Just upgraded to 64 bit, new mobo and more RAM. The Mobo supports my AM2 Athlon X2 5400+ but also accepts all AM3 cpu's..
I am looking at a AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 955 3.2GHz. What sort of performance increase can I expect?
My 'heaviest' progs are Photoshop CS4 64 bit, Lightroom 3 64 bit and Vegas Movie Studio 32 bit.
Looking at Passmark benchmarks:
quad 955: score 2543; rank 103
x2 5400, score 1442, rank 216
5 years ago, seeing something like that, you'd probably say, "yeah, a big difference, go for it".
But nowadays, it seems processors are fast enough that they can handle most software readily, and it's less clearcut. It's just a personal judgment based on cost and how much you value waiting 4 minutes for a job rather than 4 minutes and 50 seconds.
I have a nearly 4 year old Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 and I can't really justify upgrading it---not that I don't have the urge.
I'd get more bang for the upgrade dollar by changing to an SSD, but I am resisting that too until prices come down.
your heaviest progs are indeed quite heavy - you will notice a difference using that software, especially when doing the final rendering in vegas.
even if your software doesn't use all the cores, it'll still run faster with the new cpu.
go for it. (i find it real easy spending other people's money :))
bilzmale, I just got a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T. Extra cores will come in handy for the stuff you're doing. I've got CS5, do some audio work, tiny bit of video (nothing like Vegas.) If you're a gamer I wouldn't bother with 4 or 6 cores yet. But if you're doing a lot of photo and video and multitasking, get at least a quad core. You will notice a difference.
Intel multi-core chips are better performance, no question. But geez - for the money and for what it does, I was sold almost immediately on AMD. Reason I got the 1055 instead of the 1090 is because I didn't think the marginal improvement was worth the extra $100. That's just me. I wouldn't fault you if you got one.
Other benchmarks that might help your decision.
Good luck.
But generally speaking, across the board, doesn't the Intel Core i5-750 outperform the AMD 1090T.
Also, the Core i5-750 is $195 at NewEgg and the AMD 1055t is $199. So, the intel is actually cheaper too....while providing more performance overall.
Unless you are an AMD fanboy, I don't see the value in either the 1055t or the 1090t at the current price points.
Generally speaking, no, says PassMark.
I already said that Intel makes better chips, but it's a moot point here because bilzmale has a mobo for AMDs. Anyone who wants to spend $1,000 for a 6-core, be my guest. You'll get an incredible CPU. I'd rather put the $800 difference to other uses.
From what i read tonight, and assuming i am correct here, you're currently using an Athlon X2 5400 to a Phenom II X4 Quad Core 955, that's a pretty serious jump in performance, and the software you use is going to finish projects in no time with the X4 Quad 955.
In your case I would definitely go for it
It's probably not a good idea to rely on Passmark for an accurate picture of cpu performance. Its scores are seemingly unrelated to actual real world performance.
Here's a chart, you can generate your own comparisons at the top as well:
Comparison Chart
A Guy
Thanks for the feedback. I've already noticed a boost with 64 bit so will sit awhile - the prices will probably come down a bit too.
Quote