• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

About to oder my new CPU, bit of advice?

The 955 x4 should be more then enough for your gaming needs, even by the time you come round to upgrading games will most likely only be using 3 or 4 cores at the most. Besides clock speed is what counts not cores, given that most of the time you will have inactive cores whilst gaming on your X4 performance will be dependant on the clock speed as opposed to anything else.
 
1055t turbo core can do 3 cores to 3.3ghz if only 3 cores are beeing utilised which gives it higher core speed than a 955 ;)

a lot of people dont think games will start using more cores anytime soon but most new games are starting to use 3 cores
Crysis 2: Up to 8 CPU-Cores can be used
When it comes to cinematic effects, the CE3 includes everything there is: ambient occlusion, depth of field, (object) motion blur, even the bokeh filter. In addition it is highly optimized for multi core systems: rendering, audio, AI, physics and so on are parallelised and accelerate the game - up to eight cores would be used. Sean assured us, that the Cryengine 3 would render nearly twice as many fps as the CE2 at comparable graphics quality.
Click to expand...

6cores should be much more future proof imo
 
As arknor said, the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 1055T should be faster in (1-3Core) games once you factor in TurboCore (2.8GHz-3.3GHz) vs the stock speed of the AMD® Phenom™ II X4 955 (3.2GHz) . . .

I don't see either processor having a problem with any games though . . . one has to consider how long they intend to keep the chip and if overclocking is a factor? . . . an extra £35 for a 95W TDP X6 over a 125W TDP X4 is certainly something that has to be considered! :cool:
 
Yep, also the 95W chips run nice and cool and will overclock like crazy. Just a shame the 95W 955 isn't around yet (if it will ever be).
 
Hmmm, i think i am leaning towards the 1055t.

I had read that in some games, the 1055t is actually worse than a 955?

I can't remember the review, but it was definitely mentioned.

I am not going to overclock and would like to keep the chip for as long as possible!

Thanks for any more info guys,

Martin
 
get a 550 black edition! you can unlock to unused cores in the architecture to make it a quad for £75ish!
 
nitram100 said:
I had read that in some games, the 1055t is actually worse than a 955?

I can't remember the review, but it was definitely mentioned.
Click to expand...
Hey Martin,

I think you should double check your facts again as basing a purchase on a single review which you can't remember where something was said by someone is pretty low-grade in terms of research! :D
 
I'm Martin and so's my wife. :p

It is true that at stock speeds the 1055 is slightly slower than the 955 in games, and if games are your only priority then the 955 might be the better choice, especially as it's a bit cheaper.
 
Big.Wayne said:
If the X4 955 runs at 3.2GHz and the X6 1055T runs at 2.8GHz to 3.3GHz (TurboCore) how can the latter be slower in "all" games? :confused:
Click to expand...

Maybe not all games, however I believe the 1055 has less L3 cache per core? Which probably makes a small difference and you can roughly work out the 955 results by taking 6% off the 965 results.

edit: Also if gaming is all you care about and the 955 achieves at least the same performance (give or take) for £35 less? Most of the time providing you can get 60FPS with a decent graphics card you're not going to care too much about any extra anyway.
 
Last edited:
Either CPU will give you a great gaming rig, in terms of 'bang for your buck' FPS/£ the 955 is probably just about the winner, however the 1055 95W version will run cooler and have slightly lower power consumption.
 
Redmint said:
Maybe not all games
Click to expand...
If the games uses 1-3 cores then the X6 1055T should in "theory" be faster . . . if the game uses 4 cores the X4 955 should pull ahead slightly :)

Redmint said:
I believe the 1055 has less L3 cache per core? Which probably makes a small difference
Click to expand...
Yeah I've heard people mention this before but I've not personally seen a scrap of supporting evidence? . . . I think for the most part this is pretty much a moot point although I'm happy to be set straight if anyone has access to some data? . . .

Redmint said:
you can roughly work out the 955 results by taking 6% off the 965 results
Click to expand...
It's probably easier to compare straight up an X4 955 and an X6 1055T in a variety of games? . . . I'm sure there must be plenty of data floating about!
 
nitram100 said:
I am not going to overclock and would like to keep the chip for as long as possible!
Click to expand...
Hmmm, so if you don't intend to overclock and never intend to overclock a Black-Edition processor is not ideal? . . . if you intend to keep the chip as long as possible then the X6 certainly offers better system longevity . . .

I'm not pushing you either way but just helping you weigh things up . . . basically comes down to price really . . . is the extra £35 "justified"? . . . in one/two/three years time will the extra expenditure on the X6 be worthwhile?

That's an extra two processing cores pumping out 2.8GHz each? . . . what will an added 5.6GHz of processing power offer you down the line? . . . .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom