i7 950 vs 1090T vs i5 760 - Help us out :)

[Arthalen]

Argghh....

Overclockers have really done it now - the this week only offer on the i7 950 is a tempting peice of kit to buy ...

I don't know what to do. My future PC is to be used in several different roles, but roughly:

40% Gaming
30% 3D Rendering/Landscape Generation
20% Photoshop/Web Design
10% Office/Web/simple stuff

Looking to build and buy a PC that probably won't get upgraded for atleast the next two years, so some measure of longevity is needed in this.

For gaming - I wont use dual cards. A decent 'highish end' single card solution will be enough. I have a 4850 to use for now, but will probably buy a new ATI 6xxx range card that has performance above a 5850 to satisy gaming needs.

For 3D Rendering - The benchmark data I've looked at indiciated that an i7 4core/8threads is just as fast if not faster than a 6 core AMD. I can cram more memory onto the i7 platform though, and this is tempting.

Looking at similar overclocks for all three processors - around the 4Ghz mark.

I already have the following kit for my new rig:

Thermalright Venomous-X Heatsink
ATI 4850 512MB Video Card
4x Samsung F3 500GB Hard drives (Will be put in RAID 10 for a 1TB fast disk)
DVD-Writer

And I'm looking at getting:

Lian Li PC-P50R
Corsair AX750 PSU

...so, to i7 or not to i7? that is the question.

PS I'm not waiting on 'SandyBridge' or Bulldozer to come around. I'm not playing any waiting games for a new CPU

 

[Podmonkey]

Are you trying to justify the price differences? If so then its all down to what you are happy spending for the performance you want. For the 40% gaming then theres not much in it between the i7 or the i5 (which makes the price change a bit wrong) and the 1090t wont do as well as either. For the other 60% you've already said that the i7 comes out on top of the amd and the i5 wont be able to keep up. If you are happy to spend the money then go i7, and as long as youve got a good aftermarket cooler (frio/fenrir/h70 etc depending if you want air or are happy to go watercooling) then 4ghz shouldnt be too much trouble.

 

[PhoenixUK]

1055T.

Or a 2nd hand i7 920/930 can be had for around 120-140, I wouldn't spend 200+ on a CPU.

i5 will be fine as well, neither of the options is slow and you'll have a hard time seeing the difference without looking at benchs.

The x6 and i7 will come ahead of i5 in apps that can use all cores/threads, but then again, it's not like i5 will be slow at it either.

So yeh, I myself would probably grab an 1055T if new, or 2nd hand i7 since both of these will be same price of an i5 and give you a bit of advantage.

 

[PhoenixUK]

1055T.

Or a 2nd hand i7 920/930 can be had for around 120-140, I wouldn't spend 200+ on a CPU.

i5 will be fine as well, neither of the options is slow and you'll have a hard time seeing the difference without looking at benchs.

The x6 and i7 will come ahead of i5 in apps that can use all cores/threads, but then again, it's not like i5 will be slow at it either.

So yeh, I myself would probably grab an 1055T if new, or 2nd hand i7 since both of these will be same price of an i5 and give you a bit of advantage.

 

[cmndr_andi]

May I ask what rendering software you mainly use?

 

[Arthalen]

May I ask what rendering software you mainly use?

Possibly a combination of Maya/Zbrush/Terragen2 for different things. Not really clued up on which software to use yet...

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[Arthalen]

*snip images*

Any reason for the Asrtock GX board in the 1055T bundle? Not a fan of Asrock at all, and was thinking a 890FX board would be preferable for better overclocking? Such a board is similar in price to the X58 board specified...

 

[JimboJet]

I share your dislike for Asrock components.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello Arthalen

Any reason for the Asrtock GX board in the 1055T bundle?

Sure it looks like a great all-round motherboard featuring loads of tech inc 8+2 PWM for smoother overclocking?

ASRock 890GX Extreme3 Product Page

Not a fan of Asrock at all

pardon me I didn't see any part in the O.P where you stated a preference of board manufacturer? . . . I'm led to believe the newer ASRock boards are very good? . . . it's only a suggestion so please feel free to choose whatever manufacturer you feel most comfortable with . . .

and was thinking a 890FX board would be preferable for better overclocking?

I'm not aware that the AMD 890FX overclocks any better than the AMD 890GX? . . . the only difference I know about is one board offers x8/x8 Crossfire + a backup IGP and the other offers x16/x16 Crossfire without a backup IGP? . . . I don't see from your O.P that any of these advantages/disadvantages apply to you?

 

[Arthalen]

Hello Arthalen

1) Sure it looks like a great all-round motherboard featuring loads of tech inc 8+2 PWM for smoother overclocking?

ASRock 890GX Extreme3 Product Page


2) Pardon me I didn't see any part in the O.P where you stated a preference of board manufacturer? . . . I'm led to believe the newer ASRock boards are very good? . . . it's only a suggestion so please feel free to choose whatever manufacturer you feel most comfortable with . . .

3) I'm not aware that the AMD 890FX overclocks any better than the AMD 890GX? . . . the only difference I know about is one board offers x8/x8 Crossfire + a backup IGP and the other offers x16/x16 Crossfire without a backup IGP? . . . I don't see from your O.P that any of these advantages/disadvantages apply to you?

1) Fair enough. That's all I wanted to know.

2) Nope, I didn't put a board preference tbh, but past experience has shown me Asrock don't have the tighest QA and I've suffered too many failures compared to other manufacturers.

3) Thats cool - this was meant as a CPU only discussion really. Obviously price factor matters when considering the platform price, but this thread was to debate the merits of price of the CPU only. I view the additional cost of memory on the X58 platform as an acceptable cost, as I'm gaining 50% more over X6/i5 and its 50% more I'd make use of.

So, your viewpoint from a purely CPU point of view?

 

[Bleek]

I share your dislike for Asrock components.

I didn't like them at one point because of the perceived budget brand, but I took a punt in the past and both ASRock boards I had were excellent overclockers, rock solid and never failed me.

 

[Big.Wayne]

• this was meant as a CPU only discussion really
• this thread was to debate the merits of price of the CPU only

I can cram more memory onto the i7 platform though, and this is tempting

I have a 4850 to use for now, but will probably buy a new ATI 6xxx range card that has performance above a 5850 to satisy gaming needs

I already have the following kit for my new rig:

Thermalright Venomous-X Heatsink
ATI 4850 512MB Video Card
4x Samsung F3 500GB Hard drives (Will be put in RAID 10 for a 1TB fast disk)
DVD-Writer

And I'm looking at getting:

Lian Li PC-P50R
Corsair AX750 PSU

Pardon me Arthalen, I think the point you wanted to discuss got somewhat diluted in the "haze" of your O.P

• your viewpoint from a purely CPU point of view?

I think they are all great processors and if they all cost the same price along with the same platform price I would probably go with a Intel® Core™ i7 950 running at stock and undervolt it . . . however the chips (& platform) don't cost the same so one has to ask themselves what extra "value" does paying the extra premium bring?

• I view the additional cost of memory on the X58 platform as an acceptable cost
• I'm gaining 50% more over X6/i5 and its 50% more I'd make use of

yeah its about £35.00 for an extra 2GB . . . . double that and you get £70 for an extra 4GB . . . can you make use of 8GB of system ram for your "needs"? . . . will 8GB of memory be enough for you in the next year or two?

• Obviously price factor matters when considering the platform price

So lets look at this another way, The Intel® Core™ i7 950 platform is costing an extra £137 approx . . . you give value to this extra 2GB of ram (£35) so taking the ram out the equation your left to justify an extra £100 . . .

Can you personally "justify" paying an extra £100 on a system to meet your "needs"? . . . if you can then buy the Intel® Core™ i7 . . . if you can't then consider either the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T or the Intel® Core™ i5

Argghh....

 

[Ryan-3]

I'd go i7, try get a 920 or 920. They houldn't be much now, or go for the 950 build above

it'll be your pc in 3-4 years time, ever mind 2

 

[Liampope]

@ Big.Wayne: So you've brilliantly rephrased his question - well done! How about your opinion on an actual answer? is the extra for i7 worth it? Don't just tell him he must decide - I think he knows that, hence the thread! I think he's looking more for actual opinions with justification either way.

Imho, for gaming the extra for i7 isn't worth it at all. Benches actually show the i5 slightly faster clock for clock with a single GPU - about the same or a tiny lead to i7 with dual GPU as 1366/x58 does it a bit better. The difference can be spent on GPU and that will make a big difference to gaming performance.

For rendering/encoding, again imho, I still question the benefit. Unless it's your job and time is money, you can just do something else if an i5/AMD X6 is taking slightly longer. Again the difference can be spent on something that will make a real difference in performance - SSD for example.

So for mixed use (mostly gaming), for the next few years while even dual-cores aren't really failing to keep up, i5 7xx is the sweet spot for me.

Some poeple just want i7 for e-peen though - 7 is a higher number than 5 afterall innit.

 

[rchads89]

id take alook at a nice AM3 build with a 970 x4. 3.5GHz at stock its really good. A nice fx board and some nice ram would make a fantastic build for the money

 

[arknor]

For rendering/encoding, again imho, I still question the benefit. Unless it's your job and time is money, you can just do something else if an i5/AMD X6 is taking slightly longer. Again the difference can be spent on something that will make a real difference in performance - SSD for example.

1055t beats i7 930 in

cinebench (rendering)
x264 (transcoding)
handbrake (transcoding)

buy a small margin (even when both chips are at 4ghz), we had a bench off on the forums a few months back

conclusion was if a program can use 6 cores x6 was faster but seeing as the majority of programs cant use 6 cores intel generally wins.

its not a big difference either way though i'd imagine they are both as future proof as each other

 

[Liampope]

1055t beats i7 930 in

cinebench (rendering)
x264 (transcoding)
handbrake (transcoding)

buy a small margin (even when both chips are at 4ghz), we had a bench off on the forums a few months back

conclusion was if a program can use 6 cores x6 was faster but seeing as the majority of programs cant use 6 cores intel generally wins.

its not a big difference either way though i'd imagine they are both as future proof as each other

So I should revise my conclusion slightly to say a little more about the X6...

If use is mostly gaming, i5 is much better bang-for-buck than i7
If use is mostly multi-threaded rendering/encoding, X6 is much better bang-for-buck than i7

Shouldn't be that surprising - you're always into diminishing returns if you go for the premium products. Just look at gulftowns or intel extreme editions

 

[arknor]

i wouldnt bother with i5 personally either x6 or i7.

i7 is probably better if you dont mind the price difference and paying a premium for a motherboard but the different isnt that big either way performance wise

 

[mmj_uk]

i7 950, with anything else you're limited to 8GB RAM and with the type of stuff you're doing it's a case of the more memory the better.

The 1366 platform will be especially good if Intel releases a £200-300 Gulftown once their next generation CPU hit the shelves.

If you're going the way of Intel though P6X58D-E is a better motherboard than the UD3.