• 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.

Intel i3 better than Phenom 955?..

Cliste

Cliste

Cliste

Associate
Joined
18 Feb 2011
Posts
1,103
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Hey guys,

So I've been coming across some spec posts and some people are now suggesting to buy an i3 CPU instead of a Phenom 955. This really only goes for people who have to keep within a low budget I suppose, like myself.

Of course I'm assuming that the motherboard would be more expensive with an Intel system but would it not be better to spend an extra £60 for an i5 2500k?

What are the benefits with an i3 over a 955? I know that the 955 has 4 real cores whilst the other only has 2?

Did Intel come out with a new i3 edition or something? As a few months ago people weren't recommending i3's to 955's at all.
 
johny dolan said:
i3 v 955

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/120?vs=143
Click to expand...

You mean http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=143 but the above 2100 would be a better comparison.

As a stand alone cpu the i3 has it, just, but the upgrade path from the 955 is far better. Dropping in a hex core in a few months is something to consider. Also, assuming you by a half decent mobo, you'll be able to drop in a bulldozer in a couple months.

All the 955s I've seen recently are excellent over-clockers, but I'd guess so are the i3s. The 955 is better in mulithreaded apps/tasks.
 
i3 is pretty pointless.

If for gaming, 955 will be better as games are beginning to make use of more cores - which the i3 doesn't have.

If for applications that make use of more cores (like Vegas, Photoshop, any music maker) then X4 will be better bet, despite the higher ipc of the i3.

The i3 can't be overclocked at all, so no speed boost there, as opposed to the 4.0GHz that pretty much most 955BEs are hitting on stock volts (if R3-C3 stepping, which new ones will be).
 
stulid said:
The new sandybridge i3 are better than a AMD 955BE at stock:D looks like I need to bin my 955BE faster than I thought.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100.html
Click to expand...

I don't really trust Xbitlabs any more after seeing their rubbish Core i3 2100T review. Using an 880W PSU made me chuckle!

Anyway,the Phenom II X4 955BE is still faster overall for many non-gaming tasks and probably in some games like BBFC2.

I do have a Core i3 2100 myself but it is in an SFF based system. The lower TDP and lower overall cost when compared to a similar AMD mini ITX system made it a better choice for my purposes.
 
Not sure why you'd think that, the 955 isn't exactly new tech.

Intel chips have always been better than amd at stock in games, but not really an issue given the price point, it's only a revelation to you :p Besides at 4ghz the 955 is ahead in games. Encryption, encoding and transcoding the 955 is either better than or the gap so small it's almost irrelevant and again, slight oc matches/beats the i3. Where the new i3s do exell are video and image editing, although the extra cores of the quad beet the i3 at video, and power.

It's apt your reference to stock, considering the i3 won't over-clock and will require a board change next cpu refresh (good old intel gouging). Every 955 I've seen in the past month (including mine) is virtually a re-branded 965/975 with a VID of 1.4v, yet will do 3.7/8 with 1.35v i.e. 4GHz at stock which makes them excellent budget chips. Also upgrade path.

Iirc though, the i5-2500k is the absolute best bang for buck cpu wise, the motherboards are significantly worse value than amds however. Cheapest p67 will set you back ~£100 while an 8 series from amd that will have bulldozer bios update will be ~£65-70, all of it's sata ports being 6GB/s with usb3. Decide your budget, decide how long you plan on keeping the system and go from there.
 
Last edited:
AMD were good, and still are if someone wants a £300-400 system, but now, Intel have them dominated in all other sectors.

Lets hope Bulldozer does well, and drives the older phenomII prices down, so AMD become competitive again in the lower market sector.

Also, It use to be that AMD had cheaper motherboards too, but now intel are just as cheap too (feature for feature - SATA/USB3.0 etc)
 
stulid said:
Also, It use to be that AMD had cheaper motherboards too, but now intel are just as cheap too (feature for feature - SATA/USB3.0 etc)
Click to expand...

Not quite yet, can't get a p67 board with 6 sata 3 ports for £70 from intel and there won't be for some time. Also, given that cheap performance used to come from cheap chip plus over-clock, locking their chips has virtually given md free reign of the lower end. Not that they had much choice. Intels chips perform far in excess of what the average user tend to need hence there are still pleny of 3.6GHz q6600 owners out there. Building an business model on people buying a new cpu and motherboard so frequently is basically what's brought about their locked chips.

oh and btw, that xbit review a couple post up. They used different ram on different chips. The results aren't consistent and a 955 requires 2400mhz (not the 200mhz stock) to make effective use of ddr3 1600. Nice, reliable reviews :rolleyes:
 
Azuse05 said:
Not quite yet, can't get a p67 board with 6 sata 3 ports for £70 from intel and there won't be for some time. Also, given that cheap performance used to come from cheap chip plus over-clock, locking their chips has virtually given md free reign of the lower end. Not that they had much choice. Intels chips perform far in excess of what the average user tend to need hence there are still pleny of 3.6GHz q6600 owners out there. Building an business model on people buying a new cpu and motherboard so frequently is basically what's brought about their locked chips.

oh and btw, that xbit review a couple post up. They used different ram on different chips. The results aren't consistent and a 955 requires 2400mhz (not the 200mhz stock) to make effective use of ddr3 1600. Nice, reliable reviews :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wrong, ever hard of a H67 chipset?:D which you would pair with a i3 CPU:p because you cant overclock either.

heres the cheapest H67 with SATA and USB3.0 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-172-MS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1907 - £60

heres the cheapest 800 series with SATA and USB3.0 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-134-MS&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=1782 - £70
 
Last edited:
stulid said:
Wrong, ever hard of a H67 chipset?:D which you would pair with a i3 CPU:p because you cant overclock either.

heres the cheapest H67 with SATA and USB3.0 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-172-MS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1907 - £60

heres the cheapest 800 series with SATA and USB3.0 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-134-MS&groupid=701&catid=1903&subcat=1782 - £70
Click to expand...

The cheapest ATX H67 motherboard which actually has monitor outputs I found is around £80 and it is an Intel one. There are quite a few ATX H67 motherboards especially from Gigabyte which lack monitor outputs for some daft reason.

Most of the H67 motherboards under this price range tend to be mATX. The H61 motherboards also only have 2 RAM slots usually and lack any SATA3.0 and USB3.0 ports too. That H67 does look quite good for the price but with two RAM slots no wonder it is £60.

Also,OcUK has a poor range of lower end AMD motherboards. You can get 870 motherboards with the SB850 southbridge and even USB 3.0 for between £55 to £65. They also have four RAM slots. There is at last one 880G mATX motherboard with two RAM slots,monitor outputs and USB3.0 for around £55. However it lacks SATA 3.0 ports. The MSI H67MA-E35 which has SATA3.0 and USB3.0 seems to be around £60 to £65 and is the socket AM3 equivalent of the MSI H67MA-E35.
 
Last edited:
Azuse05 said:
oh and btw, that xbit review a couple post up. They used different ram on different chips. The results aren't consistent and a 955 requires 2400mhz (not the 200mhz stock) to make effective use of ddr3 1600. Nice, reliable reviews :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But they used the same ram for the 955BE as they did for the 2100/2120:p
 
Doesn't have 6 sata 3 ports stulid, and the h67 can't oc. Might not be a feature of the i3 but it is a feature of the 8 series board from amd. An intel board that can oc and has 6 sata 3 ports costs double from intel what it does from amd.

Beside, the op asked about the i5-2500k and that needs a p67 board, which costs significantly more, somewhat offsetting the price/performance of the cpu - which is excellent.
 
stulid said:
The thread title is i3 vs?:p
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Stu, not so sure about Intel dominating every sector - you yourself proved that wrong when talking about lower price budgets :p

Similarly, AMD is expanding rather well into laptops and pre-built with their new APUs, something that's looking to increase.

But mainstream and high-end? Yes, Intel does dominate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom