i5 750 or AMD Phenom II X6

timbo2410 · 30 May 2010 at 22:23

no no must refrain ... I DO NOT NEED ANOTHER GAMING RIG

Big.Wayne · 30 May 2010 at 22:24

timbo2410 said:
there seems to be a divided opinion on which is better

Hey timbo2410,

Don't base your purchasing decision on people's opinions? . . . look at the "facts"!

Temi_D · 30 May 2010 at 22:27

timbo2410 said:
I do a heck of a lot of video encoding. I use Nero 10, DivX Converter and several others. I am mainly into HD video now so files are large. What turned me off to the AMD solution is that (reportedly) there are very few programs that use the extra cores ... so having them is rather pointless so it seems. I don't know a lot about it so please correct me if I'm wrong ..... so that still leaves me wondering which system to go for ....

I use both Nero 10, Divx and several others as well. And they use ALL 6 cores so id say ur better off with the amd one

Marine-RX179 · 30 May 2010 at 22:28

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The X6 1055T will do the job fine and you could get one of the 880G or 890GX based computer with an IGP and this will make the build cost less.

Also Bit-tech is an Intel biased site too. You might as well check Guru3D who show the opposite then:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/13

The Core i7 860 runs at the same clockspeed as the Phenom II X6 1055T and has HT too.

TBH, if the encoder uses six cores it will run faster on a Phenom II X6 and if does not it will run faster on a Phenom II X4 or Core i5 quad core.

Frame rate faster by 0.30 frame? FPS variable could be that much even if running the bench twice on the same system. Also 16.59 and 16.29 are still pretty much the same speed 16fps anyway.

And then put overclock into the equation, realistic overclock would be 1055T 3.6~3.8GHz (with lesser board than Asus Crosshair IV Formula board) vs i5 750 4.0~4.2GHz.

Let's assume both CPUs are same speed for encoding...for tasks and applications that don't run in more than 4 threads, i5 750 would still be faster, simply because it has more speed per core.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 30 May 2010 at 22:29

There is this review which tests the X6 1090T with Nero Recode 10:

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//...ask=view&id=81&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=20

However the results for the Core i7 980X look weird so perhaps have a look at some other reviews IMHO!

The best thing the OP should do is to look at as many reviews of the X6 1055T and X6 1090T as possible and the video encoders used in the reviews.Some run better on six cores and other will use less than 4 cores. This will explain the difference in results.

Also take into consideration platform costs.

Sayso · 30 May 2010 at 22:59

Marine-RX179 said:
Frame rate faster by 0.30 frame? FPS variable could be that much even if running the bench twice on the same system. Also 16.59 and 16.29 are still pretty much the same speed 16fps anyway.

And then put overclock into the equation, realistic overclock would be 1055T 3.6~3.8GHz (with lesser board than Asus Crosshair IV Formula board) vs i5 750 4.0~4.2GHz.

Let's assume both CPUs are same speed for encoding...for tasks and applications that don't run in more than 4 threads, i5 750 would still be faster, simply because it has more speed per core.

yeh Intel make faster CPUs clock for clock

but ive had a falling out with Intel and Asus and im on a one man crusade to bring them (and my temps) down

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 30 May 2010 at 23:07

Sayso said:
yeh Intel make faster CPUs clock for clock

The Guru3D was using Handbrake like the Bit-tech review.Both were using the same motherboards too. Bit-tech shows more bias towards Intel and Guru3D seems to show the opposite.

The 0.3FPS difference he was talking about is for the 2.8GHZ Core i7 860 compared to the 2.8GHZ X6 1055T(the Phenom II was actually ahead in this case) in the Guru3D review.

OTH, he is referring to the Core i5 750 which was 20% slower than the Core i7 860 using this encoder despite only having a 5% clockspeed penalty in the same review. The HT the Core i7 860 has is making up the difference. Basically, both reviews come to different conclusions with the same encoding software.

This is why I suggested that the OP reads as many reviews as possible and also look at what software they use for encoding. If it does use not scale well with cores get a quad core and if it does get a six core instead.

ShaolinDreams · 30 May 2010 at 23:14

get the 6 cores for the lulz

Big.Wayne · 30 May 2010 at 23:14

timbo2410 said:
I have a i7 9.20 DO 2.66 running a 4 ghz so gaming is no problems at all

So you got a beastly Intel® Core™ i7 for gaming and now your considering building another machine for encoding? . . . You must do a serious amount of encoding!

timbo2410 said:
The system I was going to build was for internet browsing/downloading and video editing/conversion so I wasn't after a flat out gaming rig

have you got a budget in mind for this please? . . .have you spec'ed the rest of the build?

Am I right in saying you started this thread to canvass opinions on what would be the better choice for Video-Encoding between an Intel® Core™ i5 750 and a AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T?

Marine-RX179 · 31 May 2010 at 07:07

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The Guru3D was using Handbrake like the Bit-tech review.Both were using the same motherboards too. Bit-tech shows more bias towards Intel and Guru3D seems to show the opposite.

The 0.3FPS difference he was talking about is for the 2.8GHZ Core i7 860 compared to the 2.8GHZ X6 1055T(the Phenom II was actually ahead in this case) in the Guru3D review.

OTH, he is referring to the Core i5 750 which was 20% slower than the Core i7 860 using this encoder despite only having a 5% clockspeed penalty in the same review. The HT the Core i7 860 has is making up the difference. Basically, both reviews come to different conclusions with the same encoding software.

This is why I suggested that the OP reads as many reviews as possible and also look at what software they use for encoding. If it does use not scale well with cores get a quad core and if it does get a six core instead.

Not offense CAT, but even if both CPU do go head to head in terms of speed and performance for video encoding...like I said before the 1055T will fall behind on operations that uses less than 5 cores comparing to i5 750, simply because it has less processing power per core. It would probably also be slower than a Phenom II X4 overclocked to the same frequency on less than 5 cores operation, because the X4 has 6MB L3 cache to share between 4 cores, so that get 1.5MB per core; whereas X6 has the same 6MB cache, but is shared between the 6 cores so it is only 1MB cache per core.

Considering the cost of getting a AM3 board plus the 1055T is similar to getting a 1156 board plus i5 750, I just don't see the logic in getting the 1055T which is slower in 4 cores or less operations and average usage.

timbo2410 · 31 May 2010 at 07:43

Yes my aim was to try and find out the better of the two for video encoding. I bought a gaming system from OCUK and then decided to upgrade my old sytems PSU and case fans. My old rig never managed to start again so I am left with a good case, good PSU, fans and HDD's. So I thought I may as well do a system that is to be used by the family for interent use (rather than us my new system). It didn't brilliant graphics or great gaming capability, just the power to encode well and sit there 24/7 connected to the internet .... then I thought .... hey I know I'll ask on the forum ....... :eek:

timbo2410 · 31 May 2010 at 08:21

Oh I forgot to mention that I would like the budget to be between £600 and £800 and that must include the CPU, mobo, ram, heatsink, bluray RW, Win7 (64) and if there is any money left over a 1TB HDD as well ....
I have the Antec P180 case with all new fans along with a brand new Corsair HX 750W PSU (not to mention keyboard, screen etc etc) ....

Marine-RX179 · 31 May 2010 at 08:58

timbo2410 said:
Oh I forgot to mention that I would like the budget to be between £600 and £800 and that must include the CPU, mobo, ram, heatsink, bluray RW, Win7 (64) and if there is any money left over a 1TB HDD as well ....
I have the Antec P180 case with all new fans along with a brand new Corsair HX 750W PSU (not to mention keyboard, screen etc etc) ....

Something like this may be?

1055T

i5 750

Windows 7 Home Edtion OEM is £82.99, but I think it's worth paying the £10 extra for the full retail version.

NathWraith · 31 May 2010 at 09:15

You won't need the 5450 on the AMD spec the board is GX so it has intergrated GFX. Unless you need multiple monitors etc.

Marine-RX179 · 31 May 2010 at 09:21

NathWraith said:
You won't need the 5450 on the AMD spec the board is GX so it has intergrated GFX. Unless you need multiple monitors etc.

Forgot to remove the 5450 when changing the CPU and motherboard in the basket, cheers.

Now looking at it this way, although the 1055T would be slower in light threaded operations, the saving of £40 for not needing a graphic card is certainly something to think about.

timbo2410 · 31 May 2010 at 09:49

yeah the AMD system that you've got above is pretty much it. I was going to go for the overclocked system on OCUK but try and get it with the Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H AMD 890GX mobo so I can then use the integrated graphics. I currently have a 5850 card in my gaming system and when it's time to upgrade that I would probably throw that card into this system.
The overclocked bundle I'm talking about is this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=BU-038-OB&groupid=43&catid=339&subcat=

But like I said I don't know if I can swap out the mobo for the 890GX?

Marine-RX179 · 31 May 2010 at 10:00

timbo2410 said:
yeah the AMD system that you've got above is pretty much it. I was going to go for the overclocked system on OCUK but try and get it with the Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H AMD 890GX mobo so I can then use the integrated graphics. I currently have a 5850 card in my gaming system and when it's time to upgrade that I would probably throw that card into this system.
The overclocked bundle I'm talking about is this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=BU-038-OB&groupid=43&catid=339&subcat=

But like I said I don't know if I can swap out the mobo for the 890GX?

Well, the optional Asus M4A88TD-M EVO/USB3 with the bundle also has intergrated graphic (Integrated ATI Radeon HD 4250 GPU), but comparing to the 890GX it will not have Crossfire support and the chances are that it won't overclock as great. But if you have no plan on going above the 3.6GHz that comes with the bundle, you don't really need to change the motherboard to the 890GX I think.

timbo2410 · 31 May 2010 at 10:42

No I don't play around with overclocking. So maybe your right and the mobo that comes with the bundle might be enough for the job .....

Sayso · 31 May 2010 at 10:45

Why are you spending £120 on a AMD motherboard, if you are only running onboard get a less specced 890GX board for about £60. (thats what i paid for my Biostar TA890GXE, not from overclockers).

Marine-RX179 · 31 May 2010 at 10:58

Sayso said:
Why are you spending £120 on a AMD motherboard, if you are only running onboard get a less specced 890GX board for about £60. (thats what i paid for my Biostar TA890GXE, not from overclockers).

Because we were thinking about motherboard performance as well as overclockbility at first, but if he doesn't need more than 3.6GHz on the 1055T, then motherboard can obviously be cut down to cheaper ones as well. Also, Micro ATX board such as the Biostar TA890GXE with no USB3.0 will obviously be cheaper.