Thuban 1055t, help please

[eyefinity]

Notice I said 750, the i5 in the bench above is a dual core, so we are focusing on the 875k, which is similar to an i5 750 in gaming.

I'm calling bullshit on that. The i5 661 and 750 both have 4 threads compared to the i7's 8 threads, and I see many benchmarks where the i5 661 beats the 750 due to higher clocks.

 

[eyefinity]

The Phenom II 1090T wins at all resolutions with the i5 750 last in all but one.

 

[ares1214]

And you would be wrong. Most games cant utilize 4 cores, let alone 6 cores. That makes the 1090T a 955, or even in some games a 555 or 720. Considering the i5 750 beats the 955, it does the same to the 1090T, atleast in gaming. Here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=109 (955 vs 750)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=109 (1055T vs 750)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=109 (1090T vs 750)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/117?vs=109 (661 vs 750)

Obviously scroll to the bottom for gaming results.

 

[ares1214]

Also, that benchmark is obviously GPU limited, if you can call it that. With all so close together, it means the GPU has been pushed to its limit, therefore of course it might win by >1 FPS. Put 2 5970s, and the 1090T would lose. However, also to consider is that the human eye, nor the monitor can really register above 60 FPS, and therefore it is a moot point who wins in that, as nobody would be able to tell the difference. If you picked say crysis, the 1090T would have lost likely.

 

[eyefinity]

Did any of you see the old post by Jenny when she compared all of the 1090T benchmarks on release?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/281287-10-thuban-gaming-benchmarks-shocking-truth

You should read what she says about Anandtech's results. Maybe ask yourself why the same people keep using Anandtech's results as "proof".

For those of you who can't be bothered reading through all of that,

1090T vs i5 750

Both these cpu's were used in most of the websites.

4664 for the 1090T
4635 for the i5 750

The i5 750 proves itself to be a nice gaming cpu. However, it loses to the 1090T in every single website except for Anandtech, where it wins by a strangely high margin. I will discuss this subject later. While my friend was making up the spreadsheet, I noticed how Anand's results hugely swung the overall totals in favour of some cpu's.

 

[ares1214]

Dont even mention Jenny, i have and LOVE a 955 and 4890 and cant stand that paranoid AMD fanatic. Just because she says somebody is wrong DOESNT MAKE IT SO!!! Want more proof???

Ironically, Anandtech is actually one of the kindest to them! You cant cherry pick one benchmark and say its superior, by less than 1 fps no less in a game over 100 fps.

 

[eyefinity]

ares1214 I think you have missed the big picture here.

Jenny added up the benchmark results from every website and compared them cpu vs cpu and you are the one who has linked to your chosen cherry picked benchmarks.

This is fact, download her excel file and cross check against the reviews if you want but I'm sure you'll see that what she compiled was accurate and not biased.

 

[ares1214]

I have cherry picked? :lol: :lol: :lol: I have put just about every single benchmark from 3 reputable sites. You are the one that posts the 1 benchmark the 1090T wins in, after going right past 3 it loses! And Jenny was a fanatic paranoid fangirl, why trust anything she says??? You dont understand here, you are obviously an ATI fanboy, she was an AMD fangirl, and while i have and love both (im only really an MSI fanboy if you can even call it that) you are not seeing reason at all. How can 3 of the best sites lie. The 1090T is a superior CPU to the i5 750, but it also costs $100 more, thats to be expected. However, it is NOT a better gaming CPU. It is a Deneb 955 with 2 more cores, and better stepping. THATS IT. Considering games can barely use 4 cores, let alone 6, there is no benefit real over the 955 in most cases. Do you argue according to this absurd conspiracy theory that the 955 beats the i5 750 or 1090T too? :lol:

 

[eyefinity]

ares1214, please read this carefully.

You can confirm or deny Jennys results by going to each website and finding fault. If you find a problem with any of them then you should tell us what it is.

If you can't, and you won't because I've double checked all of them, then you can't disagree with her findings. You should think about that before accusing anybody of being a paranoid fanboy, to be honest you appear to be one yourself and hiding it badly.

 

[ares1214]

Ok, simple fix, you show me as many benchmarks with the 1090T beating the i5 750 in gaming as you can without listing different resolutions. Im guessing you can find 3. Considering i just found about 10, we have a winner. But go ahead, prove me wrong. And right, im an intel fanboy who hasnt used an intel or nvidia cpu/gpu in about 5 years. I see where you are going with this, you caught me! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[eyefinity]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean to compare game vs game, then go ahead and do that - all of the data from every benchmark for the 1090T is there.

Let me find the excel file.

 

[eyefinity]

http://www.filefront.com/16333651/gamebench.ods/

You should be able to compare game vs game, chip vs chip with that.

 

[eyefinity]

Oh btw while you are doing that, could you total up the results minus the Anandtech benchmarks? It's a shame Jenny left or got banned before doing that.

 

[ares1214]

Once again, show me as many benchmarks that the i5 750 loses to the 1090T as you can. Go ahead. I just showed you 3 different sites with 3 or 4 different games showing the i5 750 wins by a decent margin. You have showed 1. If you say mine are false, well i got 3 from THG, so yours must be "biased" too. I really cant believe you are arguing this point. Is the 1090T better than the 980x too? :lol:

 

[eyefinity]

Mate are you a bit simple?

Do you understand what sample size means, and how increasing the sample size brings the overall result closer to the truth?

Jenny took the benchmarks from all the ******* sites while you and others keep cherry picking. There were some wins, some losses on both sides but Jenny's results show the consistent truth because of sample size. You mention 3 or 4 games as your "proof" but Jenny took the results from 70 or 80 game benchmarks and 13 websites.

Do you understand yet?

 

[ares1214]

You arent jenny, i want YOU to find proof. Reason is she isnt even consistent on choosing Minimum fps or maximum fps, or AA or no AA. She is saying the 1090T wins, even though it only gets a small win in AA, while losing in No AA. So, can you understand, YOU show me more than 3 games where the 1090T wins.

 

[eyefinity]

Wait a minute, now you've changed your argument to minimum fps, no AA.

Do you think maybe the reason for that is because it might make intel chips look better than what they are? I think Jennys conditions were very fair.

The Rules



First of all, I decided that this had to be a review of realistic gaming benchmarks. The only thing of interest to me - as a gamer - is how well games will run at good settings and resolution. I immediately realised that if I did this wrong, I'd be accused of cherry picking benchmarks - so I decided upon the following rules which hopefully everybody will see as sensible and balanced.


1) The minimum resolution counted will be 1680x1050.


I realise a lot of people still use 1280x1024 screens, however most of these people simply would not use these high end cpu's for gaming.


2) The maximum resolution counted will be 1920x1200.


Very often, 2560x1200 is a total bottleneck on graphics cards - this claim is often made against AMD cpu's, so I felt that by leaving out 2560x1200, it should act as a counter to 1280x1024 and below.


3) With that in mind, I decided that if multiple benchmarks were made at the same resolution, different settings, I would take the middle setting, or the one closest to what is likely to be used.


Game benchmarks with 300fps, no AA, no AF etc...are out. However if the game was *only* benchmarked at those settings, they would be used - AA and AF settings would only be used in preference if available.


note - while looking through the list of benchmarks, this was hardly an issue. I believe only two out of all the websites I have used actually bothered with different settings at the same resolution.


----

Do you think her rules were unfair or balanced in favour of AMD in some way? I don't see how you can say that but sure tell me how if you believe it to be true.

What rules do you want ares1214? Using Anandtech benchmarks at 1680 resolution only and with no AA? Looking at your links, they all seem to show a similar pattern.

 

[Raidur]

I'm calling bullshit on that. The i5 661 and 750 both have 4 threads compared to the i7's 8 threads, and I see many benchmarks where the i5 661 beats the 750 due to higher clocks.

The 750 has 4 cores. There is a huge difference between 2 cores + 2 HT threads vs 4 cores in gaming.

HT does nothing for games. So a 875k and a 750 both @ 4.1ghz will perform nearly exactly the same.

The truth is that most benchmarks show Phenom II and i5/i7 performing similar in most games.

However, most benchmarks don't use a GPU strong enough to show the difference between these CPUs (GPU bottleneck).

If you can find a bench using GPUs strong enough to differ these powerful CPUs (5870 crossfire or better) on a resolution under 25x16(or eyefinity), then you will see a significant lead for i5/i7 clock4clock. I have found 3, 2 from legionhardware.com and 1 from tomshardware (that's where the mw2 bench came from).

http://www.legionhardware.com/images/review/ATI_Radeon_HD_5870_Crossfire_CPU_Scaling_Performance_Part2/Crysis_01.png

Phenom II is still great and plenty fast this time around. But the next round of GPUs and games are going to show the love for the current i5/i7.

 

[4745454b]

How did we get to the 1090T? Eyefinity is running around claiming the 1090T is as good as the 750, but thats not even the chip in question. With scores that close in the CoD:MW2 benchies that he posted I would have to think that a 1055T would lose a few spots at its slower clock. The 1090T does a better job at gaming, the 1055T loses.

Seeing some overclocked benchies would be interesting. The 750 has that low 2.66GHz stock clock but can reach 4GHz.

 

[ares1214]

True, this has nothing to do with the 1090T, just eyefinities ignorance to the benchmarks. Also, true, the i5 750 can OC quite a bit higher considering its stock is almost 600 MHz lower, and they can both hit about the same point.

 

[eyefinity]

Yeah right, stay deluded. The only difference between a 1055T and 1090T is the black edition overclocking. Any 1055T will overclock to 4ghz same as a 1090T.

 

[enzo matrix]

*claps slowly*

Congrats eyefinity and ares 1214 for ruining this guys thread. I suggest you delete all your posts and move them to a thread started by one of you for the purpose of debate.

 

[ares1214]

You would rather me let him spread false info to this guy? My sincere apologies about hijacking this thread, honestly. However id rather him actually get good info, like there is a difference between the 1055T and 1090T, its called 400 MHz.

 

[4745454b]

Any 1055T will overclock to 4ghz same as a 1090T.

Wrong. OC is not exact, and there are 1055Ts out there I'm sure that will only hit 3.6.

The 750 and the 1055T can generally hit the same 4GHz mark, assuming you don't have a "bad" one. Considering that the 750 has a better IPC you'd need the 1055 to be clocked even higher to make up for it. Or have the code your running be well threaded. Gaming isn't threaded as well as transcoding programs, so the 750 make a better gaming CPU. If the programs you use are well threaded (handbreak for example) then the 1055T makes for the better CPU.

 

[ares1214]

Exactly, overall, id take a 1055T and OC it, but the i5 750 is by far a better gaming cpu than both the 955,1090T, and 1055T.