• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, or Sandy Bridge 2500K?

VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Considering an upgrade to AM3+, with a Phenom II X6 1045T (95W, 2.7Ghz stock), on a Gigabyte AM3+ mobo.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128519
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128510
Want SLI support, to use my two GTX460s.

Wondering if the Phenom II X6 would be much faster than my Q9300, in both gaming, and in distributed computing.

Also wondering how it compares to a 2500K in distributed computing.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=288
The only benchmark the X6 wins is the 7-zip one, and then it turns around and loses the real-world 7-zip benchmark.

Still unsure how the X6 fares against the 2500K in DC.
 
Last edited:
The x6 will be faster in distributed computing, not games though at least not clock for clock.

If you're running 1080/1200 go with the i5, the AMD system will slow you down.
 
if you buying new, get a i5 2500k, once overclocked doubt x6 will beat it by much. for DC you must check some benchmarks to be sure but I'd say 2500k clocked to 4,2+ will be very hard to top.

but .. if your 1045t costs that much less, I'd consider it. afterall in gaming it's the video card that matters most.
 
Price is kind of a wash. X6 1045T is $130 at MC. Not avail at Newegg. Those mobos I was looking at, the higher-end 990XA-UD3 with SLI support is $140 at Newegg.

2500K is $180 at MC, motherboards, let's say $150 too, but MC has that $50 mobo discount, so it comes out to nearly the same price either way.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Price is kind of a wash. X6 1045T is $130 at MC. Not avail at Newegg. Those mobos I was looking at, the higher-end 990XA-UD3 with SLI support is $140 at Newegg.

2500K is $180 at MC, motherboards, let's say $150 too, but MC has that $50 mobo discount, so it comes out to nearly the same price either way.
Click to expand...

As far as performance in something like Folding@home goes they'll be pretty similar at the same clocks, but we all know Sandy Bridge overclocks higher and consumes a lot less power. In terms of percentage of voltage increase, for what you can increase on a 2500K to 4.4-4.5GHz you'll only be able to get 3.8GHz or so on a Phenom II (the upper limit of the Phenom II is 4-4.2GHz and of Sandy Bridge is 4.6-4.8GHz). In that case the 2500K will obviously perform better. You could get -bigadv to run on either of these with some tricks before, but that won't be possible anymore since from this month onwards you'll need 16 threads to run -bigadv and the deadlines will get a lot stricter. At this point you're looking at SMP-only folding. This is as far as F@h goes; I don't know much about the other DC projects.

Since you said you have a MC near there's really zero reason to go for the Phenom II. It consumes more power, delivers less performance, and the cost difference is a wash.
 
I agree with axel, the sandy bridges OC farther, and if you have the MC near you, a 2600K could also help with the HT for computation. I know my friend got his 2600K to about 4.7 on about 1.355 V. A good 2500K might reach 5 GHz.
 
If your going with a new motherboard, you might as well get the 2500k. You'll notice a difference between the C2Q and X6 in games like BF3 and multithreaded applications. But beyond that there isn't much of a difference. If your on a budget, go with the x6, if not, go with the i5
 
You'd best get a good mobo to go with that killer i5 2500K! Get an Asus P8Z68-V Gen3 mobo and overclock the living shit on that 2500K!

Happy gaming!
 
I havent used F@H only SETI and that was 4-5 years ago,

At the same price, wouldn't FX8120 be faster than 2500K ??
 
Just get a 2500K and oc it to 4.5ghz.
At those speeds you'll get excellent allround performance, not just gaming.
 
i was thinking of 1100t be vs 2500k back then but ended up w/2600k after reading a lot of reviews.i dont regret purchasing this since it gave me 2x speed on handbreak and c4d activities vs my old q8400 🙂
 
VirtualLarry said:
Still unsure how the X6 fares against the 2500K in DC.
Click to expand...
Since I own both. In games, there's about 30% difference (on my slower GTS 450). Everywhere else however, the difference isn't very noticeable. At heavier multi-tasking though, Thuban is equal or better.

Speaking of load power consumption, both can be made ran under the 1ooW mark at stock clocks. Thuban does consume quite a bit more power when overclocked though. It's worth pointing out, that the increased power draw doesn't lead to uncomfortable temps and thus jeopardizing your system stability. Furthermore, Thuban passed one my thermal tests, quite nicely (I managed to fix that board by the way). Build quality is still there, despite dropping the performance crown after the Athlon 64 days.

If you can't choose between the two, get a used 2600k instead. The other real good alternative, albeit more expensive. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother to upgrade at all. That Q9300 is still quite decent.

However, you might have a joker card with AM3+, if AMD decides to keep that socket afloat for a while. 970 AM3+ boards may look quite appealing then.

 
Last edited:
Meh wprime isn't exactly what I'd consider a valuable tool in judging performance... Unless you actually think a 975 is better than an i5-2500k...

My i5-2500k is a much better chip than my 1090T, both in threaded applications and less threaded it's the overall better choice. Considering the OP is looking to spend exactly the same for an i5-2500k as he would any x6 Phenom II the choice is really nothing that should be discussed, i5-2500k wins hands down.

As far as gaming performance goes the i5 has a huge advantage in dual card rigs.

There is also the x factor, which is overclocking. Phenom II with it's lower IPC and much slower IMC doesn't hold up as well as the i5-2500k.

However the major turning point is SLI, I would never recommend using SLI on an AMD platform, the performance loss compared to an i5-2500k is apparent in every bench ever done and the differences become extremely drastic when the games played are cpu limited such as SC2 and Skyrim.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
Meh wprime isn't exactly what I'd consider a valuable tool in judging performance... Unless you actually think a 975 is better than an i5-2500k...
Click to expand...
wPrime is a good tool to evaluate overall processor strength. When you do multiple things (DC) on your computer, that's the benchmark to look for.
 
Last edited:
Try gaming and video encoding at the same time?

e.g.

4 cores for BF3 and 2 cores for encoding. => 1090T

3 cores for BF3 and 1 core for encoding => 2500K

Record FPS and encoding times, see who is faster.
 
Last edited:
BallaTheFeared said:
The x6 will be faster in distributed computing, not games though at least not clock for clock.

If you're running 1080/1200 go with the i5, the AMD system will slow you down.
Click to expand...

Funny that hasn't been my experience at all, though I see things like this kicked around the forum quite a bit. I don't even have an X6, I have a "lowly" X4.
 
Magic Carpet said:
Since I own both. In games, there's about 30% difference (on my slower GTS 450). Everywhere else however, the difference isn't very noticeable. At heavier multi-tasking though, Thuban is equal or better.
Click to expand...

This has been my point for a while now. In day to day use, including heavy multitasking, I can't tell the difference.

A coworker of mine has an i7 920 @ 4.0GHz and two HD5850s, just like me. We both play at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed out. When BF3 was released, we had both machines side by side, his and mine (sig). After spending several hours playing and switching off, our conclusion was there was no discernible difference in game play or usability and if someone didn't tell you the specs of the box, you wouldn't know one was AMD and one was Intel.

The Intel CPUs score better in benchmarks, no denying this. In real world use, especially for power users who overclock, is there any real, discernible difference? Maybe there is for someone out there - for me there isn't.
 
Vic Vega said:
This has been my point for a while now. In day to day use, including heavy multitasking, I can't tell the difference.

A coworker of mine has an i7 920 @ 4.0GHz and two HD5850s, just like me. We both play at 1920x1200 with all settings maxed out. When BF3 was released, we had both machines side by side, his and mine (sig). After spending several hours playing and switching off, our conclusion was there was no discernible difference in game play or usability and if someone didn't tell you the specs of the box, you wouldn't know one was AMD and one was Intel.

The Intel CPUs score better in benchmarks, no denying this. In real world use, especially for power users who overclock, is there any real, discernible difference? Maybe there is for someone out there - for me there isn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but here's the thing: Sandy Bridge is twice as efficient as K10.5/Stars and in many scenarios noticeably faster. Not bragging, but my current system power consumption under full Prime95 and FurMark combined is a measly 250W. The CPU itself only accounts for around 110W. That's around 1.5x less than what a comparably OCed Phenom II X4 would consume. It's also demonstrably faster in programs like video and photo editing, and also gaming. By big amounts, too: in gaming both the 2500K/2600K deliver 10-50% higher framerates. In video editing and video transcoding the 2500K is 40% faster clock-for-clock than a Phenom II X4, and it clocks higher making the difference over 50%. You're looking at about the same numbers comparing the Phenom II X6 vs the 2600K.

So ultimately, it depends on what you define as "day to day use". My day to day use includes transcoding large video files to my smartphone. Are the five-ten daily minutes and power consumption I save going for a 2600K over a Phenom II X6 worth the additional cost? To me, definitely. Someone with a 3930K could say the same thing about the 2600K (except for power consumption, and I don't mention the 3960X because clock-for-clock it's less than 1% faster than the 3930K).
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Yeah, but here's the thing: Sandy Bridge is twice as efficient as K10.5/Stars and in many scenarios noticeably faster. Not bragging, but my current system power consumption under full Prime95 and FurMark combined is a measly 250W. The CPU itself only accounts for around 110W. That's around 1.5x less than what a comparably OCed Phenom II X4 would consume. It's also demonstrably faster in programs like video and photo editing, and also gaming. By big amounts, too: in gaming both the 2500K/2600K deliver 10-50% higher framerates. In video editing and video transcoding the 2500K is 40% faster clock-for-clock than a Phenom II X4, and it clocks higher making the difference over 50%. You're looking at about the same numbers comparing the Phenom II X6 vs the 2600K.

So ultimately, it depends on what you define as "day to day use". My day to day use includes transcoding large video files to my smartphone. Are the five-ten daily minutes and power consumption I save going for a 2600K over a Phenom II X6 worth the additional cost? To me, definitely. Someone with a 3930K could say the same thing about the 2600K (except for power consumption, and I don't mention the 3960X because clock-for-clock it's less than 1% faster than the 3930K).
Click to expand...

This is why I state in my comments that for me, there is no difference. For you, perhaps there is but for me, contrary to what you state, I don't see a noticeable difference in gaming, using various applications or other tasks. If you can "get more" out of the Intel CPU, I think that's awesome - more power to you. Additionally I don't see a marketable problem with my power or AC bill either, go figure.

I don't use a stop watch when I'm working during the day. So if a task takes 12 minutes versus a 15 minutes my likelihood to notice is not great, of course if I did time it the difference would be there. I would argue more time is wasted posting on internet forums than productivity lost using a PII vs an i7. 😛
 
Vic Vega said:
Funny that hasn't been my experience at all, though I see things like this kicked around the forum quite a bit. I don't even have an X6, I have a "lowly" X4.
Click to expand...

I went from a 955@3.6GHz to a 2500k - even at stock speeds, the 2500k was very noticeably smoother in Skyrim using my same video card, an HD5770. Can't speak for any other games as this is the only one I'm playing right now. I really wasn't expecting to notice a difference between the two CPUs as I don't bench or bother doing any comparisons; I only bought the 2500k to give OSX a try on my system.

I was super happy with my 955 and before I considered trying OSX I was going to keep it for at least a few more years - but Sandy Bridge is really quite a noticeable upgrade. Luckily for me, because turns out I like Windows 7 a whole lot better than Lion 😛

Also little things like foobar2000 replaygain scanning - my 955 would scan at 1000x real-time, this one does 1600x - converting FLAC to lame MP3 used to run at 150x real time and now it's around 260x. Not that I really care about that stuff as it's super fast either way, but those are the only direct comparisons I've done.
 
Last edited:
Either of those CPUs would be fine. 2500k isn't going to win in a multithreaded benchmark because you are comparing an apple to an orange. We know for a fact that Intel has a better upgrade path with 1155 this year.

AM3+ may or may not.
 
Depending on clock speeds it can overtake the Phenom II x6 in most multithreaded tasks.

Not a huge difference, but faster none the less, and in gaming/lightly threaded apps it's quite a bit faster.
 
I know that between the 1090t and the 2600k that briefly ran that the 2600k is a beastly folder.

When it comes to some DC projects though, they seemed tuned for AMD and the extra physical cores equal better ppd, especially if you have to lose a core for GPU folding.

If only Intel had a six core IVB 1155 @ 3ghz coming, it wouldn't be much of a discussion at all 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top