• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

At Microcenter Intel i5 750 and AMD Phen2 955 are both 149.99 and considering total $

ajtyeh

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2006
1,267
1
0
I'm going for a gamer budget build:

Given that the differences between an INTEL or an AMD build will be the CPU/MOBO and maybe memory.

This is what i know: (correct me if i'm wrong)
1. Because the computer will be 90% gaming, I will have no benefit for extra threads or tripple channel memory.
2. Both the i5 uses only ddr3 memory, and p2 955 can use both ddr2-3. (but given the recent bloody increases in ddr2 prices, 6gb ddr3 is equal or cheaper then 6gb of ddr2)

Here is what i compiled considering i have access to Microcenter.


INTEL BUILD:

INTEL i5 750 CPU: $150
6gb ddr3 mem: $90
Foxconn P55MX LGA 1156 Intel P55 or ASRock P55M Pro LGA 1156: $90-100

so $330-340 for the barebones intel i5 build

AMD BUILD

AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU: $150
6gb ddr3 mem: $90
Any am2 mobo for: $50

so $290 for the barebones AMD 955 build.

So the magic number is 50 bucks. Is the i5 750 worth 50 more bucks?

side note: i think because of the ddr2 memory tripling in the last year, it really has cut down the margin between a i5/i7 build and a AMD phenom II build. Where a year ago you could have 6gb of ddr2 mem for 30 bucks. which would result in a difference for $100+ between an i5/i7 build
 
Last edited:

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Go for 4GB RAM (you don't need 6GB in a budget build... and neither will really benefit from 6GB in terms of channels, since both are dual channel).

What will the extra $50 do? Will it mean a $50 cheaper build, or will it mean you can spend $50 more on your graphics card?
 

deimos3428

Senior member
Mar 6, 2009
697
0
0
I'm not sure where you're going to find an AM2 motherboard with DDR3 slots for $50, but personally I'd stick with the 955 build. Put the extra $50 towards a higher quality AM3 motherboard.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
The i5 750 beats the X4 965 BE at almost everything and the 955 is slower than it. The choice is obvious if you want the better performing CPU, the i5 750.

Also if you buy a 6GB kit of memory you will be running single channel and lose performance by running odd numbers of sticks if I'm not mistaken. 4GB (2x2GB) is what you want.
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
Motherboards aren't created equal. That Foxconn wouldn't be my first choice, but it's likely to have higher quality components than a $50 AMD board.

So your question is: can you use the cheapest possible motherboard and still have a satisfactory computing experience? The answer is: "possibly."

I'd get the i5. It'll at least equal the phenom in gaming (turbo mode!), overclock better once it's too slow to play on stock settings, and be much faster in things other than gaming. Yes, you can skimp on the board when going with AMD. Your mileage in running a stressed quad on the cheapest motherboard you can buy may vary.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
If a person disables Turbo mode on Core i5 how much faster clock for clock is it than Phenom II X4?

Usually the stock speed comparisons confuse me because I know Turbo mode is obscuring the results.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,833
278
126
If a person disables Turbo mode on Core i5 how much faster clock for clock is it than Phenom II X4?

Usually the stock speed comparisons confuse me because I know Turbo mode is obscuring the results.
Read the review from AT. They turn turbo off as well.

Besides, unless you're overclocking which wasn't mentioned considering the budget motherboards here, why would you care whether turbo is on and making the i5 faster? That's like saying you have a V8 Mustang and need to turn off 4 cylinders to make it fair for the V4 Civic. It doesn't work like that.
 
Last edited:

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Besides, unless you're overclocking which wasn't mentioned considering the budget motherboards here, why would you care whether turbo is on and making the i5 faster? That's like saying you have a V8 Mustang and need to turn off 4 cylinders to make it fair for the V4 Civic. It doesn't work like that.
I like Turbo mode but if Core i5 750 is being overclocked to 4 ghz I'm sure a person would need to turn it off. At this point we would be comparing max overclocked Phenom II and Core i5 clock for clock.

P.S. (anyone) What is the highest OC I can use with Core i5 750 without disabling Turbo mode. At that new OC point how fast could my Turbo mode go for one core?
 

Hyperlite

Diamond Member
May 25, 2004
5,664
1
76
I like Turbo mode but if Core i5 750 is being overclocked to 4 ghz I'm sure a person would need to turn it off. At this point we would be comparing max overclocked Phenom II and Core i5 clock for clock.

P.S. (anyone) What is the highest OC I can use with Core i5 750 without disabling Turbo mode. At that new OC point how fast could my Turbo mode go for one core?
read anand's lynnfield article. they talk about OCing the i5 and turbo mode.
 

Ayah

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,512
1
81
The highest overclock will be whatever your chip sets. Nobody can tell you what your specific chip will overclock to. Every piece of silicon is different. It's luck of the draw.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,842
325
126
With DDR3, a 955 BE build lose quite a bit of its appeal vs. i5-750 build. In my case it was a no brainer because I already had 8GB of DDR2 memory, which I could reuse thus saving $200 for DDR3 memory. For a brand-new build + overclocking, i5-750 has an advantage. It may come out $20~30 more than 955 BE, but it's definitely worth it.

And no, $50 motherboard is not a good idea especially for high-end CPUs like 955 BE and i5-750.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
1
81
i will definitely spent the $50 for i5 750 since at 4ghz, it's equivalent to like a 5ghz PII. there's absolutely no comparison in performance once overclocked. i5 is simply that much faster not to mention uses less power. but if you not going to OC too much or at all then I would think either will be quite close.

choosing between i5 vs i7, I'd go i5 simply because for gaming you only need 4Gb and you can save on motherboard cost, dump it into upgrading your gcard into say 5850 or 5870 either will make your gaming rid much stronger compare to a i7 with a weaker card. that is if you have little interest in the 6-core upgrade intel have in stock for 1366 which won't be on 1156.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
1
81
i will definitely spent the $50 for i5 750 since at 4ghz, it's equivalent to like a 5ghz PII. there's absolutely no comparison in performance once overclocked. i5 is simply that much faster not to mention uses less power. but if you not going to OC too much or at all then I would think either will be quite close.

choosing between i5 vs i7, I'd go i5 simply because for gaming you only need 4Gb and you can save on motherboard cost, dump it into upgrading your gcard into say 5850 or 5870 either will make your gaming rid much stronger compare to a i7 with a weaker card. that is if you have little interest in the 6-core upgrade intel have in stock for 1366 which won't be on 1156.
 

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
This is going to change once AMD launches the 32nm Phenom IIs.
...which would be useful advice if he was waiting until Q4 2010 or Q1 2011?

Besides, you have zero evidence of this assertion unless you have final 32nm silicon in your hands (which I somehow doubt).
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
1
81
This is going to change once AMD launches the 32nm Phenom IIs.
god knows they do need it next year but most reports put it at second half of 2010 at best about 1 year behind intel's 32nm transition. still if they can get PII into 32nm form that probably means you can OC it beyond 4ghz that will put some competition on the table.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
...which would be useful advice if he was waiting until Q4 2010 or Q1 2011?

Besides, you have zero evidence of this assertion unless you have final 32nm silicon in your hands (which I somehow doubt).
Well at least with the AMD choice he has something to look forward to. I can't believe Intel decided to dead end LGA 1156 quads @ 45nm.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
I'm going for a gamer budget build:

Given that the differences between an INTEL or an AMD build will be the CPU/MOBO and maybe memory.

This is what i know: (correct me if i'm wrong)
1. Because the computer will be 90% gaming, I will have no benefit for extra threads or tripple channel memory.
2. Both the i5 uses only ddr3 memory, and p2 955 can use both ddr2-3. (but given the recent bloody increases in ddr2 prices, 6gb ddr3 is equal or cheaper then 6gb of ddr2)

Here is what i compiled considering i have access to Microcenter.


INTEL BUILD:

INTEL i5 750 CPU: $150
6gb ddr3 mem: $90
Foxconn P55MX LGA 1156 Intel P55 or ASRock P55M Pro LGA 1156: $90-100

so $330-340 for the barebones intel i5 build

AMD BUILD

AMD Phenom II X4 955 CPU: $150
6gb ddr3 mem: $90
Any am2 mobo for: $50

so $290 for the barebones AMD 955 build.

So the magic number is 50 bucks. Is the i5 750 worth 50 more bucks?

side note: i think because of the ddr2 memory tripling in the last year, it really has cut down the margin between a i5/i7 build and a AMD phenom II build. Where a year ago you could have 6gb of ddr2 mem for 30 bucks. which would result in a difference for $100+ between an i5/i7 build
You also might want to read up on how GPU choice affects AMD CPUs.--->http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640&p=3

According to that report in some instances any advantage Core i7 has over Phenom II disappears when a Nvidia GPU is used.
 

jvroig

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,394
1
81
The situation is this: in some cases, Nehalem can go from being much faster than Phenom II, to being measurably slower within the same benchmark depending on resolution. Gary was the first to tie the issue to the GPU used. Gary found that NVIDIA GPUs appeared to behave this way on Nehalem/Phenom II while AMD GPUs didn't. In other words, NVIDIA GPUs were running faster on AMD hardware while AMD GPUs were running faster on Intel hardware. It's all very strange.
So sometimes an AMD CPU + nVidia GPU means Phenom II performs better than Nehalem? Is this a persistent issue, not something fixed by an nVidia driver update already released?
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
So sometimes an AMD CPU + nVidia GPU means Phenom II performs better than Nehalem? Is this a persistent issue, not something fixed by an nVidia driver update already released?
It's just nVidia trying to do revenge due to Intel locking them out.
/tinfoil hat

This can be easily solved by getting an AMD/ATI GPU...They're better now in both performance and performance/dollar now so there's no excuse not to unless you can get an nVidia card for free or your current card performs good enough.
 
Last edited:

ilkhan

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2006
1,117
1
0
This is going to change once AMD launches the 32nm Phenom IIs.
Which is still going to get slapped around by sandy bridge.
The unknown is BD vs ivy, until that point the relative performance is fairly fixed.

Id say i5-750 (my always fluctuating plans are for a 750 at the moment).

Well at least with the AMD choice he has something to look forward to. I can't believe Intel decided to dead end LGA 1156 quads @ 45nm.
Intel doesn't have the capacity for more 32nm chips, between clarkdale/arrandale and gulftown, they're going to be maxed out until the additional plants come online (and the first of which will add capacity *most likely* *just* for xeon chips.). Sandy bridge is probably going to be "done" before the capacity is available.
 
Last edited:

the kernel

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2008
19
0
0
Well at least with the AMD choice he has something to look forward to. I can't believe Intel decided to dead end LGA 1156 quads @ 45nm.
Evidence? Just because there aren't any Westmere quad derivatives on the roadmap for LGA 1156 doesn't mean that there won't be future CPUs shipped on it either in the Westmere or Sandy Bridge varieties.

As ilkhan says, this is most likely a capacity issue, Intel is not killing support for the platform.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,842
325
126
Intel doesn't have the capacity for more 32nm chips, between clarkdale/arrandale and gulftown, they're going to be maxed out until the additional plants come online (and the first of which will add capacity *most likely* *just* for xeon chips.). Sandy bridge is probably going to be "done" before the capacity is available.
Do you work for Intel?
 

ilkhan

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2006
1,117
1
0
Do you work for Intel?
anandtech 32nm update article said:
In Oregon Intel has the D1D fab which is already producing 32nm parts, and D1C which is scheduled to start 32nm production at the end of this year. Then two fabs in Arizona: Fab 32 and Fab 11X. Both of them come on line in 2010.
No, I most definitely do NOT work for Intel.

And because IDC had mentioned it before, its not that the additional capacity for D1C will be making only xeon parts (as either plant can make either chip), but the additional capacity will be used to add retail sales of xeon chips and expand clarkdale/arrandale production (we'll probably see an expanded line of value clarkdale/arrandale chips and 32nm atom at this point. The number of atom codenames has confused me, AFAIK the atom SoC chips are TSMC or GF and the not SoC chips are still from Intel's fabs).
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY