TR Forums

I'm looking for a CPU for my new build, which I'm going to use mostly for gaming. I see that the AMD X4 955 BE and X6 1055T are priced about the same, but clocked a bit different. Now with this build I'm going to buy an aftermarket cooler, and I plan on doing some overclocking. I was wondering which of these CPUs would give me the highest clock and the most gaming performance for the money. If they clock about the same, then the 1055T will be just as fast as the 955 while having two extra cores, right?

Well, I'll start by saying right away you don't need a 6 core CPU for gaming. But if you can get 6 cores for the same price as 4 then it's worth a look. However, If neither CPU is over-clocked the 955 BE would be quicker in games (even taking into account the 1055T Core Boost if it's not fully loaded). That changes somewhat if you were to over-clock either one though.

Firstly, if the 1055T you are looking at is the 125W version then I would personally settle on the 955 BE. You can over-clock the 125W 1055T to about 3.4 - 3.6Ghz on a decent air cooler. You'll get about 3.8 - 4.0Ghz on a 955 BE still making it faster in games than the 1055T. If you can get the 1055T in 95W guise however, then get it as the 1st preference. It can over-clock to 4Ghz+ with a good motherboard and top end cooler, and no 955 BE even over-clocked will keep up with it in games at those speeds. Unfortunately, here in the UK the 95W variant of the 1055T attracts quite a price premium - But I think it's worth paying extra for if you want to over-clock it.

You may also lean towards the 6 core CPU if you may ever have the need to convert/encode video or some photo stitching and the like. For tasks like this, the 1055T is much, much faster.

Just my 2p's worth.

Thanks for the reply. I was looking at the 125W version because I thought it was able to hit about the same speeds as the X4s overclocked(atleast according to internet showoffs ), but if that is not the case I'll settle for the 955.

Well, the 1055T in 125W guise might over-clock to the same speeds as the 955 BE, but there would be to many problems you would encounter on your way up towards 4Ghz. I suspect quite a few people on the web inflate their over-clock somewhat because their e-peen gets bigger. You also don't know what cooler is being used in most cases, or what case is being used.

Cases, coolers, motherboards, as well as the rooms ambient temperature all affect how much of an over-clock you could achieve. It's a little harder to maintain a stable over-clock on the 1055T if you want it to match say the overclocked speeds of the 955 BE because it just gets to hot.

You can counteract that with a nice water cooling set-up, or that new Corsair liquid CPU cooler though.

Ok, I'm convinced that the 955 BE is the safest buy for gaming performance then. I've got a Noctua NH-C12P, so I expect to get a reasonable clock on it.

Hm, found this test of the overclocked 965 vs 1055T. Seems pretty equal. =/

Akaly, they are essentially the same core, so at the same speed they will perform just the same.

The 1055T /might/ be able to OC higher than the 955 or the 965 because it is a newer stepping.

However, it will be more difficult to OC the 1055 because it is a locked processor. The 965 and 955 are unlocked processors - in other words, AMD /helps/ you overclock them by allowing you to have full control over the multiplier.

Another point is heat. If you are planning on an aggressive overclock of any of these CPUs then you are going to need a very, very good cooler. You'll need to spend a bit of time researching that. I've haven't looked into coolers in some time so I don't know what to recommend there.

With air cooling, heat may limit your overclock before the CPU does.

Regardless, my own opinion is that 6 cores is totally useless for gaming, but an unlocked multiplier is definitely useful, so I lean toward the Black Editions.

I think I saw your other thread and you've been wrestling with the thought of 6 or 4 core for a bit now. To put it in simplest terms - do you have /any/ need at all for the additional two cores? Do you do /anything/ that could use them. If so, grab the 6 core. If not, grab the 4 core Black Edition unless you find some evidence that a 1055 can overclock higher on air cooling.

I think you may be overweighting the importance of overclocking these things. They are pretty darn fast even at stock speeds. You'll need at least a HD 5870 or GTX 470 and at the same time be playing games at lower resolutions for the clock speed of these CPUs to become limiters. In order for reviewers to find meaningful differences between CPUs in games they usually test at lower resolutions because at higher resolutions it all evens out. Just consider this: at stock speed a 1055 is usually very close to as fast as a Core i7 975 Extreme when played at normal resolutions and detail settings! So overclocking you CPU will get you - NOTHING - most of the time! Think about it.

Well, one last point in favor of the 6 core is the Turbo feature, which may tip the scales fully in its favor. I guess I'm going to change my mind right here. If the 6 core uses no more power, and will get you a decent overclock, and comes with the turbo feature, and costs the same, then there seems to be nothing but upside to it. The only worry is than overclocking becomes more of a hassle without the unlocked multiplier. But, since overclocking matters very, very little for gaming, that's hardly a downside.

It is probably a good time to remind those who are new to the overclocking scene the cardinal rule: your mileage may vary (YMMV). Overclocking is still running your chip out of factory tested (and supported) spec, no matter how convenient or easy what you read on the internet. Not only that, each chip is going to behave differently depending on the chip itself, cooling, motherboard, and numerous other factors.

Bottomline: you have to know what you are getting yourself into. Overclocking is a bonus, not a guarantee. If you buy a processor banking on it achieving a certain speed and end up not reaching it, don't go to the world and cry/whine about it. The proper mindset is to be satisfied with stock performance and any extra you can get is just icing on the cake. Even for good overclocking chips can have duds. We have seen all too well some chips just won't budge much, even the supposedly good ones.

Also, remember this. Over clocking will NEVER add more cores or total CPU power.

4 cores @ 3Ghz each = 12Ghz CPU power.
6 cores @ 3Ghz each = 18Ghz CPU power.

It may not matter a lot this second, but some games already can spawn threads for multiple cores.

As was said earlier, the 6 core CPU is brand new silicon with lots of tweaks for power saving and the turbo feature; to me it is a NO BRAINER!

TR agreed with me in their review conclusion.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799/16

Dposcorp wrote:

Also, remember this. Over clocking will NEVER add more cores or total CPU power.

4 cores @ 3Ghz each = 12Ghz CPU power.
6 cores @ 3Ghz each = 18Ghz CPU power.

It may not matter a lot this second, but some games already can spawn threads for multiple cores.

As was said earlier, the 6 core CPU is brand new silicon with lots of tweaks for power saving and the turbo feature; to me it is a NO BRAINER!

TR agreed with me in their review conclusion.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799/16

Um... that's just so wrong. 6 cores running 3GHz is not the same as "18 GHz CPU power" unless it is being used by a highly threaded program like a rendering program. There is no game out there that can use 6 cores and I have not heard of any that can make full use of more than 3, but please link if there is.

Also, your post is kind of in direct conflict with Fox's. The 1055 is 2.8 GHz while the 965 is 3.4. Assuming no guarantee on overclocking, the 965 is going to be way, way, way better for gaming than the 1055 will EVER be.

My point is that it is not a "NO BRAINER" but these choices must be given a bit of careful thought unless you have money to burn. You have to ask questions:

What is the minimum acceptable single thread performance - this should guide the selection of a bare minimum performance at stock CPU.
What final performance is good enough and what are my chances of getting there with an overclock?
How many cores do I need?
How threaded is the software I use?
What cooling solutions are compatible with my setup and affordable and, possibly, quiet enough?
What kind of overclocking is my motherboard capable of?

I'm still pretty torn between the 1055 and the 965 due to the unlcoked multi on the 965 and the significantly higher stock clock speed of the 965, but I'd be willing to take the risk myself and go with the 1055 trusting that it would overclock to where I wanted, coupled with the turbo advantage.

flip-mode wrote:

There is no game out there that can use 6 cores and I have not heard of any that can make full use of more than 3, but please link if there is.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/901037/

Thanks again for all the replies.

To be honest I have no "minimum" requirments for what performance I crave, fast is plenty of fast for me. I do however like to get as much computing power as possible for my money, and that's why I'm so intrigued by the 1055T. From what extensive googling have told me, the 1055T overclock about the same or better than the Phenom II X4 BEs, while not getting any warmer but while using more power. If this is wrong, please correct me. I suppose the world moves forward and that it isn't unreasonable to expect a newer CPU to be faster and overclock better than an older one.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

There is no game out there that can use 6 cores and I have not heard of any that can make full use of more than 3, but please link if there is.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/901037/

A benchmark link was what I had in mind.

Akaly wrote:

Thanks again for all the replies.

To be honest I have no "minimum" requirments for what performance I crave, fast is plenty of fast for me. I do however like to get as much computing power as possible for my money, and that's why I'm so intrigued by the 1055T. From what extensive googling have told me, the 1055T overclock about the same or better than the Phenom II X4 BEs, while not getting any warmer but while using more power. If this is wrong, please correct me. I suppose the world moves forward and that it isn't unreasonable to expect a newer CPU to be faster and overclock better than an older one.

Sounds like you just need to man up and grab the 1055 and get on with it!

JustAnEngineer wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

There is no game out there that can use 6 cores and I have not heard of any that can make full use of more than 3, but please link if there is.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/901037/

This link shows Core i7 860 with SMT both on and off achieving exactly the same score which indicates that additional cores are worthless (and an overclocked 965 BE achieves near parity with that):
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6987 ... /Practice/

Again, 6 cores is worthless for gaming as far as I have seen (but I'm glad to be shown otherwise) but the 1055 still seems like a great choice. It won't get you more gaming performance than an equally clocked quad core, but there's no real down side to it...

Hyperthreading doesn't do much for floating-point heavy threads. I don't know that the developers have told us exactly what the additional threads are doing, (AI, PhysX, etc.), so the scaling may not show up in your particular benchmark. However, that game definitely pegs out all four cores of my C2Q processor.

Akaly wrote:

From what extensive googling have told me, the 1055T overclock about the same or better than the Phenom II X4 BEs, while not getting any warmer but while using more power. If this is wrong, please correct me. I suppose the world moves forward and that it isn't unreasonable to expect a newer CPU to be faster and overclock better than an older one.

Again, just to set expectations here. If you are the unlucky one that end up with a "dud", don't come crying and whining.

Some people will claim RMA and exchange until they get a good one, but to me overclocking is YMMV so that does not sit well with me.

Hehe, I still think the 1055T will be more than good enough, even if it isn't a good overclocker. Thanks for all the help.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

flip-mode wrote:

There is no game out there that can use 6 cores and I have not heard of any that can make full use of more than 3, but please link if there is.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/901037/

Also, remember the OS overhead could use a core or two, as well as any apps running in the background, not part of the game.
(Steam, instant messenger, some download client, browser left open, etc...)

Dposcorp wrote:

Also, remember the OS overhead could use a core or two, as well as any apps running in the background, not part of the game.
(Steam, instant messenger, some download client, browser left open, etc...)

Indeed, those will tap the CPU from time to time, but unless something unusual is happening, they would all account for just a couple percent use of a single core of the CPU -- I'm not at all arguing against the 6 core, but I'm trying to be realistic about what is necessary or even useful. If a CPU core goes unused or if additional cores don't result in additional performance then it's hard to say those additional cores are really useful or necessary. There's nothing wrong with having them there. And I think that it is a very valid point that the 6 core is a good thing to have so that something can be going on in the background while games are being played - not that I ever do that myself. So, while Dragon Age seems to be able to use 4 cores, it is one of the very, very few or even the only that can, and I have not seen any game use more than 4. So, while I'd still say the 6 core Phenom is the best choice, it's not going to be the best gaming CPU under normal circumstances - that would be the 965. I'm down to arguing for argument's sake at this point Hopefully Akaly is not even reading this thread anymore

I hope I'm not muddying waters, but I remembered this article at bit-tech from the shortbread. They tend to use game settings as you would in real life so the results are more practical. Do note that the comparison is between varying numbers of enabled cores all clocked at the same frequency. This isn't exactly be the smoking gun to the 3.5 GHz 1055T vs 3.8 GHz 955 quandry, but it will at least let you know that a 3.5 GHz 1055T is probably no better than a 3.5 GHz 955 for gaming.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cor ... 641-8.html

Found this, and doesn't look like X6 and X4 have the same cores. X4 still has some more singel core performance.

Akaly wrote:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-875k-core-i5-655k-unlocked-multiplier,2641-8.html

Found this, and doesn't look like X6 and X4 have the same cores. X4 still has some more singel core performance.

Woah! If that is correct then it is very, very upsetting. At the same clocks the X6 1090T lags the X4 965 at all resolutions and really takes a dive at high res with AA That doesn't make sense to me. I didn't expect it to be any faster at all, but I didn't expect it to be slower!

flip-mode wrote:

Akaly wrote:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-875k-core-i5-655k-unlocked-multiplier,2641-8.html

Found this, and doesn't look like X6 and X4 have the same cores. X4 still has some more singel core performance.

Woah! If that is correct then it is very, very upsetting. At the same clocks the X6 1090T lags the X4 965 at all resolutions and really takes a dive at high res with AA That doesn't make sense to me. I didn't expect it to be any faster at all, but I didn't expect it to be slower!

It's T*** what do you expect?

At the same clock (assuming you can o'c the X6 as fast as you can o'c the X4, because more cores present more obstacles in reaching higher clocks) you won't necessarily get the same gaming performance from the X4 and X6. Remember, each core will use all the L3 cache space it can get, and wth an X6 more cores will compete for the same 6MB of L3. In tests Anandtech took (www.anandtech.com/bench), a Phenom II X3 720 outperforms an X4 920 by a small margin. Both run at 2.8GHz.

Getting a 6-core allows you bragging rights (and at that price, who wouldn't be tempted?), but for strictly gaming purposes, I'd use the extra cash saved with opting for the X4 to get a faster video card.

Also I'd like to add that if you do any kind of video transcoding ( on-demand streaming, handbrake, etc...) the 6-core will win. If you don't do any of that on a regular basis then its probably a wash.