• 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 1055T

M

mrugeshsamel

Junior Member
Guys,

I'm upgrading my desktop soon & as much as I'd like to have an Intel I7, I really cannot afford it. On a tight budget here... A friend suggested I rather go for AMD which will give me equivalent computing power @ almost half the price. I've always wanted to try AMD & here is my chance but can your opinions on:


  • Is AMD Phenom II X6 1055T good/better compared to Intel I7?
  • Which would be a compatible motherboard for AMD Phenom II X6 1055T?
  • What would be desirable amount of RAM for this?
Regards,
Mrugesh.
 
I could be wrong here, but i think that would be more comparable to an i3/Low-end i5. An i7 is a top of the line Intel processor, the 1055T is a midrange AMD processor. You get 6 cores, but you don't get the performance per core of an Intel processor, and it has a lower clock speed than anything above the i5-2300. It's a perfectly competent processor, but you're going to have to be realistic about the performance.

As for the RAM and motherboard, a little more info on what you use the computer for would help determine that. Would also make it easier to tell if that processor is sufficient.

Honestly, RAM is so cheap that I would just go for 8GB.
 
The X6 1055t is an AM3 processor so any AM3 or AM3+ motherboard will work. Just shop for a good brand within your budget. For Windows 7 you can be fine with just 4GB of RAM in most cases. If what you do demands more you'll soon know - must most of the time 4GB is sufficient. If its just a midrange previous generation processor though. An i3 2100 will be faster in most cases for the same price. If you don't have an AMD motherboard to begin with I wouldn't go that route anymore.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forum. I think 1055t isn't a bad choice, however, if you willing to spend just a bit more the 2500k or the soon to be released replacement for it the 3570K should not only suit your budget but be faster than 1055t in most apps. I'd personally just wait a few month for the 3570k then buy that.
 
Guys... Thanks for your replies... So which AMD processor is equivalent to Intel I7? I'd like to upgrade to a processor which would serve me for next 4 years like my current Intel Core 2 Duo has...Please help me out here...

I use my desktop extensively for watching HD movies & TV Shows & playing occasional games (FIFA Series)...
 
mrugeshsamel said:
Guys... Thanks for your replies... So which AMD processor is equivalent to Intel I7? I'd like to upgrade to a processor which would serve me for next 4 years like my current Intel Core 2 Duo has...Please help me out here...
Click to expand...

None. If you are looking at $300+ CPU, AMD has no equivalent. AMD is strictly a bargain option now.
 
Sadly there's no AMD CPU that can compete with the i7 2600k. The newest line of AMD CPUs (Bulldozer) are not what anyone hoped they would be in terms of performance.

I replaced my E8400 with a 1055t and have been doing fine for a couple years now. But thats the problem, the 1055T is still the fastest processor you can get from AMD (it overclocks the same as the 1100T).

If you are on a budget, find an i5 on sale and go with that.
 
mrugeshsamel said:
Guys... Thanks for your replies... So which AMD processor is equivalent to Intel I7? I'd like to upgrade to a processor which would serve me for next 4 years like my current Intel Core 2 Duo has...Please help me out here...

I use my desktop extensively for watching HD movies & TV Shows & playing occasional games (FIFA Series)...
Click to expand...

AMD has NOTHING that can match the performance of Intel's current I7 offerings.

Intel is going for faster cores, AMD seems to go for more slow cores, the performance per core of FX is actually lower than Phenom II, so it's lower than Core2 as well. The FX processors loose to a Core I3 is many tasks because many tasks can't use the extra cores, and swaps blows with I5 in well threaded work loads, I7 pulls ahead.
 
mrugeshsamel said:
Guys... Thanks for your replies... So which AMD processor is equivalent to Intel I7? I'd like to upgrade to a processor which would serve me for next 4 years like my current Intel Core 2 Duo has...Please help me out here...

I use my desktop extensively for watching HD movies & TV Shows & playing occasional games (FIFA Series)...
Click to expand...

Yeah everyone here has good points. BD has a chance to age gracefully as Win8 and programs get more and more multi-threaded. There is also a slim chance for a substantial jump in Piledriver, as there were a couple major design points that they committed to Bulldozer before Intel made a shift (Like FMA4 instead of FMA3). But that said the FX-8 is going to be measurably slower in programs that you would notice if something is measurably slower. The closest you can come to a 2500k is with a 1090t or 1100t with a pretty decent OC. It would still lose out and really lose out on an overclocked 2500k, but having the 2 extra cores could help it a couple years down the road. But at that point you just spend and extra $75 or so (or if you have a Microcenter near by it would be the same price when you add a mobo now that the 2500k doesn't have a combo offer) to getting a 2600k, HT will close the gap a bit going forward while being faster overall.
 
I'm really glad that I checked with you guys before taking any decision... I think I have to get Intel Core i5-2500K 6MB 3.30 GHz even if that means going over the budget a bit... I was really wondering how come AMD is so cheaper... Now I know why.... :biggrin:
 
Topweasel said:
The closest you can come to a 2500k is with a 1090t or 1100t with a pretty decent OC.
Click to expand...

FX-8150 is still faster than phenom X6, despite the lackluster performance. Don't exaggerate the problems.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=203

FX-8150 is faster overall, though there are several tests where the 1100T wins. Overclocking is a gamble either way, but based on common results the 8150 is still faster after OC, though it might cost you a lot more power usage.

If you can find a cheap 1100T, sure get it. But I wouldn't pay more for one than an 8150 out of some misguided idea that it's a faster CPU, because it isn't. Arguably about equal, but not faster.
 
mrugeshsamel said:
I'm really glad that I checked with you guys before taking any decision... I think I have to get Intel Core i5-2500K 6MB 3.30 GHz even if that means going over the budget a bit... I was really wondering how come AMD is so cheaper... Now I know why.... :biggrin:
Click to expand...
If you intend to use your system for 3-4+ years. I'd rather pay more and get a 2600K instead. Most modern games/apps already make short work of 4 threads, as of today. Either 2600K or FX-8150 🙂
 
Last edited:
That's true, albeit a negligible upgrade nevertheless an upgrade. The issue with the 8150 would be the asking price, which is still over what most would call reasonable considering its performance.

OP, the 2500K is what you should be looking at for a gaming build. If you have a Microcenter near you then you may want to consider an 8150 and AM3+ board, but the 2500K deal at Microcenter is also almost comparable. Outside of Microcenter or any secondhand deals the 2500K is your best bet from most etailers.
 
Magic Carpet said:
If you intend to use your system for 3-4+ years. I'd rather pay more and get a 2600K instead. Most modern games/apps already make short work of 4 threads, as of today. Either 2600K or FX-8150 🙂
Click to expand...
Intel Core i5-2550K Processor (6M Cache, 3.40 GHz) is what I think would suffice my needs. 2600K is I7 right? As much as I want it, it's way too expensive for me... 🙁
 
Do not get the 2550K. It's the same chip as the 2500K but it's graphics were fused because they couldn't cut it. You would essentially be paying more money for a worse overall CPU.

The 2500K will be enough for the next 3-4 years. It's one of those Q6600/AMD64 chips that just seem to do really well as time goes on.
 
pelov said:
That's true, albeit a negligible upgrade nevertheless an upgrade. The issue with the 8150 would be the asking price, which is still over what most would call reasonable considering its performance.

OP, the 2500K is what you should be looking at for a gaming build. If you have a Microcenter near you then you may want to consider an 8150 and AM3+ board, but the 2500K deal at Microcenter is also almost comparable. Outside of Microcenter or any secondhand deals the 2500K is your best bet from most etailers.
Click to expand...

Microcenter no longer has deal on the I5's, has to be an I7. So actually if your getting a free mobo the 2600 would be very similar in price.

Also don't get a 2550. They do not overclock better, its 100 MHZ faster but you lose the GMA3000. But if a 2500k can't overclock that extra 100mhz at pretty much no extra cost in power or voltage usage, then you have a defective CPU. Seriously no overclock is guaranteed but a 100mhz upgrade without changing anything should be damn close. Save the couple of dollars and keep that emergency GPU and the quick-sync it brings with it.
 
Chiropteran said:
FX-8150 is faster overall, though there are several tests where the 1100T wins.
Click to expand...

Several?!? There's like 20 out of 50 that the 1100t is better in - especially when you get to gaming benchmarks. That is pretty pathetic for a new architecture when the old gen beats it in 40% of benchmarks.
 
Leyawiin said:
Several?!? There's like 20 out of 50 that the 1100t is better in - especially when you get to gaming benchmarks. That is pretty pathetic for a new architecture when the old gen beats it in 40% of benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Whatever. They are equal at best, at worst the 8150 is a little faster. Point is I wouldn't pay extra just to get a 1100T, although if you find a deal and can get one on the cheap it could be a great deal. I was under the impression that the 1100T was mostly sold out, but after a quick search I've found a few sources selling them for $199.

Get whichever one is cheaper, unless you only care about a specific application that one or the other excels at.
 
Your friend would be better off with an x4 980BE instead of an x6 1055T. 99% of current PC games don't take advantage of 6 cores and the few that do, it's only a few percent difference. However the x4 980BE should beat the x6 1055T in all current games due to the much higher clock speed. I think that going for an x6 1055T over and x4 980BE is too much of a compromise in clock speed for more 2 more cores, at least in current gaming. Heck, I think even an x4 955BE would be a better choice than an x6 1055T for gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top