quad or six-core
- Thread starter 93wind
- Start date
fastdude said it best: since it's only a $30 difference or so between the Phenom II X4 965 BE and the Phenom II 1055T X6 CPU, it's not too bad of an upgrade, but most apps and games won't be utilizing it.
If you're going the Intel route, DEFINITELY not worth it seeing how the CPU alone can cost around the price of a decent quad core build.
If you're going the Intel route, DEFINITELY not worth it seeing how the CPU alone can cost around the price of a decent quad core build.
Hsv_Man
New Member
I saw a video a while back of intels i7 980x (6 core 12 threads) side by side with a same clocked i7 920 (4 core 8 threads) and wow what a difference in speed it had over the 920 in a simple test to measure how fast the processors could load data in this case a picture. This said if you have the funds go for a 6 core with a really good graphics card such as a Ati radeon HD5970 and have a ultra gaming machine that would wipe us quad core users off all benchmarks easily. 
Aastii
VIP Member
Unless you are compiling software, rendering, HD video editing or any other CPU intensive multithreaded application, there is no need to go for a hex core. By the time most applications are using 6 cores, the current hex cores will be severely outdated and not much good for what they want to be used for.
Look at it now, a dual core CPU is standard. Core 2 Duo CPUs and Athlon 64 x 2 are ok, however, they aren't really quality any more compared to i3 or phenom II x2 CPUs.
As much as I detest benchmarks because they don't usually illustrate real worl applications, and people see 1 bar bigger than the other and assume the bigger bar is infinately better, even if it is less than 1%, they show very very well how pointless a hex core is for every day use.
Take gaming, neither a Thuban core, or a Gulftown will outperform a Lynfield or Deneb core when they are equally clocked because the game is only utilising 2-4 cores, the other 2 are sat there doing nothing but background processes, which doesn't have any impact on gaming unless you are benching behind your game, but that is just stupidity to do so.
Anything for every day use that utilises multiple cores, such as compression/decompression, will see only a few seconds saved. You say "it is only $30 difference", but work out how many compressions/decompressions you have to do, at you would have to work to make $30. It may only be a couple of hours, but it will take years upon years for the average person to do that much.
Without knowing what you intend to use the system for, we can't tell you which would be the better option
Look at it now, a dual core CPU is standard. Core 2 Duo CPUs and Athlon 64 x 2 are ok, however, they aren't really quality any more compared to i3 or phenom II x2 CPUs.
As much as I detest benchmarks because they don't usually illustrate real worl applications, and people see 1 bar bigger than the other and assume the bigger bar is infinately better, even if it is less than 1%, they show very very well how pointless a hex core is for every day use.
Take gaming, neither a Thuban core, or a Gulftown will outperform a Lynfield or Deneb core when they are equally clocked because the game is only utilising 2-4 cores, the other 2 are sat there doing nothing but background processes, which doesn't have any impact on gaming unless you are benching behind your game, but that is just stupidity to do so.
Anything for every day use that utilises multiple cores, such as compression/decompression, will see only a few seconds saved. You say "it is only $30 difference", but work out how many compressions/decompressions you have to do, at you would have to work to make $30. It may only be a couple of hours, but it will take years upon years for the average person to do that much.
Without knowing what you intend to use the system for, we can't tell you which would be the better option
fastdude
Active Member
That's a very good bang-for-buck intel quad. (just a higher clocked 750)
slightly Quicker than 1055T, too. (in games, at least)
fasterdude, I know it dont really belongs in this post but I just want to ask it. I have now a CoolerMaster HAF 922, a GTX 460 1 GB, a i5-760. but I am a but stuck about what motherboard to take, like I know there are some options like AM3 and AM3+ but I dont really know what it means. I want is for games and if its possible for upgrading in the future. hope you(or someone else) can help me.
Aastii
VIP Member
Yes, the 760 is a pretty decent CPU, only downside is locked multiplier, but that can be lived without as you get double the L3 cache of the K processors
It isn't surprising really, clock for the clock the Intel CPUs are faster, so in a game where the same number of cores are being used, 140MHz difference in clocks isn't enough to give the thuban the edge.
There are 2 main manufacturers of processor, AMD and Intel.
AMD's current socket is AM3. They have AM2 and AM2+, but they are being phased out, all of their current processors, your phenom II, Athlon II, Opteron and sempron processors are for socket AM3. AM3+ hasn't been released yet, but will be a crossover between AM3 and AM4, the same as AM2+ is a crossover between AM2 and AM3. AM3+ isn't out yet, but will suppor the bulldozer chips coming out next year
Intel has 2 sockets, LGA1156, and LGA 1366. The only major difference is that 1366 can support triple channel memory, where as 1156 can only support dual, same as AM3. The CPU you picked out, the 760, is socket 1156, so you will need a 1156 motherboard.
What is your budget for the board?
I'd recomend going for a board with SATA 6 for greater upgradability, however it adds quite a bit to the amount that you pay:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128412
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131634
you can go with one without which would be ~$100
Last edited:
AM3 and AM3+ motherboards are for AMD processors, you will have to choose an Intel LGA1156 socket motherboard if your gonna go with the i5.