i5 750 vs II X4 965 Black

I

Incinerates

New Member
Help, I am new with computers.
Pros/Cons

Or should i decide on a six core? The AMD is 3.4 GHz and the i5 is 2.66 so can someone explain how it works? Also what is Black Edition? Thanks.
 
What are you going to be using this computer for? What is the maximum amount you want to spend on a desktop computer? What country do you live in?
 
I will be using it for pretty much everything, but a little more on the gaming side. I was leaning on GTX 260, because i don't want to get anything over about 250. The maximum I want to spend is not confirmed yet. I live in Canada.
Also, how is the i5 faster when its speed is 2.66GHz?
 
Last edited:
Incinerates said:
how is the i5 faster when its speed is 2.66GHz?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that he is talking about turbo mode that can get this processor up past the 3.4 mark. I'm not too sure how it works though.

Black Edition means that you have an unlocked multiplier. It will make it a lot easier to overclock.
 
Incinerates said:
Also, how is the i5 faster when its speed is 2.66 GHz?
Click to expand...

The Core i5 750 Processor can simply perform more calculations per clock cycle than the Phenom II 965 is the reason why. But both have about the same processing power clocked at the manufacturer specified speed.
 
The i5 750 Processor is not way better than the Phenom II 965 Processor. Both have about the same processing power. In my opinion I would tend to favor the Core i5 750 since it is a 95 Watt processor. The Phenom II 965 is a 125 Watt processor. There is also a Phenom II 965 Processor version that is a 140 Watt processor.
 
I'd say go with the i5, because it also has 2 MB more cache than the 965. and if gaming will be it's main use, the turbo boost will also help, just because of the fact that most games don't take advantage of more than 1, MAYBE, 2 cores.
 
I would get the i5-750 also, it is faster. However, it is not a huge increase and I am sure you would be happy with either in the end.
 
jarlmaster47 said:
the i5 IS way better. 2 mb more cache, lower power, and its intel!
Click to expand...

Its not way better, overall it is alittle faster. Both overclock well, I say AMD is alittle easier because its unlocked for the laymen to overclock. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

It doesnt have 2mb. more cache. AMD has twice as much L1 and L2 cache. Overall the i5 750 has 768kb. more cache.

Of course its lower power. It only runs at 2.66ghz. About normal for a 2.66ghz. processor from AMD or Intel. The i7 920 is a 130W running at 2.66ghz. Pretty piss poor. The 965 running at 3.4ghz is only 125W.

Did you just figure out the i5 750 is a Intel processor. Or what ever that was suppost to mean.
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
Its not way better, overall it is alittle faster. Both overclock well, I say AMD is alittle easier because its unlocked for the laymen to overclock. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

It doesnt have 2mb. more cache. AMD has twice as much L1 and L2 cache. Overall the i5 750 has 768kb. more cache.

Of course its lower power. It only runs at 2.66ghz. About normal for a 2.66ghz. processor from AMD or Intel. The i7 920 is a 130W running at 2.66ghz. Pretty piss poor. The 965 running at 3.4ghz is only 125W.

Did you just figure out the i5 750 is a Intel processor. Or what ever that was suppost to mean.
Click to expand...

umm no. I always knew it was intel. I LOVE intel. they make superior processors with better features like hyper threading which is epic. correct me if I am wrong but I am almost positive that amd does not have hyper threading
 
jarlmaster47 said:
umm no. I always knew it was intel. I LOVE intel. they make superior processors with better features like hyper threading which is epic. correct me if I am wrong but I am almost positive that amd does not have hyper threading
Click to expand...

Whats Hyperthreading have to do with anything?. No, but they are going to do it better with Bulldozer. Its going to have double pipelines on the core to do true multi threaded, not fake it.

AMD had Intel beat clock for clock from 2000 all the way to 2006 till they released the Core 2. Why did it take intel 6 years to beat AMD clock wise being the superior processors company with 10 times the budget? I'm really impressed

I guess you could say for the last 4 years they have implemented all of AMD features. Will probably copy Bulldozers core after it is released in some fashion.
bulldozer.jpg
 
StrangleHold said:
AMD had Intel beat clock for clock from 2000 all the way to 2006 till they released the Core 2. Why did it take Intel 6 years to beat AMD clock wise being the superior processors company with 10 times the budget? I'm really impressed.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know that. Intel is a corporate giant compared with AMD and has far more resources financially. Thank goodness Advanced Micro Devices came along and pushed the bar up higher. We would have overpriced processors that were worst in quality if were not for them.
 
2048Megabytes said:
Wow, I didn't know that. Intel is a corporate giant compared with AMD and has far more resources financially. Thank goodness Advanced Micro Devices came along and pushed the bar up higher. We would have overpriced processors that were worst in quality if were not for them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the XP Athlon 3200+ that ran at 2.2ghz. was equal to a P4 running at between 3.0/3.2ghz. Even got worse when the Athlon 64 came out. Intel didnt release a desktop processor that could beat AMD clock for clock till the core 2 in 2006.
 
clock for clock matters not goes the rhyme. intel has always had amd beat. amd copied pretty much EVERY feature that intel has been using on their cpus for the last 5 years. amd is for budget builders. everyone else goes with intel. oh and also who came out with the first cpu? INTEL baby. u lose right there
 
jarlmaster47 said:
clock for clock matters not goes the rhyme. intel has always had amd beat. amd copied pretty much EVERY feature that intel has been using on their cpus for the last 5 years.
Click to expand...

You pretty much have no idea what your talking about. End of discussion. Your clueless.
 
StrangleHold said:
You pretty much have no idea what your talking about. End of discussion. Your clueless.
Click to expand...

actually you don't. I know WAYYY more about computers then you will ever hope to know. Everyone knows that clock speed is not the major factor in cpu power. its calculations per second. and intel has amd beat in that department period. an i7 at 2.66ghz will take an x4 at 3.2ghz any day. hell even at 4ghz the x4 would still lose
 
jarlmaster47 said:
the i5 IS way better. 2 mb more cache, lower power, and its intel!
Click to expand...

to OP, what jarlmaster is is a fanboy. You could be comparing the 965 to the 4004 and he would still be claiming the 965 isn't as powerful.

jarlmaster47 said:
clock for clock matters not goes the rhyme. intel has always had amd beat. amd copied pretty much EVERY feature that intel has been using on their cpus for the last 5 years. amd is for budget builders. everyone else goes with intel. oh and also who came out with the first cpu? INTEL baby. u lose right there
Click to expand...

jarlmaster47 said:
actually you don't. I know WAYYY more about computers then you will ever hope to know. Everyone knows that clock speed is not the major factor in cpu power. its calculations per second. and intel has amd beat in that department period. an i7 at 2.66ghz will take an x4 at 3.2ghz any day. hell even at 4ghz the x4 would still lose
Click to expand...

@ bold, cotradiction much?

Intel DID create the first microprocessor, however, they did not create the most succcessful microprocessor did they :) Also, look up some benchmarks/real world results from overclocked AMD and Intel processors. You will find that above 4GHz the difference between a 965 and i7's is minimal, and in alot of scenarios, AMD takes the lead easily.

A little more on topic, I'd recomend the 965. Both processors perform similarly, but the price pushes it to Intel, aswell as the ease of overclocking. The intel's aren't difficult to overclock (for someone that understands overclocking that is), but the AMDs are much easier to overclock than the intel's for novice's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top