Which CPU is the best?

[Jason]

So rather than saving up for a prebuilt computer I'm going the road of building one up myself, I've already priced everything and it'll be cheaper overall, but now I'm split on which CPU to get...

I'm looking at the Intel Core i5 2400, which is a 3.1GHz Quadcore with a 6MB Cache, then again I've also seen an AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, which has a clockspeed of 2.8GHz, and 6 cores, but only a 3MB Cache...

Now I'd like a little knowledge bomb to be dropped on me (Just don't make it hurt!)...

What I think is that the AMD would be better with more applications open since I could offload them onto their own cores clearing up more space, but the i5 is faster and apparently is safer while overclocking (Not really looking into it just yet though), but the two extra cores of the AMD just look a little more appealing...

 

[Glitchfinder]

So, lemme link you to something first.

Intel Core i5-2400
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T

Lemme give you the breakdown from those pages.

Overall Benchmark Score
Intel Core i5-2400: 6045
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T: 5192
What this means is that, overall, benchmarking with Passmark's software shows better results with the i5 than the Phenom. This is using standardized tests that every processor can and will be expected to do pretty much every time you use it. However, take these results with a grain of salt, since that i5 is new and Passmark has roughly six times as many submitted benchmarks for the Phenom.

Overall Rank
Intel Core i5-2400: 54
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T: 74
This one is a bit self explanatory. Passmark has a ranking system that ranks processors by their overall score. In this case, lower is better, and the i5 places significantly better in the rankings than the Phenom, though they both rank in the high end CPU page.

CPU Value
Intel Core i5-2400: 31.98
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T: 32.47
This one takes a bit of explaining. Passmark tracks the CPU prices on certain sites, and uses the lowest value on those sites to generate this. They do so by dividing the overall score by the lowest price they found. Obviously, higher is better, meaning that, the last time they indexed it, the Phenom was a slightly better value. However, you have to take these results with a grain of salt, because they may have calculated these with a price that's different from the one you payed. In other words, to determine this value for the prices you found, just take the CPU's overall score (the first one I went over) and divide it by the price you found. Whichever has the higher number will be the higher value, by their system.

Also, about offloading onto other cores, etc. That's pretty much automated, and is highly dependent upon OS and how the software was programmed. One thing to note is that most configurations of Win7 actually put one or more cores to sleep on multicore processors, for no apparent reason, and it often takes tweaking the registry or bios to leave them active.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Is there a reason why you aren't getting the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T? It's faster than the i5 2400 and costs the same (ok, it's fifty cents more :P ). intel motherboards also usually cost more than AMD motherboards so you would probably save money there, too. Right now, going intel makes the most sense if you want a lot of power, but since you are looking at i5s and not i7s, you'd probably be safe with AMD.

 

[Jason]

Well the 1090T is a little more expensive in the places I'm looking, not by much at all, only £10-20 more...

How would that compare to the i5 then? I'd be prepared to pay a little extra, but I'm just more familiar with Intel, which is why I would like to go that road, but can't afford an i7 lol...

 

[Jason]

Actually, I've just found a 1090T which is pretty much the same price as the i5 I was looking at, it's the same clockspeed too at 3.2GHz, but has a 9MB Cache... interesting.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Actually, the one Demonfire suggested is ranked one better by Passmark than the i5 you were looking at, with virtually the same value. I'd probably go with that one.

 

[BlueScope]

Personally, I'm having an i7 2600 in my machine, and I've found it both not too expensive in comparison and awesome in appliance. It comes with hyperthreading, so you get 8 cores (4 physical) with the package. Apparently it's supposed to be pretty good on energy consumption as well, but I don't care too much for that... all I know is that it runs very well with a 600W power supply, along with a bunch of other stuff attached (including two GTX460 SLi graphic cards).
What I'm trying to say is: An i5 is probably going to be old meat after a year... with the i7, you should have a bigger margin.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

None of the processors mentioned will be too old after a year :P

The i7 2600K is, of course, a beast and not for a bad price considering how much power it has. However, it's an extra $100 for the processor, and then the i7 motherboards are usually expensive.

 

[Jason]

Yeah obviously I'd love to go for an i7, but I'm on a budget here and that'd send me way over and into money I don't have, I mean, it's still going to take me a month or two before I can afford all the parts, and I don't really want to wait much longer with this computer that I'm using now, since it's just awful...

So anyway...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu ... I+X6+1090T

(By the way Glitch thanks for this site, lol)

So anyway, in terms of price/power etc. is the 1090T really THAT much better? I'm tempted to say yes, but I'm not too great when it comes to comparing Intel and AMD since I've usually stuck by Intel (I'm more familiar with them) and have never gone the AMD road, ever... unless you count ATI graphics cards since they're owned by AMD now, lol...