI. Consider a switch or waiting to see what piledriver brings, but i wouldn't hold my breath...

There is not point so long as you are seeing a constant min 60fps and my Phenom II 955 @ 3.6ghz seems able to handle 60fps GPU limited of coarse.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 6:42:47 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
There is not point so long as you are seeing a constant min 60fps and my Phenom II 955 @ 3.6ghz seems able to handle 60fps GPU limited of coarse.


The OP said he feels his CPU is underpowered, I was just pointing out the only CPU worth it to upgrade to is an i5, That's the only cpu that will net some additional performance that can be seen depending on the game. I had a phenom II at 3.5ghz and yeah most games ran fine, Skyrim had some severe bottlenecking in some places, as did some games having bad stuttering when crossfire was enabled. Now that i'm using an i5, i get no stutter in games i used to with crossfire, and skyrim runs flawless and doesn't get the stutter it used to when i'd turn around in cities.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 6:53:20 PM

omega21xx said:
The OP said he feels his CPU is underpowered, I was just pointing out the only CPU worth it to upgrade to is an i5, That's the only cpu that will net some additional performance that can be seen depending on the game. I had a phenom II at 3.5ghz and yeah most games ran fine, Skyrim had some severe bottlenecking in some places, as did some games having bad stuttering when crossfire was enabled. Now that i'm using an i5, i get no stutter in games i used to with crossfire, and skyrim runs flawless and doesn't get the stutter it used to when i'd turn around in cities.

60fps V-Synch on a 60hrz monitor is the gold standard for perfect gameplay I fail to see how 60fps is any different on an i5 over any other CPU. I just do not understand peoples logic or lack there of and I am not saying i5 2500K is unnecessary for gaming or not good or anything I just am saying people are misunderstood and mostly are playing into the hype and aura surround the mighty Intel i series CPUs when 60fps is all the same as is the standard on SLI/CF and single cards cause between 60fps and 750fps+ you will never see or feel the difference cause there is none at all cause the monitors only displays a max of 60fps and thats is thats all. PS I want to build a Micro ITX LAN rig and I dont want to use a lesser powerful chip like Liano so I guess I will go i5 2500k and then I will find out what as this hoop haw is all about.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:02:37 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
60fps V-Synch on a 60hrz monitor is the gold standard for perfect gameplay I fail to see how 60fps is any different on an i5 over any other CPU. I just do not understand peoples logic or lack there of and I am not saying i5 2500K is unnecessary for gaming or not good or anything I just am saying people are misunderstood and mostly are playing into the hype and aura surround the mighty Intel i series CPUs when 60fps is all the same as is the standard on SLI/CF and single cards cause between 60fps and 750fps+ you will never see or feel the difference cause there is none at all cause the monitors only displays a max of 60fps and thats is thats all. PS I want to build a Micro ITX LAN rig and I dont want to use a lesser powerful chip like Liano so I guess I will go i5 2500k and then I will find out what as this hoop haw is all about.


Yes most chips can handle 60fps, it's the minimum fps that is more important to me, i perfer a 40 fps minimum with 50max to 25fps minimum 75+max
It's about smooth game play. And like i mentioned, when in crossfire, some games are cpu limited enough to make crossfire blow completely, making mimimum frames drop a good amount. Play any fallout 3, new vegas, skyrim game on a phenom ii and then play on an i5, you'll see the difference trust me. I know this is just one game i'm mentioning but there are more, this is just one game that really shows the need for an i5.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 7:02:39 PM

Gordon is correct. Any FPS over 60 is wasted on a machine that has monitors that refresh at 60 Hz.

Skyrim is an absolutely terrible example to show bottleneck discrepencies.

1) New game from Bethesda - that alone will make me wait 6 months just to get in-game bugs resolved, let alone GPU driver-related issues

2) This game still runs DX9 and offloads almost all the shading processing to the CPU. Hence, you will see improved framerate performance as you put more processor to the task by either increasing the IPC or increasing the clock speed, or both. Turn down your shadow detail and VIOLA! your framerate issues melt away.

3) Why is this game still using DX9? Same issue that seems to plague a large number of the games coming out for PC today...crappy console portage. It's designed to run on a PS3 or Xbox 360. I guess the developers at Bethesda thought they would cut a few corners and make huge profits on the console versions and just tax unused CPU cycles on the PC version. I'm sure they optimized for Intel CPU scheduling while they were at it, since they control a majority of the market.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:13:23 PM

omega21xx said:
Yes most chips can handle 60fps, it's the minimum fps that is more important to me, i perfer a 40 fps minimum with 50max to 25fps minimum 75+max
It's about smooth game play. And like i mentioned, when in crossfire, some games are cpu limited enough to make crossfire blow completely, making mimimum frames drop a good amount. Play any fallout 3, new vegas, skyrim game on a phenom ii and then play on an i5, you'll see the difference trust me. I know this is just one game i'm mentioning but there are more, this is just one game that really shows the need for an i5.

I was talking 60fps locked min to the monitors refresh rate or V-Synch which is the golden standar not for just only a smooth gameplay experience but a fast and perfect game play experience. Skyrim is a buggy POS game technically speaking but the gameplay and world/lore is great and 42fps min on OCed i5 2500k is terrible performance and indicative of a sloppy coded buggy game.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:25:55 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
I was talking 60fps locked min to the monitors refresh rate or V-Synch which is the golden standar not for just only a smooth gameplay experience but a fast and perfect game play experience. Skyrim is a buggy POS game technically speaking but the gameplay and world/lore is great and 42fps min on OCed i5 2500k is terrible performance and indicative of a sloppy coded buggy game.


It's an example for one, and even the older games had cpu bottlenecks. Most quality games like BF3 won't need anymore than an Athlon II to run perfect. Again i was pointing the OP in the right direction from a CPU upgrade standpoint. I know a good majority stand by having 120 fps over 60fps if they have a monitor that supports that refresh rate.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 7:28:34 PM

Was just reading a forum where some modders spotted the errors in the code. It appears that Bethesda compiled the released version without any optimizations other than x87 FPU code ops (circa mid 90s, 486 era), and even these should have been optimized for SSE functions (circa 1999). Crappy, crappy coding and compilation which makes me think they may have jobbed this piece out to Turkminikazakistania somewhere where gaming code optimizations are still back in the mid 90s.

They probably ran it on $4500 gaming rigs, saw decent enough performance, and sent it off for duplication. Since the console market has its own custom compilation, and they have to follow strict optimizations or else the game just won't work at all, they probably spent almost all their testing budget on the console versions and the PC version became an afterthought, where they could fix any issues later in a patch.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:31:29 PM

omega21xx said:
It's an example for one, and even the older games had cpu bottlenecks. Most quality games like BF3 won't need anymore than an Athlon II to run perfect. Again i was pointing the OP in the right direction from a CPU upgrade standpoint. I know a good majority stand by having 120 fps over 60fps if they have a monitor that supports that refresh rate.

That 120hz monitor cost a ton of money to maintain that min framerate of 120hz at all time's like $1000+ just in GPUs to run the modern games and even there are a bunch of games that will never maintain a min of 120fps 120hz that is why I stand by 60fps as the gold standard. PS 120fps min is impossible on HD+ resolutions.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:35:01 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
That 120hz monitor cost a ton of money to maintain that min framerate of 120hz at all time's like $1000+ just in GPUs to run the modern games and even there are a bunch of games that will never maintain a min of 120fps 120hz that is why I stand by 60fps as the gold standard. PS 120fps min is impossible on HD+ resolutions.


Once again, just an example. You can achieve 120fps in games with one gpu depending on the game (games based on the source engine for example)
Seriously this shouldn't be flying off the shelf into some war, i was just staying on topic and giving my experience from switching, didn't need the whole explanation about why i'm wrong when i just was providing a viable and proven CPU upgrade option for the OP.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:35:12 PM

Houndsteeth said:
Was just reading a forum where some modders spotted the errors in the code. It appears that Bethesda compiled the released version without any optimizations other than x87 FPU code ops (circa mid 90s, 486 era), and even these should have been optimized for SSE functions (circa 1999). Crappy, crappy coding and compilation which makes me think they may have jobbed this piece out to Turkminikazakistania somewhere where gaming code optimizations are still back in the mid 90s.

They probably ran it on $4500 gaming rigs, saw decent enough performance, and sent it off for duplication. Since the console market has its own custom compilation, and they have to follow strict optimizations or else the game just won't work at all, they probably spent almost all their testing budget on the console versions and the PC version became an afterthought, where they could fix any issues later in a patch.

Morrowind still has problems on PC LOL
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:36:43 PM

omega21xx said:
Once again, just an example. You can achieve 120fps in games with one gpu depending on the game (games based on the source engine for example)

Source Engine is a light, OLD and highly optimized engine that wuz designed on tech mighty old by like back in 05
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:41:55 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
Source Engine is a light, OLD and highly optimized engine that wuz designed on tech mighty old by like back in 05


The source engine is updated pretty regularly. Not that the engine is updated on older games, but it's not just an old engine, it is pretty powerful for it's age and it still gets the job done and like i said it's still updated regularly.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:48:50 PM

omega21xx said:
The source engine is updated pretty regularly. Not that the engine is updated on older games, but it's not just an old engine, it is pretty powerful for it's age and it still gets the job done and like i said it's still updated regularly.

L4D for example to me looks all good but comparable to even some of today's even just mediocre newer engines it is not all that great and demanding but it is scalable and optimized which is so much more important to me.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 7:53:56 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
L4D for example to me looks all good but comparable to even some of today's even just mediocre newer engines it is not all that great and demanding but it is scalable and optimized which is so much more important to me.


Exactly, i was able to run this on an old Pentium 4 actually with playable fps. :) 
I wasn't trying to make things off topic with what i said, but just because something is badly coded doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it. I must say the shadows in skyrim are terrible (bad optimization and look ugly) that's why i would suggest having a good cpu for having them at best quality to help with the terrible distracting pixelated shadows. You could of course lower the shadow resolution in the INI but then they look less like shadows and more like blobs :p 
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:04:51 PM

omega21xx said:
Exactly, i was able to run this on an old Pentium 4 actually with playable fps. :) 
I wasn't trying to make things off topic with what i said, but just because something is badly coded doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it. I must say the shadows in skyrim are terrible (bad optimization and look ugly) that's why i would suggest having a good cpu for having them at best quality to help with the terrible distracting pixelated shadows. You could of course lower the shadow resolution in the INI but then they look less like shadows and more like blobs :p 

With mods to the max for both Performance optimization and better graphics and game play I have Skyrim running real good as it will get on my Phenom II 955 with a bare min in town like Riften of 35fps in some spots mostly the game is running 45 to 60fps tho fully maxed and modded up so another 5 or 10 FPS an i5 may get is not worth it to me for one game plus a few more that I dont play like Starcraft 2
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:11:18 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
With mods to the max for both Performance optimization and better graphics and game play I have Skyrim running real good as it will get on my Phenom II 955 with a bare min in town like Riften of 35fps in some spots mostly the game is running 45 to 60fps tho fully maxed and modded up so another 5 or 10 FPS an i5 may get is not worth it to me for one game plus a few more that I dont play like Starcraft 2


Some don't like playing with settings and cfg/ini files. (i did for metro 2033 and got very good results :D ) You get more than a 5-10 fps when overclocked, running maxed I see a low of 50, without any tweaks, in whiterun and other cities. I haven't played SCII but i will one day, I enjoy RTS games when i'm with a friend.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:28:49 PM

omega21xx said:
Some don't like playing with settings and cfg/ini files. (i did for metro 2033 and got very good results :D ) You get more than a 5-10 fps when overclocked, running maxed I see a low of 50, without any tweaks, in whiterun and other cities. I haven't played SCII but i will one day, I enjoy RTS games when i'm with a friend.

I didn't tune the ini files in Skyrim and you have to mod and mess with skyrim to get it running optimally regardless of the CPU it is running on. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-... the game is broken on Intel and broken on AMD
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:40:09 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
I didn't tune the ini files in Skyrim and you have to mod and mess with skyrim to get it running optimally regardless of the CPU it is running on. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-... the game is broken on Intel and broken on AMD


If you aren't tweaking INI settings then what are you doing? If you mean mods off skyrimnexus.com i assume you mean the performance mods that mess with the ini for you and inject other filters? Other than that they haven't made a script extender so editing the game code isn't happening right now aside from 4gb ram mod which is unrelated.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2012 8:48:36 PM

Just OC the 965 and you should be fine. The difference to upgrading your cpu beyound that point isn't worth the money but I guess if you really want it then it is worth it. There is no point to spending money on either of those cpus.

Skyrim once you install the cpu patch gives good performance from basically any CPU so it should be noted that poorly coded games should not really be a good way to show if its worth upgrading.

Going from a phenom to a 2500k OC'ed to 4 ghz does give better minimal fps in games which are less gpu dependent but its up to you to decide if its worth $350 to go intel for the slight performance boost.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:51:26 PM

omega21xx said:
If you aren't tweaking INI settings then what are you doing? If you mean mods off skyrimnexus.com i assume you mean the performance mods that mess with the ini for you and inject other filters? Other than that they haven't made a script extender so editing the game code isn't happening right now aside from 4gb ram mod which is unrelated.

As i said I did not tune the ini settings I DLed/installed performance and Graphical enhancing mods.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:54:59 PM

esrever said:
Just OC the 965 and you should be fine. The difference to upgrading your cpu beyound that point isn't worth the money but I guess if you really want it then it is worth it. There is no point to spending money on either of those cpus.

Skyrim once you install the cpu patch gives good performance from basically any CPU so it should be noted that poorly coded games should not really be a good way to show if its worth upgrading.

Going from a phenom to a 2500k OC'ed to 4 ghz does give better minimal fps in games which are less gpu dependent but its up to you to decide if its worth $350 to go intel for the slight performance boost.

I concur and real do not see the point of going from something like a Phenom II 955 to Sandy Bride just for to run a game or two.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 8:56:47 PM

Gordon Freeman said:
As i said I did not tune the ini settings I DLed/installed performance and Graphical enhancing mods.


I get that, i was just asking about the mods you used, since most that give better performance edit ini settings, regardless whether you know or not, they usually state it in the description what said mod does to your game files.

esrever, I wasn't aware of a cpu performance patch from bethesda O_o Thanks for the info i'll look into it.
Score
0
February 6, 2012 9:09:56 PM

omega21xx said:
I get that, i was just asking about the mods you used, since most that give better performance edit ini settings, regardless whether you know or not, they usually state it in the description what said mod does to your game files.

esrever, I wasn't aware of a cpu performance patch from bethesda O_o Thanks for the info i'll look into it.

Ya before that patch from bethesda I was getting lows of 25FPS now it went up to 35fps after the patch and ya the mods on Nexus are what I installed I think some changed the stock ini settings I dont know all I know is that it looks a hell of allot better from the factory vanilla Skyrim and performs allot better to. Skyrim really doesn't take a whole lotta of Power from the GPU or CPU to run good and look good it is based from an very old engine from like Morrowind used the same one.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2012 3:37:51 AM

I find the problem with the pc industry and gaming industry is a pedantic persuit for irrelevence. I have a 2500K/GTX560ti combo and max out all new titles comfortably on my screens highest res, I did use FRAPS and recorded a 50+ FPS on Skyrim around 44~52 for Metro 2033 and over 55 for F1 2011. What difference that makes in my life after 30FPS which I used to get on a C2D with GTX460 is totally irrelevent.

It is almost like people play games because of the eyecandy rather than the content, its the same folk that play the mecca of games BF3 that are running around on super computers with everything looking mint, getting pawned by average joe on his borderline system at lower LOD only obsessed in killing your assh.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 4:22:33 AM

Best answer selected by HCGxKaLiBeR.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 4:25:02 AM

thanks for all the replies : )

guess I'm gonna try to sell my old MB and CPU then go for a Intel setup insted...
Score
0
February 7, 2012 10:32:30 AM

Gordon Freeman said:
Ya before that patch from bethesda I was getting lows of 25FPS now it went up to 35fps after the patch and ya the mods on Nexus are what I installed I think some changed the stock ini settings I dont know all I know is that it looks a hell of allot better from the factory vanilla Skyrim and performs allot better to. Skyrim really doesn't take a whole lotta of Power from the GPU or CPU to run good and look good it is based from an very old engine from like Morrowind used the same one.


sarinaide said:
I find the problem with the pc industry and gaming industry is a pedantic persuit for irrelevence. I have a 2500K/GTX560ti combo and max out all new titles comfortably on my screens highest res, I did use FRAPS and recorded a 50+ FPS on Skyrim around 44~52 for Metro 2033 and over 55 for F1 2011. What difference that makes in my life after 30FPS which I used to get on a C2D with GTX460 is totally irrelevent.

It is almost like people play games because of the eyecandy rather than the content, its the same folk that play the mecca of games BF3 that are running around on super computers with everything looking mint, getting pawned by average joe on his borderline system at lower LOD only obsessed in killing your assh.

I play Fallout New Vegas and it looks like *** and I love it 91hrs in and counting GTX 275 and I don't care.
Score
0
February 7, 2012 10:33:45 AM

HCGxKaLiBeR said:
thanks for all the replies : )

guess I'm gonna try to sell my old MB and CPU then go for a Intel setup insted...

You don't need Intel to game on save the money and put it towards a better GPU for the most tangible increase in gaming performance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2012 11:41:15 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!