Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd phenom II x6 1045t vs amd phenom II X5 Black Edition 965

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 16, 2012 6:00:09 AM

Im doing a big upgrade to my computer. Currently i sit with a cruddy MSI mobo seating a Q6600 from Intel and about 2.5GB of RAM.

I wish to swap out the msi with a gigabyte AM3+ ready board, and go with AMD. Problem is im a little torn right now.

Heres my upgrade list:
Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 AM3+ Ready Board
Patriot Viper Xtreme 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 Memory Kit
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T (2.7GHz)

With these parts together, comes to $403CAD from newegg, but im getting doubts about the processor. As a multimedia editor and web developer, more cores makes more sense to me. This said, I am hearing reports that despite this, the X4 965 Black still outperforms it overall, and at $30 cheaper knocks the price of my upgrade below the $400 line.

My gut says to get the X6 simply because the X4 is an older CPU (Hell the specs on the X4 Black still tout AMD64 as a selling feature). the Q6600 Quaddy that i've been using thus far definitely has not done a bad job, and can even still outperform my iMac from 2009.

Should i just go with the X4 Black for now, and upgrade when Bulldozer becomes worth it?
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 16, 2012 6:03:15 AM

It really won't be an upgrade over the Q6600. Why aren't you opting out for an i5?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 6:50:20 AM

The 1045 is weak because of the relatively low clock speed. It has a locked multiplier, but you can overclock it at the reference clock, although honestly, I'd take the 965 over it. You're not going to sacrifice much performance by dropping 2 cores.

As far as bulldozer becoming worth it, honestly the FX-8120s ARE worth it now, they're not priced over 200 bucks like they initially were. They're about $170 now, which is just fine, considering their overclocking abilities.

As far as the upcoming Piledriver (Bulldozer v2), tom's does have a sneak peak of it in the Trinity APUs, early impressions look like AMD has met and even possibly exceeded their roadmap of 10% improvement a year.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-...

Quote:
Budget, the processors of i5 are still above $200, and i3 just feels like a noticable downgrade


And they never will. Intel does not drop the price of their CPUs for any reason. Corporate greed/arrogance, they outsell AMD 5 to 1, they can afford not to cut people a break on day-old donuts.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 16, 2012 6:54:27 AM

nekulturny said:

And they never will. Intel does not drop the price of their CPUs for any reason. Corporate greed/arrogance, they outsell AMD 5 to 1, they can afford not to cut people a break on day-old donuts.

They don't need to, regardless they outperform and outsell amd :p 
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 7:06:01 AM

I know this, but that doesn't mean that Intel isn't a morally bankrupt company who has a track record of engaging in illegal business practices to ensure they stay at number 1. They're already ripping people off with their prices, you think if AMD goes belly up they won't hesitate to press the advantage to the fullest extent possible? Thats a scary thought, it should scare you too. We aren't going to stop using computers obviously, so Intel is most likely going to end up being worse than Microsoft and Walmart.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 7:12:16 AM

and now I have another dilemma, considering that muffin is correct, my Q6600 is technically supposed to outperform the X4 Black, this said i can hear my CPU crunching along as it hangs. I spend, 25 minutes, closing my applications so I can restart. This is also a memory issue,a nd tis actuall ythe memory that sparked the idea for an upgrade. Its old value DDR2 ram, would like to upgrade to DDR3, but my current video card (gtx260) covers up A LOT of my MSI mobo. Prompting for a new mobo replacement. Well if im going to replace the mobo I may as well swap out the rest of the core components. Its not that I disliek Intel in any way, im just getting tired of paying the price for admission, when I know AMD makes comparable products for a better dollar amount. So going forward, thinking fo swithcing back to AMD. Well im SO far out of the AMD game (my last one being an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Socket A CPU) that I have honestly no idea what to do. I want my upgrade to be affordable, but I dont want to degrade the performance of my machine either lol
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 7:17:55 AM

Well, obviously something else is going wrong with you system, as I'm sure you already know.

Have you tried the usual suspects? Software? Clean install of Windows might be in order to rule out software.

I think if you want to do a new build, you might want to figure out what kind of budget you have first, and what parts you plan on re-using. The standard "How to ask for build advice" form in the Systems section would be a starting point.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 8:06:55 AM

Ah ha,

Ok just to clear a record, not a single one of my machines are off the shelf, I've built each and every one of them with my own two hands save for the (for obvious reasons) iMac. Problem is that I've been WAAAAY out of the loop for the past half decade, and with the extreme rise in interest in mobile hardware as opposed to desktop hardware, well, lets just say not one of my friends are in the loop anymore either and it's actually been difficult for me to find useful resources like these benchmarks , hence the reason im here.

I just needed some reassurance that I'm not tossing good money out the window, and I have specifically chosen an AM3+ ready board for the new lineup of AMD chips, I've just heard terrible things about the current lineup.


Like i said regarding my computers performance. it is a combination of a lot of things, and the big problem is simply that a lot of it is really old and salvaged tech. My HDD's for example are 7 year old WD Caviars, two of them, at 250GB. I can hear them operate as they are being used at this exact second. I plan on getting a WD 1TB Black for my main drive, and a dedicated 64GB SSD for my OS/ProgramFiles, but this will have to come shortly after the guts are swapped over.
My mobo was just a quick and cheap replacement of my old mobo that only supported drivers up to Vista (dont ask me what it was, i dont even remember), I needed a new mobo for Windows 7, but its a tiny little MSI, when I upgraded my video card to a GTX260, the behemoth essentially forced me to take out some ram and give up 2 SATA ports because the massive card literally covers them.
This board only supports DDR2 memory, and theyre Value RAM, their performance isn't exactly... destined for greatness in the first place.


Of course I could wipe windows and start fresh, but much like starting up and old car, its still got the underlying issues that will eventually hit again, and sooner than before. This computer was made to handle the software of 2007-2009, in 2011-2012 era, and especially in the field of Adobe, things have dramatically changed in performance requirements. My meagar RAM is barely capable of running Eclipse without suffering out of memory issues. When creating effects in After Effects, I onyl get a few seconds of RAM preview out of the whole clip.

But, like i said, i go to upgrade one thing, why not upgrade the root. Well at the root of the problem starts with my mobo, if i switched that to another socket LGA775, whats the real point here? I'm just keeping myself back from going forward.


So i quickly checked out the performance gap difference between the X4 and X6 (1055T inbstead of 1045T but those two are pretty comparable right?) and it doesnt look like the difference in performance is too noticable, but the stats mostly all point in the correct direction when compared to the X4 BE.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=102

Its nice to know the X4 965 BE is a technically better CPU than my Q6600, that does make me feel a lot better.

Though the question still technically stands, should i do the X6 or the X4 listed here?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2012 11:02:08 AM

If your editing video etc the x6 will be better. The X4 (deneb) is faster per core so a better gamers choice but as you can see in the benchmarks you posted in many editing tasks the X6 is drawing a lead. That said the X4 is unlocked so you can OC it heavily to a point it would draw or beat the X6.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 3:49:59 PM

Ditto with what Wr6133 said, personally I'd be looking at the x4 and a CPU cooler to overclock it. A Coolermaster Hypern520 like I have are fairly cheap and should be good to go to get you to 4.0ghz. A Coolermaster 212 Evo is a little bit more expensive, and a little better, but either will get the job done.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 5:00:05 PM

This is precisely what I needed to solidify my decision. On top of that, you guys have helped me along with a set of items (ram included) that sits well undernethe the $400 comfort zone :) 

Thanks everyone!
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 5:09:46 PM

You're welcome, its a shame you weren't in the market a few months ago. They still had Phenom II 1090T/1100T x6 Black Editions left. These would be great. You can check around if you really want to, but they're almost impossible to find in new condition anymore. Local shop in my town had a couple 1100Ts left about a month ago, but they wanted $250 for em. They're since sold em.

Alternatively, you could see if you could find a 960T Phenom II black edition, they are essentially the same CPU as the x6 but its a quad. However, with a motheboard that supports "core unlocking" you have about a better than 50 percent chance of unlocking the 2 disabled cores into an x6.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 5:19:47 PM

Already sent the order in as i replied to the previous message :)  It is all good man!

That mobo i listed above, the Gigabyte, are you saying that supports core unlocking?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
June 16, 2012 5:23:06 PM

I'm not sure if it does or not. But last time I looked I couldn't find any more 960Ts, so the point might be moot.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2012 6:14:44 PM

Id go with the X4 as well especially if youre going to do any overclocking. The 965's can OC pretty well and if you crank up the CPU/NB youll see an even bigger improvement. For some reason, Phenom II's benefit a lot more from CPU/NB overclocking than from straight core overclocking. Get a good 3.8 GHz and 2800 MHz NB overclock and that X4 will be a lot of processing power for the money and hold you over very well til Piledriver hits.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2012 9:51:11 AM

That Gbyte board supports core unlocking I have the same board and unlocked my 960T to an X6 1600T. Careful with your NB frequency though the guy suggesting 2800 better have some dedicated NB cooling as you can cook eggs on the NB that high (and to need a NB of 2800 to make 3.8GHz stable is a bad chip 2400-2600 is a more sensible figure for the 3.6-4.0GHz range). If you got the 965 though thats irrelevent as its a native X4 so no unlocking there and the Denebs don't need the large NB bumps the Thubans do anyway you will likely make 980BE speeds on multiplier bumps alone.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2012 3:43:15 PM

wr6133 said:
That Gbyte board supports core unlocking I have the same board and unlocked my 960T to an X6 1600T. Careful with your NB frequency though the guy suggesting 2800 better have some dedicated NB cooling as you can cook eggs on the NB that high (and to need a NB of 2800 to make 3.8GHz stable is a bad chip 2400-2600 is a more sensible figure for the 3.6-4.0GHz range). If you got the 965 though thats irrelevent as its a native X4 so no unlocking there and the Denebs don't need the large NB bumps the Thubans do anyway you will likely make 980BE speeds on multiplier bumps alone.


Im talking about the CPU/NB, not the motherboard's NB. The CPU/NB is the processor's memory controller and its located on the CPU itself. Overclocking it will give you better results than just a core clock. I think it was Tom's that did a article a few years ago and found that a 2.8 Ghz NB and 3.6 GHz CPU clock gave better performance than a 4 GHz clock and 2.0 GHz NB.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2012 4:48:26 PM

Northbridge Frequency (+/-200) = (CPU-Frequency * 2 ) / 3.15

Thats the formula you shouldn't be needing 2800 until your clock speed is nearly 4.5 GHz
e.g - for a CPU freq of 3.8 GHz.... (3800*2)/3.15 = NB freq of 2412 (give or take 200MHz)

Anymore and your losing efficiency and creating heat.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2012 5:09:24 PM

wr6133 said:
Northbridge Frequency (+/-200) = (CPU-Frequency * 2 ) / 3.15

Thats the formula you shouldn't be needing 2800 until your clock speed is nearly 4.5 GHz
e.g - for a CPU freq of 3.8 GHz.... (3800*2)/3.15 = NB freq of 2412 (give or take 200MHz)

Anymore and your losing efficiency and creating heat.


Learned me something new, Ive never heard of that. I always read that you should crank it as high as you could, within reason of course. I tried mine with the Crysis and Metro benchmark and stopped seeing an increase after 2.8 so thats where I stopped. Never knew there was a formula. But 2.4 just seems too low though.
m
0
l
December 17, 2012 5:58:03 PM

I realize that this post is almost six months old, and thus my reply may be moot as far as the original poster is concerned. But I'll add my 2 cents worth on the processor debate anyway, for whomever it may hopefully assist. I have been using AM3+ for about nine months now, after upgrading from AM2. Initially I bought AMD's first incarnation of the Bulldozer chip, the FX-6100, with bad results due to constant bottle-necking. It was slow even with an ASRock 990fx Fata1ity Pro mobo, which some say is the best board out there for this processor. I was forced to go with ASRock after the FX-6100 demonstrated unwelcome compatibility problems with several medium- and high-end Asus and Gigabyte boards. Despite using some reasonably decent Kingston 1600 DDR3 RAM, slow-downs w/ the FX-6100 were incessant and I finally got tired of the hassle. It was then I decided to upgrade the CPU. Initially I tried the AMD Phenom II X4 975 and 980 processors (125W), but later opted for the AMD Phenom II X6 1045t, which is only 2.7 GHz but a true 6-core chip. I did this both for the 1045t's lower power consumption (95W) and the higher core count vs. the 975 and 980, both of which are great 4-core processors but were just too hot. Also I keep my system on 24/7, so that extra 30 W/hr. added up over time. Even though the 1045t is multiplier-locked and thus you can't overclock it in the usual sense, the STABILITY is fantastic with virtually no bottle-necking to speak of. This chip was often used in servers a few yrs. back, and was well-known for it's durable, solid performance. In fact, I put the 1045t all 3 machines in my house, and everyone who visited for a few days would invariably remark how stable and "smooth" they thought these systems were. I don't think anyone could go wrong with the 1045t, and it's a very mobo and memory compatible chip too. All of that said, at this point in time I would still recommend the newer AMD FX-6300 six core (actually it's only 3 physical cores) over the 1045t. It is also 95 watts, and basically is like the FX-6100 but with the bugs worked out. No more slow-downs and it's nice and cool at only 32C under load w/ the stock cooler. And as an AMD "Black Edition" it is easy to overclock. Native freq. on the FX-6300 is 3.5 GHz, but I easily OCed mine to 4.2 GHz with a rather modest CPU core voltage of just 1.365V (no increase in the NB voltage was needed). As with the 1045t, stability is terrific with this newer chip but the higher GHz really shines through on more system-intensive apps. Summary: Viewing 1045t true 6 physical cores vs. FX-6300 3 physical/6 logical cores, I'd personally take the latter. FX-6300 is now at or even under $135 USD, but if you can find an old but "new-stock" (boxed) 1045t for under $110, THEN it might actually be a better deal if and only if the extra speed is not that important to you. Both are stable, cool chips which represent solid value for the $$.
m
0
l
!