# amd Phenom x6 1090T VS Intel i7 930?



## MrLinky

If you want future-proofing and upgradability, the AM3 build, hands-down.


----------



## JVene

First off, it's unfortunate but I predict this, like so many threads that bring the two into comparison, may end in childish rants about how one is a better deal, or benchmarks more, than the other.

I apologize on their behalf in advance.

Factually, it's the Intel platform that has more socket variety than AMD, so it's more likely that an AM3 motherboard will support newer AMD products in the future, than an Intel platform. We see 3 sockets in the lineup for Intel where there's really one with 3 interpretations for AMD (AM2/AM2+/AM3 are all the same physical pinout, and most of the CPU's cross back and forth).

Now that Intel has put memory controllers in it's lineup we may see the same price benefit that's been common to AMD for some time - it's been simpler to make the AMD motherboard (fewer layers required) in the past, but not with the newer Intels. I've not seen yet that's fully translated into cheaper Intel boards, but the likelyhood you can incrementally upgrade is a little higher in AMD.

For example, I had the lowest in X2 on a board I originally purchased in (I think 2006) for $60. I upgraded to a Phenom II X3 some time ago, long before the official bios or the vendor's CPU support list included it (I don't think it ever did).

When I upgraded to the PII X4 955, the CPU ran without issue.

I have, subsequently, replaced that motherboard in search of better features, keeping the X4 955 - and while the board didn't list X6 in it's support list, it was added to that list a few days ago with a BIOS upgrade posted 4/30/2010.

The i7 930 offers STOCK performance that closely matches the 3.9Ghz overclock performance of an X6 (some can hit 4.1Ghz, but we're not yet really sure of that's reasonably common or really stable).

An i7 930 overclocked would easily be about 20 to 25% faster than the X6 in most performance categories.

There are, however, a few deals on the AMD X6 that make it much less in cost (I notice you've intelligently selected two CPU's at the same price point). Tiger/CompUSA has or had a very generous rebate that dropped the price considerably.

The i7 supports hyperthreading, which in theory could out maneuver the multitasking availability of even the AMD X6, but not in some tasks I find important like virtualization.

The prices have been chosen to pit these two in competition, so it can boil down to what you want from the motherboard and possibly triple channel DDR3, which the AMD system can't do.

If I got the rebate on the AMD, I'd probably select it.

If I could get a deal on RAM (not happening these days), and on the motherboard, I'd go for the i7 - but I have as much preference for the cash I get to keep than for raw figures. I use my system more than I benchmark it (but then I've been a tech, overclocking since the days when that meant soldering in a replacement crystal on a 286 IBM AT).

I have the AMD - and in fact, I'd advise going lower than the X6 right now.

There are some OEM X4's for around $130, even $100 for the Propus quad cores, which perform very nicely (especially if you've not used a system this side of a Core 2 yet) - but get into a good AMD motherboard, ready to drop in the X6 when it's price comes toward you.

Then, too, I'd do something like that even if I were thinking Intel, but it's tougher. Moving down the list toward the $150 CPU's moves you back into the 775 socket, not the socket the i7 is in - and not likely the socket you'll need when the time comes to move beyond the i7.

There's no guarantee that future AMD chips WILL work in a current AM3 board, it's just much more likely.

In my own systems, I have a 955 BE at 3.8 with 8Gbytes RAM, where at any moment you'd find I have 2 or 3 VM's running various operating systems, a couple of instances of Visual Studio, one of 3DS Max, another of Photoshop, possibly Illustrator, a couple of browsers in the VM's, FTP clients, FTP servers, SQL servers, SQL Client applications I'm building under debug in Visual Studio, various SQL design tools, and quite possibly a video transcode and or a DVD burning session all at the same time (64 bit OS).

So, they DO work!


----------



## Coldfreak

Thank you for that explanation it was extremely helpful. My question now is would this processor (955 BE) be able to handle the new high end games coming out in the next year or two if i left it at stock speeds and paired it with a good graphics card or two like the ATI 5770?


----------



## JVene

I would have to qualify the difficulty of anticipating what game engines are going to do in the next few years, but it's quite likely true.

I happen to be a software engineer, and I do work on game engines occasionally, among a wide range of other things. Game engines push the data describing a scene into the graphics RAM - the cycle of the game animation is usually to perform setup, some 3D work in the CPU (not a lot of it threaded), some AI, UI, then we tell the graphics card to render - we're done until the next frame cycle - the graphics card takes over.

In older generations, like DX9 or OpenGL 1.x, there was still a considerable amount of work to be done in prep which is now moved or is moving into the graphics card, so the trend has been to depend upon the CPU less - that is, until AI complexity increases, or audio special effects, etc....


----------



## jj775

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Coldfreak* 
Thank you for that explanation it was extremely helpful. My question now is would this processor (955 BE) be able to handle the new high end games coming out in the next year or two if i left it at stock speeds and paired it with a good graphics card or two like the ATI 5770?

Yes it will be able to handle the games. Overclocking it would add more to performance though, and should keep it for the next year. Be sure to get the C3 stepping also.


----------



## purpleannex

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JVene* 
The i7 930 offers STOCK performance that closely matches the 3.9Ghz overclock performance of an X6 (some can hit 4.1Ghz, but we're not yet really sure of that's reasonably common or really stable).

An i7 930 overclocked would easily be about 20 to 25% faster than the X6 in most performance categories.

4.1Ghz stable is easy.

i7 930 in most benchmarks at any clocks, is of similar performance or slower X6. See the web benches in my signiture.


----------



## horrorbuff

look at some real benchmarks posted in this thread i7 FTW but the x6 is cheaper of course.......http://www.overclock.net/general-pro...ml#post9237441


----------



## solomonshv

I hate to beat a dead horse, but Microcenter sells the Intel i7 930 for only $200 + tax at their brick and mortar stores. that comes out to less then 220 with taxes. You can also score this chip for $250 in certain online stores, such as ewiz, using their monthly coupons. Currently, it is SCHOOL15 for 15% off. This makes the Intel i7 a more appealing choice. I was not able to locate a 1090T for less then 300 ANYWHERE.


----------



## DarkstarX10a

@OP

Either one would reap you a pretty darn good performance. Since you been out of the game for a while.. you can expect eye popping results. The Ci7 would most likely cost you a bit more, in terms of investment to get the platform up. Depending on what you use it for, tailor fit it to either one.. that includes your budget limits. Best Bang for the Buck is certainly on the AMD side, a P55 / Ci5 750 is no slouch either.


----------



## argya

how come the 1075T beats 1090T?how about OCability?


----------



## denl0

I have read 1090T is cheaper then i7 930. In Belgium it sure isen't... (altough the x58 might make it more expensive)


----------



## Brutuz

Go for whichever is cheaper (In terms of total cost for the CPU and motherboard)

When the Phenom II has a reasonably high CPU/NB clock (3Ghz, etc) and a high CPU clock, the difference between a Core i7 at the same speed (Say, 4.2Ghz with the max Uncore speed it can get) is definitely not noticeable unless you only do benchmarking, that said, iirc the Phenom II x6 is faster at Video Encoding.


----------



## pursuinginsanity

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=100

That's the 950 instead of the 930, but anandtech didn't have the 930 and they're the same price now. At stock clocks the i7 runs away with something like 28 out of the 31 benchmarks.

Then consider the i7 will overclock more (as a percentage of the stock clocks) and I don't think there's any reason one should consider the Thuban.


----------



## Drenlin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity* 
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=100

That's the 950 instead of the 930, but anandtech didn't have the 930 and they're the same price now. At stock clocks the i7 runs away with something like 28 out of the 31 benchmarks.

Then consider the i7 will overclock more (as a percentage of the stock clocks) and I don't think there's any reason one should consider the Thuban.

Upgrade path, better multithreading, cheaper motherboards....


----------



## Marc-Olivier Beaudoin

the X6 can do anything you can trow at it for the moment and I never regretted buying it







. And it's a beast at overclocking .

And now for those arguing against the thuban the price difference is enough for you to buy a very high end GFX for the system







.

Also the X6 will beat hyper threading of a 4 core I7 in task that utilise all 6 cores like video rendering.

The I7 is faster clock for clock but if you overclock you don't put hyper treading if you are not on wattercooling or on a bigass cooler







.

just saying . I7 950+GTX460 or X6 1055T+5970 ?


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drenlin* 
Upgrade path, better multithreading, cheaper motherboards....

What upgrade path? Bulldozer will need a new mobo/socket.

What better multithreading? The benchmarks don't lie, the i7 is better even at multithreaded apps. (Did you even look at them?)

Cheaper motherboards? Don't have SLI support. And you can get decent x58 boards for the same exact price as 890 fx boards.

There are no reasons to go Thuban unless you already have an AMD board that will support it.

Do you have any -real- reasons to go Thuban?


----------



## Marc-Olivier Beaudoin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity* 
What upgrade path? Bulldozer will need a new mobo/socket.

What better multithreading? The benchmarks don't lie, the i7 is better even at multithreaded apps. (Did you even look at them?)

Cheaper motherboards? Don't have SLI support. And you can get decent x58 boards for the same exact price as 890 fx boards.

There are no reasons to go Thuban unless you already have an AMD board that will support it.

Do you have any -real- reasons to go Thuban?


sandy brige is coming out soon WOW why buying an I7 now ? ...

and why do you need SLI when the 6000 series of ATI will come out soon?

why decent x58 board when you can have HIGH end AMD board for the same price?

now answer this for me


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marc-Olivier Beaudoin* 
sandy brige is coming out soon WOW why buying an I7 now ? ...

and why do you need SLI when the 6000 series of ATI will come out soon?

why decent x58 board when you can have HIGH end AMD board for the same price?

now answer this for me









To answer, in order.

Because the i7s are overclockable, and Sandy Bridge isn't made to replace them. The replacement for the current x58, i7 9xx platform won't be out until next year. Until then, the i7 will be top dog.

I can't take your second question seriously. You think just because the 6000 series is coming out, we should limit our options to only AMD GPUs? Why on earth would you do that? And btw - I'd expect them to cost a pretty penny. Even still x58 can do Crossfire too - But AMD can't do SLI without a hack.

Why have a high end AMD board at all - when low end x58 boards are already top notch and have everything the AMD boards have - and more?

I ask again. Can you think of any -real- reasons to buy a Thuban? I just bought an i5 and a Sabertooth 55i setup... I couldn't think of a single reason to buy Thuban instead.


----------



## Marc-Olivier Beaudoin

AMD board can do SLI not all but they do ...

I bought my thuban instead cause it runs cooler than an I7 so it don't heat my room as much it performs on par and is 6 cores CPU so when something use over 4 cores it use my 6 and even if it dosen't support hyper-threading well I don't care cause I have 6 physical cores and I don't buy products before review so I made my rig to wait for ATI 6000 series and bulldozer than when reviews comes out I may go for this platform or stay with my thuban. Cause AMD will certainly make some other more powerfull CPU for my AM3 board...


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marc-Olivier Beaudoin* 
AMD board can do SLI not all but they do ...

I bought my thuban instead cause it runs cooler than an I7 so it don't heat my room as much it performs on par and is 6 cores CPU so when something use over 4 cores it use my 6 and even if it dosen't support hyper-threading well I don't care cause I have 6 physical cores and I don't buy products before review so I made my rig to wait for ATI 6000 series and bulldozer than when reviews comes out I may go for this platform or stay with my thuban. Cause AMD will certainly make some other more powerfull CPU for my AM3 board...

*None* of the AMD chipset motherboards can do SLI without the hack. None of them. They're not licensed to do so.

I'm not trying to say the Thuban is a bad CPU, what I am saying is that for the money, you can get a better CPU/Platform.

When six cores are actually needed, the Thuban will be long obsolete.

AMD will not make any new CPUs for your board. There are none in the pipeline. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. You may see clock speed bumps like the recently released Phenom II 970, but AM3 is over. You can console yourself with the fact you probably got the best CPU for your platform. Like it or not, but when you decide to upgrade CPUs, you'll have to buy a new board.


----------



## Htime

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Coldfreak* 
Thank you for that explanation it was extremely helpful. My question now is would this processor (955 BE) be able to handle the new high end games coming out in the next year or two if i left it at stock speeds and paired it with a good graphics card or two like the ATI 5770?

I would recommend going with the 5850, I'm enjoying my now at stock non oc.


----------



## swat

I am a gamer, not only am I a gamer I also own Com-Tek Services, I build gaming computers for a living. I currently own and use both a AMD 1090T 6 Core System and a Core i7 920 System. Both are setup somewhat comparable to one another.

Both systems have the following:
(Both processors are running stock)
6gigs of Memory
256gig SSD HDD's
3x 150gig WD Raptors in Raid 0 Performance
ASUS Motherboards (980a Nvidia Chipset for the AMD & x58 for the Ci7)
Monster 1000watt PC Power & Cooling PSU's
(recently upgraded) 2x Nvidia 580 GTX's in SLI

Current Games Playing:
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Medal of Honor (2010)
Call of Duty 4: modern warfare / MW2 / WaW
Left For Dead 2

I have tested these Units all with Nvidia 260 GTX's / 280 GTX's / 285 GTX's / 460 GTX's / 465 GTX's and now the New 580 GTX's. And Also the ATI 5850 / 5870 / 5970.

First off I am an old school AMD Fan that switched to Intel (Core 2 DUO Series) and continued with Intel all the way until I purchased my Core i7 920. In a real world setting where I build 4-7 custom machines a week (By referral only) I would say that Intel has way more performance and AMD packs the all mighty price for performance. At this point the AM3 line is going to die out with Bulldozer. Bulldozer is moving to a New AM3+ Socket and Intel is moving to a new 2011 Socket. Because of techno-adaption both sockets will fairly cost more in the Q3 of 2011. However when building a current AMD vs Intel System the cost difference is very small in comparison to buying or purchasing products in todays market.

The price difference in my 2 current machines is approx $210 difference. The cost difference comes from my motherboards. My Intel board is an Asus P6T6 WS Revolution Workstation Motherboard ($349 at the time I built it) and my AMD is a ASUS M4N98TD-EVO ($140). The processors were priced the same but the difference is that my Intel Ci7 920 was built 18 months prior than the AM3 1090T 6 Core system.

I play Battlefield Bad Company 2 a lot and I play it on my AMD system. The game play is nice and I enjoy the way it plays. I see no physical eye popping difference in gaming when it comes to Intel vs AMD.

Here are my thoughts though for those that are looking into building a rig for gaming, work ect. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! If you recall my Intel was built 18 months before my AMD 6 Core rig. I have not tapped into the power of my Core i7 in full as of yet. While Playing Battlefield Bad company 2 I sit around 11% in CPU Usage on my Ci7 system. On my AMD system in the same game I sit around 77% in usage. Now ask me do I care where my usage is at while playing a game? No, I don't.

The facts:
1. AMD is currently behind Intel in speed/Processor Technology. 
2. AMD is cheaper than Intel when looking at Price vs Performance.
3. Intel has Triple Channel Memory where as AMD lacks this technology and yes there is a difference and Triple Channel memory helps in some applications.
4. Intel's Hyper Threading Technology can give in most cases an additional 20-25% More processing power using its available virtual cores.
5. AMD does not believe in using Virtual cores which is why when its 8 Core Bulldozer comes out it may be the better choice.
6. Whether its AMD or Intel, games & other apps are just getting ready to use Quad Core Technology.

Yes there are apps out there that use all cores, example PS3 Media Server, I use this to trans-code movies to my PS3 and is has the option to use up to 8 cores.

Final thought. If you are gaming and on a budget you cannot go wrong with a AMD Phenom II X4 9xx Edition Processor or a AMD Phenom II X6 10xxT based system. On the flip side if your not on a budget or you are worried about whether or not your system will be fully future proof, go with a Core i5/i7 system. Like I said in the beginning I have tested all the platforms and I own 2 of the most popular of the platforms and its all 1's and 0's from here. Good luck on your building adventure and if you need additional help or advice just send me a PM.


----------



## sleepergsr

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*


*None* of the AMD chipset motherboards can do SLI without the hack. None of them. They're not licensed to do so.

I'm not trying to say the Thuban is a bad CPU, what I am saying is that for the money, you can get a better CPU/Platform.

When six cores are actually needed, the Thuban will be long obsolete.

AMD will not make any new CPUs for your board. There are none in the pipeline. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. You may see clock speed bumps like the recently released Phenom II 970, but AM3 is over. You can console yourself with the fact you probably got the best CPU for your platform. Like it or not, but when you decide to upgrade CPUs, you'll have to buy a new board.


yes they can...the ch4 extreme will do sli. =)


----------



## M1nUrThr3t

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*


To answer, in order.

Because the i7s are overclockable, and Sandy Bridge isn't made to replace them. The replacement for the current x58, i7 9xx platform won't be out until next year. Until then, the i7 will be top dog.

I can't take your second question seriously. You think just because the 6000 series is coming out, we should limit our options to only AMD GPUs? Why on earth would you do that? And btw - I'd expect them to cost a pretty penny. Even still x58 can do Crossfire too - But AMD can't do SLI without a hack.

Why have a high end AMD board at all - when low end x58 boards are already top notch and have everything the AMD boards have - and more?

I ask again. Can you think of any -real- reasons to buy a Thuban? * I just bought an i5 and a Sabertooth 55i setup... I couldn't think of a single reason to buy Thuban instead*.


You just rendered any part of your argument invalid. We now know that your speaking more from a fan boy stance and trying to defend the fact that you just bought Intel.


----------



## M1nUrThr3t

OP, listen to swat he speaks more from experience. Honestly CPU should not matter too much when going for a gaming rig. Dual core can run games no prob.
What I would recommend all depends on your preference AMD or Intel.

If AMD wait for a AM3+ MB to come out than upgrade then, that way when bulldozer releases you can simply upgrade your cpu.

Or if you want Intel they come out in the beginning of the year which will give you a bit more time to save and invest in your system.

Either way for gaming you would be good, just invest more into your GPU's. SLI or Crossfire are good choices and will run just about any game at this point with out any issues.


----------



## sleepergsr

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*


*None* of the AMD chipset motherboards can do SLI without the hack. None of them. They're not licensed to do so.

I'm not trying to say the Thuban is a bad CPU, what I am saying is that for the money, you can get a better CPU/Platform.

When six cores are actually needed, the Thuban will be long obsolete.

AMD will not make any new CPUs for your board. There are none in the pipeline. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. You may see clock speed bumps like the recently released Phenom II 970, but AM3 is over. You can console yourself with the fact you probably got the best CPU for your platform. Like it or not, but when you decide to upgrade CPUs, you'll have to buy a new board.


are you trying to make yourself feel better with your purchasing your i5 750? or cause you cant afford a x6 or a i7? some people have different needs. x6 is quite strong for what it is and so is the i7. put my system up against my firends i7...cant tell the differents. i would jump on a x6 over an i5 750 any day. its 220 bucks so its not that bad. most poeple didnt overclock the cpu-nb so performance was being bottleneck. shoot...i wish the cpu-nb was overclock at factory default.


----------



## listen to remix

I currently have the AMD rig in my signature. I believe my X3 555 was bottlenecking my GTX 460 SLI, so I wanted to upgrade. However, something came up and I got the i7-950 instead.

I bought the i7-950 Processor for $206 with tax. I could have gotten a X6 1050T 125W for ~$135.

Do you think it is worth while to switch to Intel now? I can just give my old mobo/ram/proc to my sibling. What's really stopping me from switching is the fact the Intel mobos are still ~200+ The price of ram is dropping, so that's a plus.

I don't play games frequently, but when I do...I like to max the settings at 1920x1200 res and I'll play something like Metro 2033. I want to do some audio editing and sometimes I convert videos for my Iphone and convert videos I record from my VHS tapes into a DVD capable format. I might start doing Youtube videos, but probably not haha. I also like overclocking and having nice stuff


----------



## Jean-Luc

930 > 1090T in everything. If you're looking for the best budget build get a 1090T and an 890FX board. Best of the best.. I7 950 + X58 Board.

I went with a 1090T because Sandy Bridge is coming out next month and the current Intel processors aren't worth it.


----------



## mcnabbmc

Check the thread date, was created 7 months ago


----------



## Jzkillzone23

What are these people talking about AMD boards can do sli.... and alot of them are SLI certified ..


----------



## Witchdoctor

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Coldfreak*


I have been out of the building game for almost 9 years. So i have not been able to keep up with all of the news so please forgive me if this question sounds stupid.

I am looking to build a budget pc and i am not sure which would be better, the amd x6 1090T or the Intel i7 930?

I am not quite as concerned about the benchmarks as others seem to be. I am more concerned about the build being upgradeable in the future. I know that there are plenty of high powered cpu in the i7 lineup that i could use to upgrade in the future when prices drop. Will this be true for AMD as well? or will i need to do a complete rebuild when the system starts to fall behind?


Hold on for a bit and grab a sandybridge.

The Intel sockets are going to be changing in 2011

I can't speak to AMD's roadmap

But for now Intel owns the preformance crown in most cases ....


----------

