Intel i5 650 vs AMD Phenom II 1055T

chubalz · 10 Jul 2010

First of all sorry for posting wrong thread because i cant find for Hardware Advice.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf

Im still deciding what model for intel but not exceeds 200$

Anyone could give me good simple explanation or advice.

OS Windows 7 32bit
3Gig ram
1 Terabyte Hard disk

Mostly i use this for Games.
Can render Video faster.
Open multiple tabs.

Anyone here experts and mods could give me a good advice for processor.

A Guy · 10 Jul 2010

Just going to suggest the i5-750 for that price range, great CPU for gaming, overclocking, stock usage, power consumption, etc.

Gaming CPU Heirarchy Chart

The i5-650 does have Hyperthreading, but you listed Games 1st, and this CPU will do well on everything :)

JMHO. A Guy

Fumz · 10 Jul 2010

i5-750.

The 1055 is a dud. AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Overclocking - X-bit labs. It really looks bad when stacked up against Intel's 6 core: Six Cores from AMD: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and Phenom II X6 1055T CPU Review (page 6) - X-bit labs

Yes, the 650 has hyper-threading, but games don't take advantage of that. There just aren't many, or any titles that can take advantage of hyper-threading, so it becomes a moot feature. Game review of the i5-750 vs i7-975 Extreme: Intel Core i7-975 EE and Core i5-750 in Contemporary Games - X-bit labs The difference, which is incredibly minor, is due to the platform and clock speeds of the two chips.

bobkn · 10 Jul 2010

Fumz said:

i5-750.

The 1055 is a dud. AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Overclocking - X-bit labs. It really looks bad when stacked up against Intel's 6 core: Six Cores from AMD: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition and Phenom II X6 1055T CPU Review (page 6) - X-bit labs

Do you think that's fair? The 1055T is a $200US CPU (www.newegg.com). The I7 980X is a $1k chip. If I look at a few benchmarks, the 1055T is in the same class as an I7 750, at about the same price. (That it takes 6 cores to get there is unimpressive, I admit.)

If I was after a good price/performance point at the moment, I might want an I7 875k. Looks like an overclocker's dream. As it stands, though, I'm reasonably content with my old I7 920.

Fumz · 10 Jul 2010

Fair? I don't think the term "fair" really applies here. AMD didn't cripple its own chip just to be able to place it at $200.00. Intel's 6 core crushes AMD's. It is what it is. The price of the chip is reflective of its performance, so of course it's only $200.00.

chubalz · 11 Jul 2010

Tnx for the info guys.

So majority Intel i5 750 and the best choice for my 200$ budget

Btw! 70% purpose for gaming.. the rest purpose video.

@ A Guy,

Ive look at your Desktop specs and noticed that your Intel i5 is 3.37 Ghz. Sory im not very good at looking it but when looking at intel site i5 750 is only 2.66 ghz?

Intel i5 = 4 cores?
Intel i7 = 6 cores right?

bobkn · 11 Jul 2010

chubalz said:

Tnx for the info guys.

So majority Intel i5 750 and the best choice for my 200$ budget

Btw! 70% purpose for gaming.. the rest purpose video.

@ A Guy,

Ive look at your Desktop specs and noticed that your Intel i5 is 3.37 Ghz. Sory im not very good at looking it but when looking at intel site i5 750 is only 2.66 ghz?

Intel i5 = 4 cores?
Intel i7 = 6 cores right?

3.37GHz means that it's overclocked. (If you're unfamiliar with that term, it means run at a higher frequency than the manufacturer specifies. It's a fairly common practice among enthusiasts. It may require better CPU cooling than stock. It may shorten the life of the chip, which is unimportant to people who replace their systems every 6 months or so.)

The Core I5/I7 business is confusing. I believe that all I5 CPUs use Socket 1156. Some I7 CPUs are Socket 1366, while some use Socket 1156. The two sockets are physically incompatible. Both are LGA (land grid array) types, which means that the chips have flat pads rather than pins.

The I5 CPUs include dual and quad core. I believe that all of the I7s are quad core, except for the 980X, which has 6. (It also does hyperthreading, so it would show 12 processors in Windows. It costs $1k.)

bobkn · 11 Jul 2010

Fumz said:

Fair? I don't think the term "fair" really applies here. AMD didn't cripple its own chip just to be able to place it at $200.00. Intel's 6 core crushes AMD's. It is what it is. The price of the chip is reflective of its performance, so of course it's only $200.00.

I'm missing your point. I think that systems at similar price points should be compared. I wouldn't steer someone away from a 1055T system because it's not comparable to an I7 980X. (I wouldn't really steer someone towards the 1055T because it's a hexacore CPU, either.)

I am dissapointed that AMD is back to competing on price. I liked the state of affairs better when the Athlon 64 was new. AMD was the CPU of choice, better than Intel P4 systems. AMD also pushed an X64 instruction set for desktop CPUs, while Intel reserved it for their expensive Itanium systems.

Fumz · 11 Jul 2010

bobkn said:

I'm missing your point. I think that systems at similar price points should be compared. I wouldn't steer someone away from a 1055T system because it's not comparable to an I7 980X. (I wouldn't really steer someone towards the 1055T because it's a hexacore CPU, either.)

I am dissapointed that AMD is back to competing on price.

My only point was that the 1055 is a really bad cpu. It can't keep up with the i5, and just how much of a dud the 1055 is is really on display when it's compared side by side with another 6 core cpu.

AMD is "back" to competing on price because that's all that's left for them. It's been demonstrated over and over again that they have not yet recovered from the beat-down from Conroe. I agree, it's almost too painful to watch, and I wish AMD would get off their butts and start cranking out good chips again instead of these bargain pieces of crap. When they do good work, everyone benefits; when they don't, nobody does.

bobkn · 11 Jul 2010

Fumz said:

My only point was that the 1055 is a really bad cpu. It can't keep up with the i5, and just how much of a dud the 1055 is is really on display when it's compared side by side with another 6 core cpu.

AMD is "back" to competing on price because that's all that's left for them. It's been demonstrated over and over again that they have not yet recovered from the beat-down from Conroe. I agree, it's almost too painful to watch, and I wish AMD would get off their butts and start cranking out good chips again instead of these bargain pieces of crap. When they do good work, everyone benefits; when they don't, nobody does.

A little overstated, perhaps? I can't get that emotional about microprocessors.

I'm not personally familiar with the 1055t or 1090t, but a quick look at some reviews suggest that their performance is similar to what Intel offers at similar prices. At worst, they sound like mediocre products, unexciting for 6 core CPUs, but not what I'd call "bad".

AMD offers nothing that would inspire me to get rid of my I7 920. Intel does, but unless I get a financial windfall, I doubt that I'd care to pay for an I7 980X. The I7 875k is more reasonable, but it's socket 1156.