The Truth: i5 750 vs Phenom II 965 -Updated

[AMW1011]

Hello
There has been a lot of heated debate and arguing on these forums about which is better, a Phenom II 965 or an i5 750. On both sides, everyone has failed to back up their point and have posted one or two links at best which is inadequate to answer such a question. I am here to answer that question. The scientific method tells us to do everything in, at least, threes. Three sources, three experiments, three variables, ect. Well I have compiled 8 different sources. None were picked and chosen except for the Lost Circuits article since it keeps getting thrown around.

I must remind everyone that this is a thread to inform those who are trying to choose between the two, I'm not here to settle any vendettas or disputes, I don't give a rats ass about that.

Alright let us discuss Turbo mode. Turbo Mode is where, with 1-2 cores under load, the CPU clocks those cores to 3.2 GHz and with 3-4 core under load the CPU clocks to 2.8 GHz. With Turbo mode enabled, which it is in all the below benchmarks, the i5 750 clocks at 2.8 GHz for most of the app benchmarks, which is 600 MHz (2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. In most games the i5 750 is clocked at 3.2 GHz or 2.8 GHz which is 200 MHz or 600 MHz (3.2GHz/2.8GHz vs 3.4 GHz) lower than the Phenom II 965. A reader must take this into account with the below results.

Links:
http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_corei5750_corei7870/
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/lynnfield/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=42

Note: No synthetics were listed here, though I think that they have some merit, the majority opinion is that they do not and therefor they are not included.

Here we go: (continued on next post)

2/24/2010 I have updated the pricing section and some facts. If I'm asked I will add some more articles that are more recent.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Didn't Jumping Jack decide that this place was no longer worth posting at?

Was Jake part of that reason or was he trying to ameliorate the situation?

I don't know why he made the decision but I do know it was around that time.

 

[Onus]

This thread has been an excellent read. Impressive research by the OP. I also like his flame-resistant assertion that buyers won't be disappointed with either chip.
I'm glad to see that pricing, though inconsistent, is no longer outrageous for i5.

 

[randomizer]

Jack's reason for a ban and Jack's reason for not posting here now are completely different. But that's beside the point of this thread.

 

[banaanc]

since im going through the choice ill add what i think for now

i5 - 750

Pros:
POWEEERRR !!!111!1
CF & SLI un same board

Cons:
price
cant do 16x/16x CF/SLI
intel changing sockets like socks

AMD Phenom II 965/955

Pros:
price
AM3 looks like it will be around for longer than 1156
16x/16x CF/sli

cons
less powerful
must chose cf or sli

 

[roofus]

your pros on the AM3 stating 16x/16x CF/SLI hinge upon the motherboard you choose. they do not have an AM3 board capable of both.

 

[banaanc]

your pros on the AM3 stating 16x/16x CF/SLI hinge upon the motherboard you choose. they do not have an AM3 board capable of both.

about cf/sli is in cons

but on am3 boards can get 16x/16x, where un 1156 you cant

tho you dont get much benefits from 16x/16x now, if you build pc with upgrades on mind then i think gpus in 1~2 years will have a problem with 8x/8x

 

[roofus]

actually there are a few p55 boards with nf200 chips on them if 16x is a requirement. to get 16x SLI on a AM3 board, the same nf200 will be present.

 

[notty22]

about cf/sli is in cons

but on am3 boards can get 16x/16x, where un 1156 you cant

tho you dont get much benefits from 16x/16x now, if you build pc with upgrades on mind then i think gpus in 1~2 years will have a problem with 8x/8x

That logic would benefit/hinge on your buying two 400 dollar gpu's, in the "future".

 

[banaanc]

todays 400$ is tomorrows low end

 

[roofus]

todays 400$ is tomorrows low end

lol aint that the truth. i actually hang on the wall the items i got burnt on the worst to remind me to have patience.

 

[AMW1011]

Like my 2 $300 8800 GTS 512s that have comparable cards priced around $100 today...

 

[Box293]

Thanks for the info, well worth it.

Outside of the USA price is a major factor. I am from Australia and before Christmas I was trying to make a decision between AMD and Intel and there was a major price difference, we're talking about $100 between similar CPU's and $60-$100 between motherboards (AMD stuff being cheaper). After Christmas the prices are almost identical!

All of this had to do with the USA dollar. If people here have stock of CPU's they purchased when the Australian dollar wasn't doing to well then they aren't going to sell the CPU's cheaper when the Australian Dollar is doing better. They'll wait until the next batch of stock they order before they drop their prices.

I could try and buy direct from the USA but most suppliers won't ship internationally and they certainly won't provide warranty for sales outside of the USA.

So in my case, price was the deciding factor.

 

[stylez]

I5>P2x4 965
Still, I own one, but i'm going to change to 6core processor when they come out,only have to buy new processor, no new motherboard, the only good thing about amd, well and i'm happy with my cpu 2

 

[jennyh]

Not really.

If you assume one in every ten of those benchmarks have used intels dodgy compiler, the 965 will come out on top. It is the faster cpu, just both are so close it's barely worth arguing over.

And like I said earlier, there will be no 32nm quads from intel this year and that is now fact I believe.

 

[roofus]

AMW's original post should be stickied with everything behind it stripped out. I had forgotten about how well he did this one.

 

[bystander]

When ever I see benchmarks between the two, they are pretty close, and go back and forth, BUT what it interesting is that when you see benchmarks using CF or SLI configurations, the the Phenom II falls behind the i5.

People have also made mention of how the benchmarks using low resolutions show the i5 beating the Phenom II and at high resolutions, the Phenom II trades blows.

This leads me to believe that the i5 is faster when a game is not GPU bound, and when a system is GPU, the Phenom II can often beat an i5 by a little, but in some games it falls behind too.

 

[clement4413]

I was hesitating between I5 750 or phenom X4 965. I think wait the Phenom X6 + 890FX chipset but I must wait the 26th April. I hope his price won't be expensive 300$ or less and her performance (games, encoding etc...) will be correct compared to I7 920 or 950

 

[Raidur]

Not really.

If you assume one in every ten of those benchmarks have used intels dodgy compiler, the 965 will come out on top. It is the faster cpu, just both are so close it's barely worth arguing over.

And like I said earlier, there will be no 32nm quads from intel this year and that is now fact I believe.

Didn't I just read on the page before that you were agreeing to the i5s superior performance and said you have thought that way all along?

Or am I confused? :/

 

[AMW1011]

Not really.

If you assume one in every ten of those benchmarks have used intels dodgy compiler, the 965 will come out on top. It is the faster cpu, just both are so close it's barely worth arguing over.

And like I said earlier, there will be no 32nm quads from intel this year and that is now fact I believe.

Jenny, I didn't use any synthetic benchmark, not one. Therefor if Intel's "dodgy compiler" is making the i5 750 appear faster, that is because it is. Those are all real world apps. The i5 750 is faster than the 965 and comes out on top, but they are so close that the features (SLI+CFX mobos) and perks (slightly cheaper) provided by the different solutions are more important than the performance, not the other way around.

As for 32nm, I haven't seen anything pointing to a 2010 launch of AMD 32nm quads either, maybe you can post something?

AMW's original post should be stickied with everything behind it stripped out. I had forgotten about how well he did this one.

Thanks.

 

[Raidur]

Yeah they are close at stock settings. Id call overclocking another reason to chose i5 over phenom ii. The apps you use will probably still come into play.

 

[AMW1011]

Yeah they are close at stock settings. Id call overclocking another reason to chose i5 over phenom ii. The apps you use will probably still come into play.

At about 3.6 GHz both architectures become just as close and the i5 750 cannot be pointedly recommended because of overclocking.

 

[Mousemonkey]

The crux of the biscuit seems to be dual GPU setups, in which case the Intel wins simply because you can run either a pair of ATi or a pair of Nvidia cards, something that an AMD board does not yet allow.

 

[AMW1011]

The crux of the biscuit seems to be dual GPU setups, in which case the Intel wins simply because you can run either a pair of ATi or a pair of Nvidia cards, something that an AMD board does not yet allow.

It has been mentioned and is in the guide, however it is far from the "crux of the biscuit" as the use of SLI might be irrelevant to some. I could also point out that a good AM3 board will be able to manage x16/x16 and x16/x8/x8 bandwidth that is very necessary for 3-4 GPUs. This cannot be called anymore of a "crux of the biscuit" than the LGA 1156's ability to utilize SLI and CFX on the same board. It all comes down to a person's needs.

 

[Mousemonkey]

It has been mentioned and is in the guide, however it is far from the "crux of the biscuit" as the use of SLI might be irrelevant to some. I could also point out that a good AM3 board will be able to manage x16/x16 and x16/x8/x8 bandwidth that is very necessary for 3-4 GPUs. This cannot be called anymore of a "crux of the biscuit" than the LGA 1156's ability to utilize SLI and CFX on the same board. It all comes down to a person's needs.

Ok, so it's the crux of MY biscuit then :lol:, because I Need dual GPU's.

 

[jennyh]

Jenny, I didn't use any synthetic benchmark, not one. Therefor if Intel's "dodgy compiler" is making the i5 750 appear faster, that is because it is. Those are all real world apps. The i5 750 is faster than the 965 and comes out on top, but they are so close that the features (SLI+CFX mobos) and perks (slightly cheaper) provided by the different solutions are more important than the performance, not the other way around.

Intel's compiler has been used for software other than synthetics. The point I'm making here is, 1 in 10 programs have been compiled with the intel compiler, making 1 in 10 programs artificially slower on AMD systems. With both cpu's being so close in your results, what do you think is the fastest when you take out that 10%?

As for 32nm, I haven't seen anything pointing to a 2010 launch of AMD 32nm quads either, maybe you can post something?



Thanks.

No but I can point to Thuban coming soon and plugging straight into the same mobo. It's a sexa-core, but 45nm not 32nm.