Performance difference on these processors?

P

paulcheung

Active Member
Hi,
I am trying to put a system together, Can you guys tell me the difference on these processors? one is six core is about $16 different on price. the quad core is at higher clock speed. which one will run faster given the same other hardware? does these processor fit on the same amd3 socket mainboard?

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban 2.8GHz 6 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor $199.99 newegg price


AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 140W Quad-Core Processor $183.99 at newegg.

Thank you.
Paul:P
 
the six core processor will run faster and at only 16 bucks more, its a steal. get that! you will see a performance boost in multi-threaded apps like video editing and such
 
If you want to save money, pickup a Phenom II X4 945 and overclock it to the 965 Black edition clocks.

The Phenom II X6 is a nice processor as well, definately worth it over the 965BE.

However, if you are building a new rig and have a microcenter close...head there and grab yourself an i7 860 or i7 875k for $199 instead, unless you already have an AM3 board.
 
bomberboysk said:
If you want to save money, pickup a Phenom II X4 945 and overclock it to the 965 Black edition clocks.

The Phenom II X6 is a nice processor as well, definately worth it over the 965BE.

However, if you are building a new rig and have a microcenter close...head there and grab yourself an i7 860 or i7 875k for $199 instead, unless you already have an AM3 board.
Click to expand...
I would order everthing from newegg.com; intel main board and processor are more expensive, is it that much better? don;t it the amd have a higher clock speed? the phenom ll x6 is a six core processor, won't it out run the intel quad core processor? I have a burget of $800.00 for everthing exclude the LCD and software.
Thank you.
Paul:confused:
 
Last edited:
paulcheung said:
I would order everthing from newegg.com; intel main board and processor are more expensive, is it that much better? don;t it the amd have a higher clock speed? the phenom ll x6 is a six core processor, won't it out run the intel quad core processor? I have a burget of $800.00 for everthing exclude the LCD and software.
Thank you.
Paul:confused:
Click to expand...

nope the i7 beats the thuban solid in everything except multi-threaded apps. intel is better than amd but more expensive. also clock speed is not the main factor. its calculations per second. and the i7 dominates in that area
 
paulcheung said:
I would order everthing from newegg.com; intel main board and processor are more expensive, is it that much better? don;t it the amd have a higher clock speed? the phenom ll x6 is a six core processor, won't it out run the intel quad core processor? I have a burget of $800.00 for everthing exclude the LCD and software.
Thank you.
Paul:confused:
Click to expand...

There is no harm getting the CPU from elsewhere if it is cheaper

jarlmaster47 said:
nope the i7 beats the thuban solid in everything except multi-threaded apps. intel is better than amd but more expensive. also clock speed is not the main factor. its calculations per second. and the i7 dominates in that area
Click to expand...

the i7 does beat the thuban cores in benches, but you play a game and tell me you can tell the difference between the 2, or between a thuban and an AMD quad.

Out of games, you save a few seconds. I don't think you can worry about time "wasted" if you spend enough time on your computer for that to be a major issue. I can understand if you are a fanboy for AMD or Intel to deffinately get one over the other, or if you are publishing comparison charts for them why you would be so pedantic, but for the average user, it makes so little difference.

I can't tell the difference between my x3 system with 3 or 4 cores, my friends 955 that I built for him, or my other friends 930, none at all. The difference is, I payed £70, the one with the 955 payed £135, and the one with the 930 payed £233.

As much as Intel does, as you say, have the more powerful chips, to users who don't spend their time benchmarking, the extra price for what is an unnoticably better chip could have otherwise been spent elsewhere in the system and made a bigger difference. With 4 cores @ 3.2GHz, my chip is a 955, now obviously, not all 720s will unlock, the vast majority will, but not all, and that extra £160 goes a hell of a long way, hell, even the £65 difference between the 720 and 955 could help some what
 
paulcheung said:
I would order everthing from newegg.com; intel main board and processor are more expensive, is it that much better? don;t it the amd have a higher clock speed? the phenom ll x6 is a six core processor, won't it out run the intel quad core processor? I have a burget of $800.00 for everthing exclude the LCD and software.
Thank you.
Paul:confused:
Click to expand...

If you are looking for build suggestions, i can move this thread to desktop computers for you and change the title. At $800 though, the Phenom II X6 is a pretty good processor in that budget range. The core i7 and Phenom II X6 are pretty close in benchmarks, but core for core the i7 is faster than the Phenom II X6. For this price point though, unless you have a microcenter locally(they dont sell online) the phenom II X6 is a better option than the comparable intel, as an i7 860 or i7 930 cost ~$300 on newegg.
 
Aastii said:
There is no harm getting the CPU from elsewhere if it is cheaper



the i7 does beat the thuban cores in benches, but you play a game and tell me you can tell the difference between the 2, or between a thuban and an AMD quad.

Out of games, you save a few seconds. I don't think you can worry about time "wasted" if you spend enough time on your computer for that to be a major issue. I can understand if you are a fanboy for AMD or Intel to deffinately get one over the other, or if you are publishing comparison charts for them why you would be so pedantic, but for the average user, it makes so little difference.

I can't tell the difference between my x3 system with 3 or 4 cores, my friends 955 that I built for him, or my other friends 930, none at all. The difference is, I payed £70, the one with the 955 payed £135, and the one with the 930 payed £233.

As much as Intel does, as you say, have the more powerful chips, to users who don't spend their time benchmarking, the extra price for what is an unnoticably better chip could have otherwise been spent elsewhere in the system and made a bigger difference. With 4 cores @ 3.2GHz, my chip is a 955, now obviously, not all 720s will unlock, the vast majority will, but not all, and that extra £160 goes a hell of a long way, hell, even the £65 difference between the 720 and 955 could help some what
Click to expand...

a good fair point. but I personally notice a difference from other friends builds, especially in editing.
 
87dtna said:
If you don't do anything extremely cpu intensive, you'll never notice any difference.
Click to expand...

Games are being written to take advantage of multi threading, when for less than $50 you can get 50% more cores...its sort of worth it. Same reason for going with an i7 over an i5, you get hyperthreading which creates two threads per core, and it can be noticed. Will current games necessarily make use of it? Not really. Will future games take advantage of it? Absolutely. The trend these days is more cores and SMP over more clockspeed.
 
Games are just barely starting to be optimized for 4 cores, it will be years before they will need or even utilize more. In fact, a good dual core (I3 or PII 555) if overclocked to ~4ghz is not any kind of bottleneck for 99% of even the most current games right now.

The I5 750 will be a fully capable gaming CPU until hex/octocores are cheap enough to be mainstream which is 1-2 years (and we all upgrade atleast once a year anyway really, two years at the very most).

The concept of hyper threading had nothing to do with gaming at all, it's not needed and doesn't even really help that much at all (since an I5 is even overkill at this point). The area's it helps most is rendering and encoding.

My testing has found that hyper threading helps 25% overall. A dual core with HT is ALMOST as good as 3 cores, but not quite. A quad with HT is the equivalent of having 5 cores.
 
Last edited:
87dtna said:
Games are just barely starting to be optimized for 4 cores, it will be years before they will need or even utilize more. In fact, a good dual core (I3 or PII 555) if overclocked to ~4ghz is not any kind of bottleneck for 99% of even the most current games right now.

The I5 750 will be a fully capable gaming CPU until hex/octocores are cheap enough to be mainstream which is 1-2 years (and we all upgrade atleast once a year anyway really, two years at the very most).

The concept of hyper threading had nothing to do with gaming at all, it's not needed and doesn't even really help that much at all (since an I5 is even overkill at this point). The area's it helps most is rendering and encoding.

My testing has found that hyper threading helps 25% overall. A dual core with HT is ALMOST as good as 3 cores, but not quite. A quad with HT is the equivalent of having 5 cores.
Click to expand...
Games are not "just barely starting to be optimized for 4 cores", even such games are GTA IV almost require a quadcore to play effectively. A vast majority of newer games are bottlenecked on a dual core processor, there are plenty of benchmarks out there that will show that is the case, especially once you start getting into SLI/Crossfire systems.

Here is a good, albeit a few year old article, and even then you can see scaling in games, let alone more recent titles(albeit, alot of those games were really GPU restricted as well):
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/
 
Last edited:
The thing is

the thing is that not only the processor from intel is more expensive, but the main board is also more expensive as well. I have one more question. does the quad core and the six core processors are use the same main board? or they have dedicated board for each of them?
Thank you.
Paul
 
paulcheung said:
the thing is that not only the processor from intel is more expensive, but the main board is also more expensive as well. I have one more question. does the quad core and the six core processors are use the same main board? or they have dedicated board for each of them?
Thank you.
Paul
Click to expand...

Both the Phenom II X4 and Phenom II X6 are compatible with AM3, as well as some AM2+/AM2 motherboards.
 
jarlmaster47 said:
a good fair point. but I personally notice a difference from other friends builds, especially in editing.
Click to expand...

Do they have the same memory, same quality board, same speed hard drive, same video card(s), similarly clocked CPUs, similarly cored CPUs?

With my comparisons, it was high end to high end on similar systems. (to mid with my x3, but can go to high with 4th core unlocked, becoming a 955, or 965 @3.4) on similarly specced systems (especially with the 955, that is on the same board, 4GB of 1333MHz memory, 500GB WD Blue, but he had me on the GPU as he has a 5850, now has 5850 CF)

If you are comparing a system with 8GB to one with 4, there is going to be a difference, one with an SSD compared to a HDD, there will be a difference
paulcheung said:
the thing is that not only the processor from intel is more expensive, but the main board is also more expensive as well. I have one more question. does the quad core and the six core processors are use the same main board? or they have dedicated board for each of them?
Thank you.
Paul
Click to expand...

not all are. I agree, alot are, and for the higher end boards they are, but the "standard" and lower end ones are similarly priced to the same level boards for AMD chips
 
If gaming is your primary use then go with the i5 750 you will save money on the P55 bards compared to the x58 boards and the i5 750 will be better for gaming than the Thuban and also with the money saved you can go for a better GPU the i5 750 is a great processor and is more than enough for gaming.
i own an i7 920 and never see the CPU usage more than 25%(GTA IV)
its an overkill for gaming
 
Aastii said:
Do they have the same memory, same quality board, same speed hard drive, same video card(s), similarly clocked CPUs, similarly cored CPUs?

With my comparisons, it was high end to high end on similar systems. (to mid with my x3, but can go to high with 4th core unlocked, becoming a 955, or 965 @3.4) on similarly specced systems (especially with the 955, that is on the same board, 4GB of 1333MHz memory, 500GB WD Blue, but he had me on the GPU as he has a 5850, now has 5850 CF)

If you are comparing a system with 8GB to one with 4, there is going to be a difference, one with an SSD compared to a HDD, there will be a difference


not all are. I agree, alot are, and for the higher end boards they are, but the "standard" and lower end ones are similarly priced to the same level boards for AMD chips
Click to expand...

his computer was actually a little higher specced than mine. even so my 920 still beat his 1055T handily. My ram is at 1600mhz and his is at 1800mhz. he also has 2 ssd's in raid 0 vs my single one. he had a 5870 and with all that his thuban beat (albeit not by much). he then switched out the 5870 with his old 4870 and I beat him handily. btw his 1055T was oc'ed to 4ghz as well to be as fair as possible. BUT his thuban destroyed me in cinebench and other multi-threaded apps like that
 
mihir said:
If gaming is your primary use then go with the i5 750 you will save money on the P55 bards compared to the x58 boards and the i5 750 will be better for gaming than the Thuban and also with the money saved you can go for a better GPU the i5 750 is a great processor and is more than enough for gaming.
i own an i7 920 and never see the CPU usage more than 25%(GTA IV)
its an overkill for gaming
Click to expand...
No, Gaming is not my primary thing. I just like to have it ready when it is needed. Actually windows applications are my primary thing, like trading stock and currencies. I like to open a lot of windows and they all run on the back ground. What I want is the system won't slow me down when I open abot six applications one time. most these programs are java base internet streaming programs. so That mean the six core processor is a better bet for me? Is windows 7 are truly multitasking and multitread?
Thank you all.
Paul
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top