• 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.

I THINK i have made a decision but.....

Associate
Joined
20 Sep 2011
Posts
164
Location
Manchester
Id like to throw it out to the class before i spend my hard earnt cash...

Current spec in sig..

Basically all my PC us used for is Playing Games and vidoes on the tv...

I have just upgraded from a AMD 5750 to 2x 6950's but my CPU is bottlenecking like crazy (as in 20-30fps in BF3!!)


I believe i have kinda decided on the upgrade to keep up with the GPU's but cant decide between a 1090T/1100T or a phenom II 975.



What do you guys think? My main beef is that the 975 is like 50 quid cheaper...
 
+1 to the 1090T, with the extra cores and L3 cache BF3 will run at higher framerates. And it's easy to overclock to near 4ghz too. But it depends if your motherboard can support it, which model is it?
 
Yeh it'll be fine.
Although it looks ugly as sin.

Meh, its inside my case, under the desk.

Glad it will work tho. Cheers for responses!


EDIT: Sorry, kinda confused now then? They both have 6mb L3 Cache...

975 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-286-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1943
1090T - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-266-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1944

On that basis surely the quad is better because each core gets 1.5m each rather than 1mb?
 
Last edited:
X6 1090T, or 955BE, don't pay over the odds for a 975.

Personally I'd get the X6.
 
Meh, its inside my case, under the desk.

Glad it will work tho. Cheers for responses!


EDIT: Sorry, kinda confused now then? They both have 6mb L3 Cache...

975 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-286-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1943
1090T - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-266-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1944

On that basis surely the quad is better because each core gets 1.5m each rather than 1mb?

Get the 1090T.
 
Meh, its inside my case, under the desk.

Glad it will work tho. Cheers for responses!


EDIT: Sorry, kinda confused now then? They both have 6mb L3 Cache...

975 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-286-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1943
1090T - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-266-AM&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1944

On that basis surely the quad is better because each core gets 1.5m each rather than 1mb?

The Thuban has a better IMC for a kick off, I'd rate that over the Deneb's.

Unless you can get a Zosma ; 960T, as that should have more headroom overclocking than a Deneb.
 
X6 1090T, or 955BE, don't pay over the odds for a 975.

Personally I'd get the X6.

The hex is twice(ish) the price of the 955 though!??

Will i be able to OC the 955 and 975 to the same point (hoping for 4ghz)? I would have thought the 975 would be happier at that speed because of its higher stock..?

Forgive me, i must sound like a noob... Im fairly up on GPU's but CPU's are kinda a grey area..
 
Last edited:
Actually.
Just go for a 955 if you want.
I'd aim for around 3.8GHZ at stock volts with a CPU NB of 2.8GHZ, that'll be fairly easy.

Its not the money as such - just whether it is worth paying...

What sort of OC love can i expect out of the Hex?


Will the 955 @ 3.8 be enough not to bottleneck the GPU's?
 
Just hold on a minute. If that Asrock link was your motherboard that bottom slot will also bottleneck the card that goes in it as it's only 4x. I would be tempted to get a half decent board as well. Then again, if you do that it would be just as well to forget about sticking with AMD and jumping over to Sandybridge.
 
Just hold on a minute. If that Asrock link was your motherboard that bottom slot will also bottleneck the card that goes in it as it's only 4x. I would be tempted to get a half decent board as well. Then again, if you do that it would be just as well to forget about sticking with AMD and jumping over to Sandybridge.


How badly do you reckon tho?? I concidered this when getting the 2nd 6950 and from what i read at the time it was only 1-2 FPS between 4x and 16x 'twas on tom's i think, see if i can find it again..?
 
16x to 8x is barely noticeably, 4x can be more noticeable, personally I'd just spend a bit more on a better mobo just because you'll probably find it a tad easier to overclock and there are mobo's with FAR better spacing of the pci-e slots, with dual slot coolers your top card will sit right over the bottom card, on another mobo you can get 1 or 2 more spaces between them, so better cooling, quieter fan and bigger overclocks.

I was actually going to post, screw the x6/975, just get the cheapest black edition one you can get for easy overclocking but most other people said get the 955. Thats definitely the way to go.

So you can save £60 there, and spend £20-30 on a better mobo with either 2x 8x slots or 2x16 x slots and better spacing, and you've got an awesome gaming rig there ;)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-349-GI&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=2046

That would also give you things like, AM3+ so if/when Piledriver is out or a new lower power stepping of bulldozer thats a potential upgrade path, it also has sata 3/usb3, so good for ssd upgrades in the future and decent speed for external drives and the like.
 
Just hold on a minute. If that Asrock link was your motherboard that bottom slot will also bottleneck the card that goes in it as it's only 4x. I would be tempted to get a half decent board as well. Then again, if you do that it would be just as well to forget about sticking with AMD and jumping over to Sandybridge.

I'd agree with this.

However, the 4x isn't going to be a frame killer.

If you feel it will, and a new board and CPU is on the cards, Intel every time at present.
 
I'd agree with this.

However, the 4x isn't going to be a frame killer.

If you feel it will, and a new board and CPU is on the cards, Intel every time at present.

Complete tosh again, sorry but its NO different to pre bulldozer, cheaper mobo's and cheaper chips and same gaming performance.

£84 955 that will give you the same framerate as a 2500k, thats £160.

For PERFORMANCE Intel has been ahead for the best part of 5 years, for value, and more then enough CPU performance, sorry but AMD/Mobo beats Intel quite easily.

That might be different if there was a good low end Sandybridge that was overclockable but there isn't. A i3 doesn't have a K version afaik, and you're still talking about being £30-40 more than a 955.

I moved to a 2500k, its faster than my 4Ghz quad core phenom obviously, in most places, but NOT gaming.

If I was going for top performance, I'd go Sandy bridge for now, for value Sandy bridge isn't an automatic choice at all and hasn't been since it launched.
 
I have DM on ignore, but I'm going to assume it's another "That's nonsense" post :p
OP's 4x isn't going to kill his frames, a 955 @ 3.8GHZ isn't going to be any bottleneck in BF3, that's all there is to it, anything else is anyone's opinion on whether or not something is worth it.

EDIT : Oh, I decided to take a look at it. I was right, except I wasn't the one to suggest SB, Pastymuncher did.
You assume a ton of stuff, I never said Intel was value, I never said the boards were cheaper, or the chips were cheaper, nothing I said in that post was tosh. It was completely flipping accurate, I wasn't even telling him to get SB. I said the 4x is fine, and just put in a 955, he'd be fine with that. Once you're talking about a new motherboard and a CPU, while at the exact same price point the AMD works out better, just up a little bit more money for the better performing Intel platform. It's a matter of opinion, and I'd much rather you put me on your ignore list DM.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom