Thuban 1055t, help please

[eyefinity]

Only when you are unable to accept the clear evidence ares1214. The 750 and 1055T are almost identical in gaming but Anandtech's benchmarks which are cherry picked to help intel make it look better.

1055T vs i5 750

By now I'm on a mission against the i5 750...but this one is a loss.

1847 for the 1055T
1954 for the i5 750

Thats 100 points ahead. I noticed all through this that the 1055T was underperforming in gaming. However - and this has to be said - of the 97 points the i5 750 beats the 1055T by, 90 - NINETY points of them comes from Anandtech.

Remove Anandtech's results and these cpu's are almost identical in gaming. This is an issue that will hopefully encourage discussion here.

That's the proof over 13 websites and 80 benchmarks. Take away Anands benchmarks and the 1055T and 750 would score almost identically in gaming. This is fact, and you can't bullshit your way out of the facts by making false, unsubstantiated claims.

 

[eyefinity]

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.

How about you just look at the benchmark results instead of theorycrafting? There is no need to scratch your braincells on this one, the results from all the review sites have been totalled and its quite clear.

As for your overclock point, I'm sure there are 750s out there that will only hit 3.6ghz. Or is it just AMD chips that don't always hit the mark?

 

[4745454b]

I wasn't the one who said always.

I might sit down at look at these chips at resolutions that people play at. I'm not sure why some places still test 1024x768 or other older resolutions. Should really only test 1680x1050, 1920x1080, and perhaps 2560x1600 just so we see the topend.

 

[harna]

..been an interesting read...but here's a question. If I have one of these powerful cpu's... of which I have two....a 1090T and a 965 BE's.... why on earth anyone would run tests with the AA disabled or off particularly when the frame rates are well above playable when set to 4X or more?.... as a gamer I consider full graphics to be AA on, not off... I think turning AA off makes these high frame rate benchmarks ridiculously meaningless.

As regards o/cing... how one compares cpu multi to FSB o/cing is also stupid IMO. The FSB o/c's the entire pc and there is a bigger chance that anyone of a number of components not meeting the requirement, which is why it's a far less exacting science...much easier to rely on one factory certified component such as the BE and or crank up the GPU which in my experience gives a much better return for ones effort at any rate...both of which can be simply and safely achieved with AMD's hardware tweaking software...

...at least then the user experience will be consistent and not down to pot luck or alternatively a burn hole in ones pocket...

 

[ares1214]

How about you just look at the benchmark results instead of theorycrafting? There is no need to scratch your braincells on this one, the results from all the review sites have been totalled and its quite clear.

As for your overclock point, I'm sure there are 750s out there that will only hit 3.6ghz. Or is it just AMD chips that don't always hit the mark?

So blinded... The i5 750 starts 150-550 MHz below the 1055T or 1090T respectively. Considering on a general basis they can all hit 4 GHz, that means the i5 750 got an extra 4-14% in clockspeed vs the 2 respectively. This means, even in the event the 1090T ties the i5 750 at stock in gaming, which it doesnt, the 1090T would have to go to 4.5 GHz just to match the i5 at 4 GHz. The 1090T isnt even as good a overclocker as the i5, as it is a deneb with 2 added cores, however both are very good. I have personally overclocked an i5 750 to 4.2 GHz for a friend very easily, and i can get my 955 to 4 GHz without it going above my liking. Thats just a testimony to that fact. There might be 750s that can only get to 3.6 GHz, but seriously, in all honesty, i have heard of a LOT more 1055T's staying below 4 GHz than i5 750s. It is unbelievable how ignorant you are to the fact intel has more bang, AMD has more bang for buck.

 

[ares1214]

Just check out benchmark reviews. It takes 1.49 volts to get the i5 750 to 4.322 GHz, but 1.54 to get the 1090T to 4.301 GHz.

Even at anandtech, the i5 hits 4 GHz at 1.4 volts, while it takes 1.45 volts for the 1090T.

 

[eyefinity]

So blinded... The i5 750 starts 150-550 MHz below the 1055T or 1090T respectively. Considering on a general basis they can all hit 4 GHz, that means the i5 750 got an extra 4-14% in clockspeed vs the 2 respectively. This means, even in the event the 1090T ties the i5 750 at stock in gaming, which it doesnt, the 1090T would have to go to 4.5 GHz just to match the i5 at 4 GHz. The 1090T isnt even as good a overclocker as the i5, as it is a deneb with 2 added cores, however both are very good. I have personally overclocked an i5 750 to 4.2 GHz for a friend very easily, and i can get my 955 to 4 GHz without it going above my liking. Thats just a testimony to that fact. There might be 750s that can only get to 3.6 GHz, but seriously, in all honesty, i have heard of a LOT more 1055T's staying below 4 GHz than i5 750s. It is unbelievable how ignorant you are to the fact intel has more bang, AMD has more bang for buck.

Are you deliberately trying to prove how stupid you are?

Small hint you ignorant twat, in those single and dual threaded games, the 750 and the 1055T have the exact same clock speed at 3.2ghz. That's why they are about equal and that's why the 1090T beats the 750 in most games due to a higher 3.6ghz clock speed. If they were both at 4ghz, they'd both perform about the same.

 

[eyefinity]

Just check out benchmark reviews. It takes 1.49 volts to get the i5 750 to 4.322 GHz, but 1.54 to get the 1090T to 4.301 GHz.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/...e_i5-750/intel_core_i5-750_cpuz_overclock.jpg

http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/...BK6DGR/AMD_Phenom-II_X6-1090T_CPUID_4.3OC.png

Even at anandtech, the i5 hits 4 GHz at 1.4 volts, while it takes 1.45 volts for the 1090T.

Did it ever enter your mind that perhaps AMD chips can safely overclock at higher volts? I know people who are running Phenom 2s at 1.6v.

 

[ares1214]

Higher volts are worse than lower volts. Point is, turbo boost and turbo core are disabled when you oc the chip. I have no idea where you get the info that the 1055T beats the i5 750 in gaming. Anyway, point is, the i5 750 is at a 550 MHz clock loss vs the 1090T. When both are oc'ed to say 4.3 GHz, the 1090T would have to be pushing 5 GHz to beat it. Now you tell me how many people you know with a 1090T at 5 GHz on air?

 

[ares1214]

BTW, benchmark reviews generally ocs the chip as high as possible, keeping it stable, and therefore 1.55 volts is likely the max of the 1090T keeping it stable at those temps of course.

 

[mstc7stream]

Higher volts are worse than lower volts. Point is, turbo boost and turbo core are disabled when you oc the chip. I have no idea where you get the info that the 1055T beats the i5 750 in gaming. Anyway, point is, the i5 750 is at a 550 MHz clock loss vs the 1090T. When both are oc'ed to say 4.3 GHz, the 1090T would have to be pushing 5 GHz to beat it. Now you tell me how many people you know with a 1090T at 5 GHz on air?

Im just supprised how he oc the 1090t to 6.29ghz amazing even though the core voltage is @ 1.928v

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/overclocker_cranks_amds_sixcore_t1090_629ghz

 

[ares1214]

I wouldnt be impressed. Its great overclocking, but 1.928v! Thats .6 volts increase! If you do the math, thats an increase of 5.16 MHz for every one 0.01 volt increase. Going from 2.66 GHz on the i5 750 to 4.3 GHz is an increase of .25 volts. That means it gets 6.56 MHz for every one 0.01. Its a great oc'er, but definitely not the best. AMD, like the one guy said, can take higher voltage safely in some situations, and thats why they always have the overclocking crown, but thats only with the best overclockers and liquid nitrogen. Under normal circumstances, Intel clocks their CPU's lower since their architecture is technically superior, and since both AMD and Intel can generally OC to the same point (lately), given the same manufacturing process. Therefore, getting a X4 955 to 4 GHz isnt as much increase as i5 750 to 4 GHz. I sound like such an intel fanboy here, but its the truth. Intel=more bang, AMD=more bang for buck, and to be honest, way easier to do business with. I generally recommend AMD just because of backwards compatibility and Bulldozer coming up on AM3. Glad i didnt jump onto the 1156 train.

 

[mstc7stream]

I wouldnt be impressed. Its great overclocking, but 1.928v! Thats .6 volts increase! If you do the math, thats an increase of 5.16 MHz for every one 0.01 volt increase. Going from 2.66 GHz on the i5 750 to 4.3 GHz is an increase of .25 volts. That means it gets 6.56 MHz for every one 0.01. Its a great oc'er, but definitely not the best. AMD, like the one guy said, can take higher voltage safely in some situations, and thats why they always have the overclocking crown, but thats only with the best overclockers and liquid nitrogen. Under normal circumstances, Intel clocks their CPU's lower since their architecture is technically superior, and since both AMD and Intel can generally OC to the same point (lately), given the same manufacturing process. Therefore, getting a X4 955 to 4 GHz isnt as much increase as i5 750 to 4 GHz. I sound like such an intel fanboy here, but its the truth. Intel=more bang, AMD=more bang for buck, and to be honest, way easier to do business with. I generally recommend AMD just because of backwards compatibility and Bulldozer coming up on AM3. Glad i didnt jump onto the 1156 train.

I agree

 

[mstc7stream]

Gotta dig this keep up the good work everyone nice debate

 

[mstc7stream]

Does anybody use passmark software?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5+760+%40+2.80GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X6+1055T


is it reliable? and cpu world? http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/?c_part=AMD_HDZ955FBK4DGI&ind=1
& Benchmarkreviews ? http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=508&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=4

 

[mstc7stream]

AMD 1055t http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=867549

 

[ares1214]

I look at benchmarks for things that I use. Synthetic ones generally arent as useful, since they just say what "should" be better. Real life benchmarks are always better, especially when you can pinpoint what games/programs you use. For example, a X4 635 beats a lot of C2Q and C2D cpus, A LOT. However in synthetics it loses. Here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=122

It loses most of the sysmark, however wins almost every single real world benchmark.

 

[mstc7stream]

I look at benchmarks for things that I use. Synthetic ones generally arent as useful, since they just say what "should" be better. Real life benchmarks are always better, especially when you can pinpoint what games/programs you use. For example, a X4 635 beats a lot of C2Q and C2D cpus, A LOT. However in synthetics it loses. Here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=122

It loses most of the sysmark, however wins almost every single real world benchmark.

I see your point, I also have the intel i5 760 but seems to be slower on the web when comparing it to my other comp running my AMD 1055t is this due to the extra cores? but mw2 seems to run abit better using my i5 760


From my experience i do think AMD is still more durable than intel due to all the problems i've had over the past 10 years as i like to make my comps last 10+ years and my old amd still going strong as for my intel systems 4 years max i have gotten from em before something went wrong.

 

[eyefinity]

The simplest answer is, nobody would spot any difference between a high end amd or a high end intel cpu. I think the intel desktop chips are better at some scientific and mathematical stuff but the average person wouldnt be able to tell the difference.

 

[ares1214]

Hey we agree! I couldnt tell the difference between my X4 955 @4.0 GHz and a 980x. Although some things, like things that take time, you can notice a dramatic difference in time. Not like opening up something on a intel takes .02 miliseconds less, but something like rendering something takes 15 minutes less. All depends what you use it for.

 

[mstc7stream]

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.

that would be the 95w wouldnt it mines tha 125w version

 

[mstc7stream]

The simplest answer is, nobody would spot any difference between a high end amd or a high end intel cpu. I think the intel desktop chips are better at some scientific and mathematical stuff but the average person wouldnt be able to tell the difference.

I gotta say i love my new i5-760 & 1055t they both have there advantages not much difference to me so far i dnt like to OC too much.

 

[mstc7stream]

Just check out benchmark reviews. It takes 1.49 volts to get the i5 750 to 4.322 GHz, but 1.54 to get the 1090T to 4.301 GHz.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/...e_i5-750/intel_core_i5-750_cpuz_overclock.jpg

http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/...BK6DGR/AMD_Phenom-II_X6-1090T_CPUID_4.3OC.png

Even at anandtech, the i5 hits 4 GHz at 1.4 volts, while it takes 1.45 volts for the 1090T.

What are the cpu-z stats for the amd like shown for the intel? why the use of two different apps?

 

[ares1214]

They both show the same info, they just choose to use a AMD app for it instead i guess.

 

[Raidur]

If you didn't notice most gaming benches out there show the 1090T matching the 1050T or leading by 2 frames. Hmm. Do you believe those 2 chips are equal?

Lol, reminds me when the AMD fanboys found a CPU scaling review Phenom II and i7 on 5870 crossfire. On 2500x1600 resolution!! Which is similar to all those 5850 or less benches @ regular resolutions.

Lol so of course the results were GPU limited, and the i7 didn't gain frames past 3ghz (the test went 2ghz to 4). The Phenom II of course gained all up to 4ghz, only to match the i7 at 4ghz. So suddenly the i7 and Phenom II were equal with even 5870 crossfire. Please.

You're telling me we should use these GPU limited benches? That point to the same conclusion that a 3ghz and 4ghz i5/i7 perform the exact same in gaming?

Do ya get it yet eyefinity?

You'll convince us when you find benchmarks on 1920 resolution and under with 5870 crossfire or better. That is the ONLY way to tell the difference of these CPUs in most games (non CPU-bound games).

So do that, or stop wasting your/our time/space.