2500K or 955?

mihir said:
Thanks for the info.Since its from you I can be sure now its reliable because everyone has been going around assuming that the bulldozer will supported by the AM3 boards.Which has mislead a lot of people.


So as for wolfeking(whats your name?)I think a sandy bridge setup would perform best for now and if on strict budget the old i7 generation or the hexcore would suffice.Both will be almost same in performance.
Click to expand...
my name is chris.
i was not inferring that the AM3+ processors would work in a AM3 board , but rather that the AM3 would fit the new board till i can afford a new AM3+ processor.
budget is 100-150 per part.
 
wolfeking said:
my name is chris.
i was not inferring that the AM3+ processors would work in a AM3 board , but rather that the AM3 would fit the new board till i can afford a new AM3+ processor.
budget is 100-150 per part.
Click to expand...

So you will buy a new am3 setup then you will get a new motherboard (am3+) and then a new CPU(Bulldozer Zambezi).(correct me if I am wrong because thats some long planning)

If you are going to do the above and are sure of the upgrade to the Bulldozer then go ahead because even if you take 2 years to upgrade I think the processor wont have any problem keeping up.Thats a good plan.
My bad I wasnt able to understand what you were saying.
 
Depends on how long you plan on keeping it. Shorter term, save some bucks with the 955. Longer term go for the 1090.
 
wolfeking said:
my name is chris.
i was not inferring that the AM3+ processors would work in a AM3 board , but rather that the AM3 would fit the new board till i can afford a new AM3+ processor.
budget is 100-150 per part.
Click to expand...

So, what is the point of buying a new motherboard if you are not going to change your processor ?

Instead of buying the motherboard without a new processor, you can simply save the money in your pocket, and then when you can afford a new CPU you could buy the new CPU and the motherboard at same time.

By the way, ivy bridge is rumored to be backward compatible with P67 and H67.
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21765-ivy-bridge-22nm-works-with-h67-and-p67
 
maroon1 said:
So, what is the point of buying a new motherboard if you are not going to change your processor ?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

He wants a new board and processor. He just asked if the 955 or 1090 would be better. As and far as his next upgrade. He can have a AM3 setup and move everything to a new AM3+ board when released. Then later upgrade the CPU to a Zambezi.
 
Last edited:
wolfeking said:
ok, so whats a better choice now, the 955, or the 1090?
Click to expand...
I would still go 2500k. The new 1155 motherboards have been released now, and the 2500k is faster than the 1090t due to its use of hyperthreading. It's also faster core for core. Just check www.cpubenchmark.net. You'll see that the 2500k edges out the 1090t when it comes to raw performance using all threads, and if compare each processor in core for core speed (subtract the ~15% hyperthreading boost and divide by four for the 2500k, divide by six for the 1090t), you'll see that the 2500k is faster core for core as well. ;)
 
Last edited:
what he is talking about is the upgrade to AM3+. and to answer the question its cause i prefer to buy when i have the money. besides, i doubt that ill upgrade immediately anyway. don't want to have a sandybridge incident on our hands with it.
 
spynoodle said:
I would still go 2500k. The new 1155 motherboards have been released now, and the 2500k is faster than the 1090t due to its use of hyperthreading. It's also faster core for core. Just check www.cpubenchmark.net. You'll see that the 2500k edges out the 1090t when it comes to raw performance using all threads, and if compare each processor in core for core speed (subtract the ~15% hyperthreading boost and divide by four for the 2500k, divide by six for the 1090t), you'll see that the 2500k is faster core for core as well. ;)
Click to expand...

Pretty sure its a well known fact the Core architecture is faster clock for clock then the Phenom architecture since about 2006. About 5 years now.
 
im not looking for the fastest thing. i am looking for something that will run f@h and games half way decent. clock for clock the intel wins, but also look at penny for penny performance. average them and i believe the 955 wins.
 
wolfeking said:
im not looking for the fastest thing. i am looking for something that will run f@h and games half way decent. clock for clock the intel wins, but also look at penny for penny performance. average them and i believe the 955 wins.
Click to expand...
If you do want to save some $$$, the 955 is definitely a good option. I would just advise against buying the 1090t over the 2500k. ;)
 
It all depends on when you will be switching.But if you plan on keeping the same config for a longer term then go for the hexcore and if you plan to change it not solong from now then quad core would be fine.My cousin has a way slower phenom II x4 and it works just fine for all the games like BFBC2 and CODBO and that too on stock speeds and without lag and even the CPU usage is not that high.If you plan to change it soon enough like within a year and half then go with the quad core and save some money.The mony saved can be used to make the GPU more futureproof.
You also can overclock a lot even on the stock HSF.(though i would not reccomend that.)
The Hex Core performs similar to the Gen 1 i7 920.Some tasks it is better and for some it is slightly lower.
It will be useful if you are using multi-core utilisation applications.But just for gaming the 955 will suffice for some time now.
 
ill probably keep it for around 2 years before upgrading.
but really i am not seeing that big of a difference between the quad and the hex. especially when i am no where near modern on gaming.
 
spynoodle said:
I would still go 2500k. The new 1155 motherboards have been released now, and the 2500k is faster than the 1090t due to its use of hyperthreading. It's also faster core for core. Just check www.cpubenchmark.net. You'll see that the 2500k edges out the 1090t when it comes to raw performance using all threads, and if compare each processor in core for core speed (subtract the ~15% hyperthreading boost and divide by four for the 2500k, divide by six for the 1090t), you'll see that the 2500k is faster core for core as well. ;)
Click to expand...

No, 2500K doesn't support Hyperthreading but it is still faster than 1090T in most cases
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top