终极对决 九款CPU应用性能最全面测试_IntelCPU评测-泡泡网
　　　　　　　　　
终极对决 九款CPU应用性能最全面测试
日 00:22&出处：&【原创】 作者:陈骋 编辑:
超级横评！ 九款全面测试
&&&&频道7月29日&CPU市场自/各自推出六核心产品以来一直没有发生什么大事件，新产品也无非也就是旧有型号提高主频。
&&& 目前市场上最受欢迎的产品“年龄”也各不相同，方面，Core i家族的老前辈自然是1366接口的 900四核系列，2008年11月诞生的他们，毫无争议的占据高端市场2年之多。随后则是于09年9月正式发布的1156接口的 700/i7 800，也已经快“1周岁”了，登场之后立即成为人气之王，日常大部分应用中性能不弱于1366平台，价格和功耗则更加理想；而 500和i5 600则是32nm的先锋，与2010年1月上市，超频性能更夸张，并且初次带来了CPU+GPU的融合理念给我们。
&&& 而方面，在09年刚刚步入45nm的时代，首先在1月份推出了Phenom II X4，而AM3平台的速龙II则在6月份初次出现双核/四核，三个月之后又推出了另类的三核产品。在沉寂了许久之后，终于在今年4月发布了6核产品，都是基于45nm。
&&& 这些CPU最“老”的已经2岁多，年轻的则只有3个月，不过他们的共同点就是都在CPU的战场上争夺。其价格从几百元到数千元，从双核到六核，特点也各不相同。不过，这次测试将会把它们放到一起，来一次超级大混战。他们的性能差距是否也如价格差距那样大？新推出的产品又是否超越了老前辈呢？
双核对决：酷睿i3 530 vs 速龙II双核
&&& Intel Core i3 使用了32nm工艺，核心代号为Clarkdale，默认主频2.9Hz，为双核四线程CPU，二级缓存512KB，三级缓存4MB，集成控制器、I-E控制器和GPU芯片，是一款带有融合理念的CPU，集成了很多以往在中的技术，并且一改过去集成=底性能的概念，是一款性能强劲的，虽然只有两颗物理核心，但是超线程技术使其在多任务、多核应用中和其他纯粹的双核产品相比极具优势，单核心性能也依然很强劲，借助32nm制程优势，超频性能再上一个台阶。目前市场售价为775元。
Core i3 530
&&& AMD althon II X2 250是使用45nm技术的双核，核心代号为Regor，是一款原生双核CPU，默认主频达到了3.0GHz，使用AM3接口，2MB二级缓存。目前市场售价为425元，可谓是物美价廉，做为一款入门级的CPU，3.0GHz的高主频令其在各种日常应用和游戏中得心应手。是低端市场中非常实在的一款产品。
&&& Althon II X2 250
高频对多核：i5 661 vs X3 440
&&& 32nm的Clarkdale核心CPU一上市便引起注目，i3风光无限，但是他的大哥哥i5 661就没那么吸引人了，一款价格高达1250元的CPU只有两颗物理核心，这令不少人难以接受。Core i5 661默认主频高达3.33GHz,同样是双核四线程，4MB三级缓存。CPU内部同样集成了双通道控制器、PCI-E控制器和一颗45nm的GPU芯片。与i3唯一的不同便是支持睿频功能，在功耗不增加的前提下可以进行自动超频。做为目前市场上高端的双核产品，它的存在还是有意义的，单核心性能十分强劲，32nm带来的功耗优势，超频潜力更是极为恐怖，风冷5GHz已经不算新鲜了。
Core i5 661
&&& AMD的Althon II X3 440是一款45nm的Rana核心产品，默认主频3GHz，3x512KB二级缓存，规格与Althon II X2类似。不过，X3的核心是由Phenom II X4屏蔽了核心和缓存而来，这使其可以进行AMD独有的开核破解操作，从而有几率化身为一颗Phenom II X4型号CPU。就算开核失败，一款仅有495元的CPU，其性价比也足够高了，双核的价格，多核的性能，在多任务的表现中可圈可点，默认主频也相当高，足以满足大多应用。
四核火拼：i5 750 vs X4 955
&&& Core i5 750上市已经快1年，其人气一直居高不下。采用45nm技术的LynnField核心的i5 750虽然默认主频为2.66GHz，拥有四颗物理核心，8MB三级缓存，支持睿频，高性能的QPI总线，无论单核心还是多核心性能都强劲无比，随着P55/H55价格的降低，搭建一套四核1156平台的成本并不高。与更高端的i7相比，i5仅仅是少了超线程技术的支持。但是对于大多数用不到超线程的用户来说，这已经是很完美的产品了。
Core i5 750
&&& AMD当家四核Phenom II X4 955 BE，曾经是AMD的旗舰产品，采用K10架构的Deneb核心，45nm工艺，原生四核，默认主频高达3.2GHz，拥有6MB三级缓存。目前价格只有1050元，另外，这是一款黑盒产品，没有锁倍频，其C3步进版本超频性能虽然不如Intel，但是也可以满足不是非常狂热的超频玩家。不管怎么说，1000元就能买到一颗曾经的顶级产品，性能也非常不错，还是值得选择的一款产品。
Phenom II X4 955
八线程对六核：i7 870 vs X6 1090T
&&& Core i7 870刚刚上市2个月，依然是基于LynnField核心的四核CPU,不过没有锁倍频，主频达到了2.93GHz，8MB三级缓存，支持超线程。和1366的Bloomfield核心相比，其内存控制器由三通道精简为双通道，令用户组建平台的成本进一步降低，发热也有所改良，QPI、BCLK的锁定倍率也有所降低，使其比1366平台更容易超频。目前市场价格为2150元。
Core i7 870
&&& Phenom II X6 1090T则是最新推出的AMD旗舰六核产品，采用45nm工艺的Tan核心，默认主频3.2GHz，6MB三级缓存，和X4相比除了多了两颗物理核心之外，还增加了Turbo Core功能，直指Intel的睿频技术。目前市场价格为2380元。这个价格并不低，不过表现有出色之处，还是非常值得购买的，毕竟是一款六核处理器。
&&& 除了以上8款CPU之外，我们还想起一个老前辈，1366接口的Core i7 965。这款BloomField核心的四核CPU也曾经是Intel的期间产品，亦是Core i家族首款上市的CPU。默认主频3.2GHz，8MB缓存，四核八线程。QPI总线速度达6.4GT/s。作为Extreme版本的CPU，同样有不锁倍频的特性，不过其价格一直居高不下，现在依然在6000元。不过，Intel的旗舰级CPU从来也没有过平易近人的价格，它们的除了专门供给那些狂热高端玩家之外，更多的是为了占据性能霸主的王座。虽然现在已经有了六核的新旗舰取而代之，不过X58旗舰平台的性能究竟有多强，和其他产品差距有多大，是我们这次将其加入测试的目的。
Core i7 Extreme 965
测试项目和测试平台说明
&&& 这次测试使用的平台如下：
&&& 针对三种不同接口的CPU使用了890GX、P55、X58芯片组的主板，内存为2GB DDR-1333，其中AM3/LGA 1156平台使用双通道，X58平台则为三通道。选择了GTX 470。
华硕 M4A89TD PRO/USB3
微星 P55-GD65
华硕 Rampage III Gene
&&& 测试中关闭了所有节能、自动超频的功能，仅使用默认主频进行测试。
&&& 这次测试的内容没有包括游戏测试，全部项目为基准性能或应用测试，而关心游戏的玩家可继续关注以往和今后推出的游戏测试内容。以及频道关于热门游戏的测试。
单核运算性能测试：SuperPI
&&& SuperPI是由东京大学Kanada Lab.所制作的一款通过计算圆周率的来检测性能的工具，在测试里面可以有效的反映包括在内的运算性能。在玩家群中，Super PI更是一个衡量性能的标尺之一。直至今天，SuperPI依然做为超频玩家CPU超频性能的第一道检测程序。其测试对CPU性能的意义可见一斑。
&&& 本次测试依然采取1M的项目测试。测试结果如下：
&&& 单核心运算性能是Intel大幅领先，这也是Intel传统优势项目，主要在于优秀的缓存架构。AMD能否翻身要看下代CPU了。
多线程算性能测试：wPrime
&&& wPrime是一款质数计算软件，与Super Pi只能支持单线程不同的是，wPrime可以支持多线程，可以测试多核心性能的计算能力，可以看做是一款多核版的SuperPI。
&&& 测试选择32M计算，开启CPU所能支持的最大核心/线程数量。测试结果如下：
&&& 多线程的运算能力AMD 6核表现突出，比同频率的四核i7也要快。而同样核心数量时就是Intel的速度更快了。
多线程运算测试：Fritz
&&& 这是一款国际象棋测试软件，但它并不是独立存在的，而是《Fritz9》这款获得国际认可的国际象棋程序中的一个测试性能部分。由于国际象棋的运算大致仍旧是依靠的高速处理能力，将每一个可能的走法以穷举算法预测，从中选择胜算最大的最佳走法。所以用它来衡量对比不同的系统中的多线程运算能力也是有参考价值的。
&&& 测试结果如下：
&&& Intel的i3 530凭借超线程得以遥遥领先速龙II X2/X3,而四核中i5 750比X4 955稍快，同主频下i7四核仍比Phenom II 6核快。&&&
CPU运算能力测试：SisoftWare Sandra
&&& SiSoftware Sandra是一套功能强大的系统分析评比工具，拥有超过30种以上的分析与测试模组，还有、Drives、CD-ROM/D、Memory 的Benchmark工具，它还可将分析结果报告列表存盘。SiSoft Sandra除了可以提供详细的硬件信息外，还可以做产品的性能对比，提供性能改进建议。
&&&& 通过这项测试，我们首先对四款的基本理论性能有一个清楚的概念。测试项目包括：算术性能、多媒体性能两个项目。
&&& Intel的算术性能更好，大幅领先AMD，CPU主频和缓存十分重要。
&&& 得益于多媒体指令集的优势，相比之下AMD的多媒体运算性能表现出色。
内存性能测试：Everest & SisoftWare Sandra
&&& Everest是一款著名的硬件检测工具，可以识别数万种硬件并可检测电压、温度等信息，不仅如此，软件还带有简单的性能测试工具。本次测试使用其自带BenchMark测试内存读写性能，以及SisoftWare Sandra中的内存测试模组测试内存带宽和延迟。
&&& 内存读写性能测试：
&&& Intel的内存读写性能是比AMD好很多的，其中LynnField和BloomField核心的i5/i7要比32nm Clarkdale的双核i3/i5更好。
&&& 内存带宽测试：
&&& 抛开i7 965借助X58平台三通道的优势不谈，其他酷睿i系列的内存性能也要优于AMD平台，而AM3平台全系列CPU的内存性能几乎差不多。
&&& 内存延迟测试：
&&& 32nm的Clarkdale在架构上存在一些不同，因此内存延迟要稍大，而四核的i5、i7则要优于对手的Phenom II。
CPU渲染能力测试：CineBench
&&& CineBench使用针对行业开发的Cinema 4D特效软件引擎，可以测试和的性能。最新的R11.5版改进了多线程渲染的方式，渲染效率大大提高。可以更好的检测多核心的性能。
&&& 性能结果直接以分数表示，精确到小数点后两位，经过多次测试，发现此软件测出的数值十分稳定，几乎没有波动，可以认为其对性能的反映也是稳定、客观的。测试结果如下：
&&& 尽管单核心性能不是最强的，但是AMD phenom II X6凭借6个核心的优势在总分上领先。而X4 955的效能也不错，虽然不如拥有多线程的i7，但是比其i5 750还具有一定优势。双核方面，i5 661的高主频令其在单核心性能称王，i3 530的4线程和X3 440打成平手。
应用测试：WinRAR文件压缩
&&& WinRAR是经常用到的压缩软件，它自带性能测试工具，压缩/解压缩的运算主要依赖于的性能以及性能。
&& 本次测试使用了3.93 X64版本，自带BenchMark工具。测试结果如下：
&&& WinRAR不仅考验CPU性能，还对内存有一定要求，因此，Intel全面领先AMD，四核心的i5 750就超过了X6 1090T的性能。
应用测试：MediaCoder转码
&&& MediaCoder是一个免费的通用音频/视频批量转码工具，它将众多来自开源社区的优秀音频视频编解码器和工具整合为一个通用的解决方案，可以将音频、视频文件在各种格式之间进行转换。MediaCoder具备一个可扩展的架构和丰富的功能，可满足各种场合下的转码需求。目前，MediaCoder的用户已经遍布全世界170多个国家。在解码/编码过程中考验的以及效能。
&&& 测试内容为将一段1080P高清视频片段进行转码，软件转换完毕后产生的输出报告中包含转码时间。测试结果如下：
&&& 视频/音频转码测试除了考验CPU性能外，内存效能的影响也十分明显，因此Intel要优于AMD。
应用测试：PhotoShop图片处理
&&& Photoshop是Adobe公司旗下最为出名的软件之一，集图像扫描、编辑修改、图像制作、广告创意，图像输入与输出于一体的图形软件，深受广大平面设计人员和美术爱好者的喜爱。在对大尺寸图片进行处理的时候，对容量十分敏感，读取操作和处理表现差异明显。这款软件同样支持64bit，测试中选用了对一张分辨率为的JPEG图片进行凸出效果渲染。
分辨率7000 x 5000的图片 渲染前效果
分辨率7000 x 5000的图片 渲染后效果
&&& 测试结果如下：
&&& 从结果可以看出，PS处理图片主要依赖内存频率和带宽，处理器核心数量的差异倒不明显。Intel的内存性能要优于AMD。
应用测试：Maya 3D动画渲染
&&& 屡获殊荣的 Autodesk Maya 软件是一个强大、集成的三维建模、动画、视觉特效和渲染解决方案。由于 Maya基于开放结构，因此您的所有工作都可以利用文档齐全的综合 API（应用程序编程接口）或两种嵌入式脚本语言之一（Maya 嵌入式语言 (MEL) 或 Python&）进行脚本处理或编程。这种开放程度与业界领先的三维工具套件相结合，使你能够在、、游戏开发和设计项目中实现自己的创想。
&&& 测试使用了国外爱好者开发的BenchMark套件，进行渲染测试，测试结果如下：
&&& 专业渲染一直都是Intel的强项，不过AMD六核的表现也还不错，比i7也落后不多。
应用测试：3DS MAX 3D图形渲染
&&& 3D Studio Max，常简称为3ds Max或MAX，是Autodesk公司开发的基于系统的三维动画渲染和制作软件。其前身是基于DOS的3D Studio系列软件，最新版本是2011。在Windows NT出现以前，工业级的CG制作被SGI图形所垄断。3D Studio Max + Windows NT组合的出现一下子降低了CG制作的门槛，首选开始运用在游戏中的动画制作，后更进一步开始参与影视片的特效制作，例如X战警II，最后的武士等。
&&& 测试使用了国外爱好者开发的BenchMark套件，进行渲染测试，测试结果如下：
&&& 3DS MAX对CPU频率更为敏感一些，这使得AMD羿龙2 X4和X6的成绩稍好一些。
应用测试：LightWave 光源渲染
&&& LightWave是一个具有悠久历史和众多成功案例的为数不多的重量级3D软件之一。由美国NewTek公司开发的LightWave3D是一款高性价比的三维动画制作软件,它的功能非常强大,是业界为数不多的几款重量级三维动画软件之一。&&&
&&& LightWave 9.6的新功能包括对动画、渲染和工作流程的改进和毛发系统、布局吸附以及文件通过拖拽自动加载等功能。同时在9.5和9.6之间的625个新特性和曾出现过的问题都已实现和得到了解决，且此版本更为稳定。LightWave 9.6版本是LightWave v9系列中的第五个免费升级版本。
&&& 测试使用了国外爱好者开发的BenchMark套件，进行渲染测试，测试结果如下：
&&& LightWave中AMD的X6 1090T表现不错，仅次于i7 965，i5与X4 955的性能十分接近。X3 440的表现也很好，要强于双核的i3/i5。
综合性能测试：PCMark Vantage
&&& Mark Vantage可以衡量各种类型的综合性能。从多媒体家庭娱乐系统到，从专业到高端游戏平台，无论是在专业人士手中，还是属于普通用户，都能在Mark Vantage里了解透彻，从而发挥最大性能。其主要分为三大部分进行：1、测试：基于数据加密、解密、压缩、解压缩、图形处理、音频和视频转码、文本编辑、网页渲染、邮件功能、人工智能游戏测试、联系人创建与搜索。2、图形测试：基于高清视频播放、图形处理、游戏测试。3、测试：使用Windows Defender、《Alan Wake》游戏、图像导入、Windows 启动、视频编辑、媒体中心使用、Windows Media Player搜索和归类，以及以下程序的启动：Office Word 2007、Adobe Photoshop CS2、Internet Explorer、Outlook 2007
&&&& Mark是多种日常应用的合集，其中包括大量的多任务测试及多媒体视频音频测试，虽然多核心并不能发挥出全部性能，但优化支持也很到位。高主频对于日常应用受益匪浅。测试结果如下：
&&& 做为日常应用，高频双核还是十分具有优势的。i5 661的得分甚至直逼i7 965。同为四核的i5 750则打败了X4 955。尽管拥有6个核心，但是X6在这种模拟日常应用的测试中并没有太大的优势。i3 530凭借超线程也超过了X3 440。
3D性能测试：3DMark Vantage
&&& 3DMarkVantage日发布，是业界第一套专门基于微软DX10 API打造的综合性基准测试工具，并能全面发挥多路、多核心的优势，能在当前和未来一段时间内满足系统游戏性能测试需求。3DMark 11正式推出之前，3DMark Vantage仍然是测试系统3D性能的最权威工具。3DMark Vantage所使用的全新引擎在DX10特效方面和《孤岛危机》不相上下，但3DMark不是游戏，它不用考虑场景运行流畅度的问题，因此Vantage在特效的使用方面比Crysis更加大胆，“滥用”各种消耗资源的特效导致Vantage对的要求空前高涨，号称“危机”的Crysis也不得不甘拜下风。
&&& 测试中和GPU的分数相对独立，互相影响不是很大，可以较好的体现对3D性能的影响。测试设置为Performance Mode，分辨率为。测试结果如下：
&&& 这次没有进行游戏测试，就以3DMark Vantage的得分参考一下吧。在DX10 3D游戏中，四核心往往可以让显卡发挥出更高效能，相比之下拥有超线程的i3/i5表现也不错，但是速龙II就差一些了。游戏性能通常还是Intel更强一些，i5 750的CPU得分虽然不如X4、X6，但是总分却要优于对手。
&&& 测试时分辨记录了待机和CPU100%运行时的整机（不包括显示器）功耗，其对比如下：
&&& 除了X58平台的i7之外，Intel平台的功耗表现更理想一些。而AMD X6虽然有6个核心，但是功耗却未比X4提高很多。
&&& 从测试中我们可以看出，除了不同的应用对主频或核心/线程数敏感之外，Intel运算方面比较突出，而AMD的CPU则在多媒体指令上有优势。不过，Intel的内存性能要领先很多，这是导致大部分项目都是Intel方领先，甚至个别项目i3也比AMD的X6 1090T还强的原因。
&&& 这么多产品，你会选择谁？他们的价格从500元到2000多元，每款CPU都有自己的优势。我们的精神是要选择自己合适的，既不能性能过剩，也不要达不到要求。
&&& CPU的是要看自己的日常日用情况而定，不管是双核、四核、还是六核，不管他们的价格是多少，你要明确自己的应用范围。比如经常玩大型3D游戏，i5 750则是最佳选择；组建高清平台和满足日常应用需求，集成有GPU的i3则非常合适；超频狂热爱好者可以尝试i5 661；而专业的图形则可以基于i7或Phenom II X6组建高性能平台。
&&& 而如果你的预算有限，或是想由旧平台升级，AMD的低端产品物美价廉，可以满足日常应用。■
快速转帖：
欢迎转载泡泡网原创文章，请注明：转载自泡泡网 [
上市时间：
参考报价：
酷睿 i5 750(盒) 相似产品：???酷睿 i5 750(盒) 相关文章：| 评测| 新闻| 新闻| 新闻| 新闻| 新闻|
[][]新车排行热门车排行选车工具
| 电信与信息服务业务经营许可证： | 北京市公安局海淀分局网监中心备案编号：AMD 羿龙II X4 965(黑盒)对比Intel 酷睿 i5 750(盒)_百度知道
AMD 羿龙II X4 965(黑盒)对比Intel 酷睿 i5 750(盒)
评价两个CPU
现在，AMD的U只是便宜，并无任何性价比可言啊，X4 965(黑盒)都花800多大洋了，算下来就更不如用Intel的U划算了跑分，如果算上其它电脑配件：X4 965(黑盒)完败 i5 750(盒)实用：X4 965(黑盒)完胜 i5 750(盒)问题是，再加200就上I5了
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
其他1条回答
性能差不多，功耗amd完败 架构intel会好很多
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁英特尔和AMD四核处理器哪个比较好_百度知道
英特尔和AMD四核处理器哪个比较好
英特尔和AMD四核处理器哪个比较好，这个话题很笼统。原因：1、如果都是四核处理器，肯定是英特尔的好很多。2、Intel四核处理器，现在一般是I5和I7处理器，流行的I5处理器，价格就1千多元。而流行的I7处理器，价格在2千左右。 3、AMD四核处理器，当前流行的最一般档次是 Athlon X4（速龙四核）860K价格4百左右，最高档次的是A10系列，AMD APU系列 A10-7870K，价格在8百左右。4、当然价格基本也决定了性能和稳定性。性能方面Intel 四核也比AMD四核高了很多。
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
提问者采纳
AMD 羿龙II X4 965(黑盒)秒杀i5AMD 羿龙II X4 965 Intel 酷睿 i5 750 AMD 羿龙II X4 940
都是4核主频
200倍频 17
15总线频率2000MHz
2000MHz二级缓存4×512KB
2MB三级缓存6MB
6MB况且965和940不锁倍频明显是965胜出750和940比差不多 但是价格说明一切
其他3条回答
这两个相比较的话 显然是750好啦 不过比940贵
平时使用如果只是打游戏的话 940足够了
肯定I5好。单从价格看就知道了
四核处理器的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁手机签到经验翻倍！快来扫一扫！
AMD X4的速龙750K和羿龙955哪个好？
19062浏览 / 60回复
X4的速龙750K和羿龙955哪个好？我想装机，大家觉得这两个哪个更强悍一些？
速龙750K超频后比羿龙955略好，功耗方面比955好很多，并且现在两者价格相似，买新不买旧，建议选择速龙750K~
就综合性能而言...自然955强，虽然955是过时的K10.5架构，但是955具有两个浮点运算单元还有6MB的L3，超频性能上，750K比955略强，两者都不算倍频，另外，我要纠正楼上的一个错误，955也是有95W版本的，所以并不是所有的955的功耗都比955强，我建议你购买955
肯定955好呀！！955是羿龙，750K速龙，速龙是没有三级缓存的，这已经决定了在满载数据处理情况下，955比750K效率更好，再说K10架构的羿龙指令集也比A10的速龙的要先进很多，尽管955比较耗电，但是买的人主要在乎性能吧。750K是最新的FM2接口，以后升级方便，但是有谁TM没事升级呀，再说这几年和已经没什么革命性产品了，没事就是换换CPU接口，搞搞频繁换代，其目的也就是让底下主板厂商跑得快，强迫促进DIY产业消化程度而已。基本大半年就换一代，又不能向下兼容，搞不好FM3下月就出来了。好了不说了，反正我选955，不选750K，就像2011年的宝马7系和2012年的宝马5系一样，睿智的玩家都会选择性能，谁在乎费25W的电呀，省电就去买笔记本吧，台式机就是要快！
这个必须是955好啊。。955都能战FX6100了。。
晕死 这什么情况！！
偏性能的话955
750实际上是双核4线程，怎能和955相提并论
建议是955，我用的是965，虽然工艺旧了，功耗大，但是有L3...有L3跟没L3的差别挺大的.........
顶5楼，真相帝~~
对 楼主 nokivz 说：＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝955随便超超~~~秒死超到爆的750K，还不跟玩一样的~~~~~APU是玩集显的~~~ i3跟955才有一拼~~~~~
要不来个A10?
16:10:12 发表
羿龙955[/quote]难得你说实话不吹水
[quote]引用： 于
19:29:55 发表955随便超超~~~秒死超到爆的750K，还不跟玩一样的~~~~~APU是玩集显的~~~ i3跟955才有一拼~~~~~[/quote]I3只能跟默频750差不多，跟955差远了。。。
肯定955了！
支持键盘翻页 ( 左右 )&
您需要登录后才可以回帖&&&|&&&&&
可能感兴趣的板块：
用户名/注册邮箱/注册手机号
其他第三方号登录Your question
&&&AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs. Intel core i5-750&
dantoshi said:Which of these processors is the best one?
It depends on what you are using it for, so what are you using it for? Also I would avoid the 965 and go with the 955; it’s the same as the 965 except it is cheaper.
Pro Llama said:It depends on what you are using it for, so what are you using it for? Also I would avoid the 965 and go with the 955; it’s the same as the 965 except it is cheaper.
but the 955 is dual cor isn't it???
quad core is better for gaming
and i'm going to use it for gaming
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
The Phenom 955 is a quadcore, the X4 moniker tells you that, a dual core would be X2.
As for which is faster, well the Core i5 750 is slightly faster, but nothing all that noticeable.
Since you do a lot of gaming you have to ask yourself whether you need the ability to SLI or not.
If so then the i5 750 uses the P55 chipset which can allow for both SLI and Crossfire, something no AM3, for the Phenom, board can.
If not then flip a coin.
The next question is what graphics card are you going to use and if you plan on using sli or crossfire. If you are going with a HD 5850 or something like that I would go with the 955 because it will be cheaper and you will not need sli.
If you already have cards that you want to do in sli then you may want to go with the i5 because the 955 boards that support sli are hard to find and put the price up closer to the i5 set-up.
If you are just looking for a cheap gaming computer that you are going to use one card with go with the 955 you will save about $60 which can be put towards a better card. If money isn’t important go with which ever you like better.
The 955 is the same as a 965, except it's 200MHz slower and $20 cheaper.
Using AMD Overdrive, you can just turn up the multiplier a notch to change the speed to 3.4GHz, making it the exact same.
And FYI, quad-core isn't "better" for gaming, as games don't fully utilize all four cores.
For current games, a good dual-core processor will net you performance very similar to a quad-core.
Regardless, quad is still the way to go, as they're much better for non-gaming applications.
For gaming, the i5 or a 955 is definitely the way to go.
Knowing the following would really help:
- What you plan on using your PC for
- If it's for gaming, which games and at what resolution?
- What are your other specs? (video card, RAM, PSU, etc)
Both are excellent processors and will easily last you 3-4 years without even overclocking.
For gaming, they're both pretty even, sometimes with the 955 coming out on top by 1-2 FPS.
In Ubisoft games, usually the i5 has a larger lead.
For professional applications such as programs for video encoding, ripping, compression, etc - the i5 will generally finish tasks about 5-10% faster, which will save you anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes depending on the length of the task.
In terms of overclocking, both are good.
At higher frequencies, the i5 is a bit faster clock for clock, so it generally has overclocks that are more powerful.
You'll easily hit 4.0GHz with either processor, assuming you get the C3 version of the 955.
The AM3 platform is probably a little more stable and will support new CPUs for another year or two.
The 1156 platform isn't quite as developed since it's much newer, but it still appears to be fairly solid (putting aside the Foxconn socket issue).
The future of the 1156 socket is really unknown - but honestly, I can't imagine you needing or wanting to upgrade either of these processors in the next couple years.
Note that the P55 sockets for the 1156 platform have had burning issues with higher overclocks, though it supposedly has been fixed.
An i5 platform will cost you about $50-$60 more, but will also save you $10-$20 per year on energy cost, assuming you leave your PC on 24/7.
The cost will probably even out over a few years.
The i5 is more power-efficient, but also gives off much more heat and as a result, probably is a tad bit louder.
Basically - both are damn good.
I posted the same question a few days ago and this is what I learned.
It all pretty much comes down to what you want.
They are both basically equal in performance.
I chose the i5 simply because I have never had an AMD cpu and because the turbo boost seems like a pretty cool feature.
Time for eternal debate again!
I did the research between the X4 955/965 and the Intel i5-750 also. There's also LOTS of debate on these forums between the two.
In general, the i5-750 is the superior processor between the two. However, for gaming purposes alone there doesn't seem to be a major difference between the two. The i5-750 does however, excel with other software (Photo shop, video editing, etc).
There are a lot of factors with gaming that the two are fairly close. However, from a purely statistical standpoint the i5-750 I find is the better of the two. It will typically cost a little bit more money though.
The i5 750 is 5% faster than the 955 and 5% slower than the 965.
It is very slightly slower than both phenoms in gaming.
Like I said, there's debate. LOL Look up i5-750 reviews and Phenom II X4 955/965 reviews and see how they benchmark compared to one another with applications or games that appeal to you. That's honestly the best way to decide.
Then compare prices, etc. (When I say prices, I mean prices on the CPU, Motherboard, and RAM. Not just CPU alone)
You'll find lots of debate here on the forums.
Can we go one day on the forum without a new thread with the same question?
And leave it to jenny to just make up numbers or just fail miserably at math once again.
Actually I took my numbers from the owner of Lost Circuits, who incidentally has benchmarked both systems a number of times.
Link to exactly where you got those numbers.
How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.
jennyh said:How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.
Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)
No. I looked on LC and did not see it.
Your math is always wrong.
I want to see how you come to the conclusion
that the i5 is 5 percent faster than the 955 and 5 percent slower than the 965.
Show me how a 200mhz speed increase on the two AMD cpus results in a 10 percent swing.
You stated this numbers.
You show it.
keithlm said:Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)
No. This user has proven that she is terrible at math or just makes up numbers.
And thats whats goes on over at the zone.
Except they ban you.
keithlm said:Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)
Yep I'm aware of that...however my sheer determination will eventually break them down and they'll come to see reason.
I'm gonna start with someguy7, who surely will want to get to the truth?
Start here someguy -
Take every one of those benchmarks and tell us how much faster or slower the 965 BE is compared to the i5 750.
For a maths wizard, that should be easy.
PII-965 lost in 3 out of 4 games.
In the game PII-965 leads i5, it is 1.5 FPS better which is substantial.
In addition, i5 beats 965 by 4FPS, 18.9FPS and 1.9FPS in other 3 games which are insignificant at all.
PII-955 is MUCH better than PII-965! Hence, 955 is better than i5 by 5%.
AnandTech is so wrong here:
i5-750 vs PII-965:
i5 can't keep up with PII-955 at all in gaming.
jennyh, you are so right.
Keep up the great work!
Just an FYI for future reference, Anand's Far Cry 2 benchmark isn't gameplay.
It's an artificial stress test using the FC2 engine that simulates how the game would play if each core was at 100%.
Using the in-game benchmarking for actual gameplay, both an i5 and a 955 will net 90+ FPS with a GTX280.
Regardless, a 955, an i5, or an i7 will get you the same performance in gaming.
As a matter of fact, P2's and 1156 CPus will be better in gaming than the 920 due to tighter framerates.
Outside of games, an i5 will net you ~5-10% additional performance in non-gaming applications over the Phenom II, with the exception of a select few applications.
For games, the 955 and the i5 are excellent and will remain excellent for years.
You would never notice a difference.
Medium quality gaming benchmarks fail horribly, especially when the totals are in the 100's.
In short, those anand gaming benchmarks are a joke.
On the other hand, if anybody cares to work out the lostcircuits benches?
Ah hell let me tell you how it ends up.
The Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750...that is with me being as generous as possible to the i5 by including the SSE4 V-Dub benchmarks which scores a 15% swing in the i5's advantage.
Not to mention cinebench, yet another synthetic that favours intel.
Also, if I had worked out the average fps totals of the end gaming benchmarks and added them to the phenom II score, the 965 BE would probably have ended up 15% faster.
So yes I was wrong, it's not 5% its more like 15% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.
And right about now someguy7 is going to confirm those results.
Right someguy?
Atranox said:Just an FYI for future reference, Anand's Far Cry 2 benchmark isn't gameplay.
It's an artificial stress test using the FC2 engine that simulates how the game would play if each core was at 100%.
Using the in-game benchmarking for actual gameplay, both an i5 and a 955 will net 90+ FPS with a GTX280.
Regardless, a 955, an i5, or an i7 will get you the same performance in gaming.
As a matter of fact, P2's and 1156 CPus will be better in gaming than the 920 due to tighter framerates.
Outside of games, an i5 will net you ~5-10% additional performance in non-gaming applications over the Phenom II, with the exception of a select few applications.
For games, the 955 and the i5 are excellent and will remain excellent for years.
You would never notice a difference.
No, you are terribly wrong!
There is huge difference between i5 and 955.
The 955 is much better and will last for 10 years compared to merely 1 year on i5.
jennyh said:Medium quality gaming benchmarks fail horribly, especially when the totals are in the 100's.
In short, those anand gaming benchmarks are a joke.
On the other hand, if anybody cares to work out the lostcircuits benches?
Ah hell let me tell you how it ends up.
The Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750...that is with me being as generous as possible to the i5 by including the SSE4 V-Dub benchmarks which scores a 15% swing in the i5's advantage.
Not to mention cinebench, yet another synthetic that favours intel.
Also, if I had worked out the average fps totals of the end gaming benchmarks and added them to the phenom II score, the 965 BE would probably have ended up 15% faster.
So yes I was wrong, it's not 5% its more like 15% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.
Are you kidding?! It IS 45% in favour of the phenom II using real world apps.
Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking.
At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.
For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.
For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same.
Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.
jennyh said:And right about now someguy7 is going to confirm those results.
Right someguy?
They are wrong as jennyh said they are wrong.
No its about 10-15% in reality.
That's the real reality not your warped reality andy.
Atranox said:Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking.
At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.
For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.
For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same.
Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.
i5 is about 45% WORSE in non-gaming applications.
Atranox said:Keep in mind that the i5 platform has received numerous revisions since the time of benchmarking.
At the time of most benchmarks, the AM3 platform was very solid, while the 1156 was using it's very first shipments.
For non-gaming applications, judging by most benchmarks out there (including lostcircuits), an i5 is about 5-10% better in non-gaming applications, which will shave off a few seconds to a few minutes, depending upon task size.
For gaming at normal resolutions, an i5 or a P2 will be exactly the same.
Some games favor Intel architecture, and some favor the AM3 platform.
I just worked out the lostcircuits benchmarks and the 965 BE is 8% faster at the very least.
If the synthetic cinebench and SSE4 v-dub benchmarks were removed, the 965 BE would be more like 15% faster overall.
Ah and just when we had Jenny speaking the truth...
The i5 750 and the Phenom II 965 trade blows in every benchmark, but the i5 750 comes out slightly ahead if you factor in that the i5 750 is faster clock for clock.
At the end of the day both the Phenom II 965 and the i5 750 are totally equal with some imperceptible gains in the i5 750's favor.
Truespace 5.1
i5 is 13% faster
Truespace 7.5
p2 is 9% faster
Cinebench 2003
i5 is 12% faster
Cinebench r10
i5 = 11320
p2 = 11096
i5 is 2% faster
MainConcept H.264
p2 = 43.68
p2 is 13% faster
Dvdshrink 3.2
p2 is 5% faster
Nero 9 recode
p2 is 5% faster
V-dub non sse4
p2 is 6% faster
v-dub sse4
i5 is 15% faster
DIEP chess
p2 is 9% faster
i5 = 170.5
p2 = 177.8
p2 is 4% faster
i5 = 147.0
p2 = 139.0
i5 is 5% faster
Phenom II 965 BE is 8% faster than the i5 750 on those alone.
That is being as generous to the i5 as I possibly can be.
Btw I stopped before the end gaming benchmarks which (taken on average) would have scored the phenom II 965 BE even higher.
By being generous to the i5 I mean I included the cinebench benchmarks (synthetic favouring the intel), and the SSE4 V-Dub benchmark which frankly is a joke but there you go.
Argue with those numbers, anybody.
Just stop arguing, now. You know it's going to end up nowhere.
No need to argue. You rule the world!
And no PC benchmark needed as the results given by your imagination/make up is the best.
You can't base your conclusions off of one review.
While I'm sure lostcircuits is very accurate, there are numerous variables that go in to benchmarking.
You can have 3 different people run the same benchmarks with identical setups, and I can almost assure you that each would get different results.
For every site that has the 955/965 winning, there are two that has the i5 winning.
You can safely assume from that, that the i5 is slightly faster than a Phenom II for non-gaming.
Atranox said:You can't base your conclusions off of one review.
While I'm sure lostcircuits is very accurate, there are numerous variables that go in to benchmarking.
You can have 3 different people run the same benchmarks with identical setups, and I can almost assure you that each would get different results.
For every site that has the 955/965 winning, there are two that has the i5 winning.
You can safely assume from that, that the i5 is slightly faster than a Phenom II for non-gaming.
jennyh & anything
Atranox the point which seems to be lost on a great many people is, the i5 is winning the *synthetic* benchmarks not real world apps.
If Cinebench was removed the Phenom II would be a country mile ahead.
When looking at benchmarks you have to look at what is being benched and when it's an actual program the Phenom II wins more than it loses.
Look at my numbers and you'll see a huge 'win' in cinebench for the i5.
It's not a real program it's a bloody benchmark!
Then check out the SSE4 V-Dub result and read what they say about that on lostcircuits.
If it wasn't for those the phenom II would be an absolute mile ahead.
It is a better cpu and the benchmarks prove it if you know what you are looking at.
Andy what exactly are you contributing to this thread except utter garbage?
I made immense contribution as I agree with you.
You know my phenom II 940 at 3.8ghz is faster than your i5 at 3.6ghz right?
jennyh said:Actually I took my numbers from the owner of Lost Circuits, who incidentally has benchmarked both systems a number of times.
Allright...
jennyh said:How about you get off your lazy backside and look for them yourself in the forum section.
Naw you're the one making the positive claim. You ought to substantiate your claim with evidence.
keithlm said:Didn't you know that if you don't post a link that contradicts the majority belief on this forum then you are automatically wrong? Even if you later post it then it doesn't matter, you'll still be wrong. (Even if you are quoting a review that is actually on this site.)
A single link?
The "beliefs", if you can call them that, on this forum are based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence. If you have 10 Objective Websites telling you one thing and a single 1 telling you something else... who would you be more prone to believe?
someguy7 said:No. This user has proven that she is terrible at math or just makes up numbers.
And thats whats goes on over at the zone.
Except they ban you.
I agree with your statement.
jennyh said:Yep I'm aware of that...however my sheer determination will eventually break them down and they'll come to see reason.
I'm gonna start with someguy7, who surely will want to get to the truth?
Start here someguy -
Take every one of those benchmarks and tell us how much faster or slower the 965 BE is compared to the i5 750.
For a maths wizard, that should be easy.
I have noticed that since I have arrived here at Toms Hardware, that you have begun to use my wording. "Reasoning and Rationality" were never part of your vocabulary prior to my return. An interesting observation. Here is a test to see if you truly are "reasonable".
Your data:
Vs. Contradicting data:
And MANY MANY more.
So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?
That my dear is called Reasoning.
ElMoIsEviL said:Allright...
Naw you're the one making the positive claim. You ought to substantiate your claim with evidence.
A single link?
The "beliefs", if you can call them that, on this forum are based on a rational and reasonable interpretation of the evidence. If you have 10 Objective Websites telling you one thing and a single 1 telling you something else... who would you be more prone to believe?
I agree with your statement.
I have noticed that since I have arrived here at Toms Hardware, that you have begun to use my wording. "Reasoning and Rationality" were never part of your vocabulary prior to my return. An interesting observation. Here is a test to see if you truly are "reasonable".
Your data:
Vs. Contradicting data:
And MANY MANY more.
So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?
That my dear is called Reasoning.
jennyh & And MANY MANY more
randomizer said:Just stop arguing, now. You know it's going to end up nowhere.
Thank God I am not the only one sick of all this nonsense.
@OP The numbers are here.
Study them and make up your own mind.
There is not a single benchmark that is reliable except the famous "jennyh" benchmark.
BadTrip said:Thank God I am not the only one sick of all this nonsense.
@OP The numbers are here.
Study them and make up your own mind.
I didn't want to join the debate too.
However, I can't tolerate seeing other peoples saying the so right jennyh is wrong. Hence, I joined it once again.
Hanging on one no name web site = fail
His testing methods :
For comparison purposes, all benchmarks were run in WinXP 32
Intel Turbo is cheating= final fail
Compare to Guru3d, Anand, THG , Tweaktown, PC World FGS !
What the i5 750 did to AMD pricing in 2 months.
ElMoIsEviL said:Your data:
Vs. Contradicting data:
And MANY MANY more.
So reason with me why it is that I should ignore all of the other sites and instead rely on the data from Lost Circuit?
What have all these other sites done which somehow invalidates their data?
That my dear is called Reasoning.
The xbitlabs article doesn't have an i5 750.
The tweaktown article doesn't have a 965 BE.
The hardocp article doesn't have a 965 BE.
And please, everybody knows THG and Anand are intel shills.
1 / 5Newest
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Related resources
More resources
Read discussions in other CPUs categories
Ask the community
Top Experts
Overclocking
Tradesman1
62212 messages since 6/4/13
4690 messages since 2/29/16
1343 messages since 5/25/16
All badges
Forum help
Latest Reports
Tom's Hardware Around the World
Subscribe to Tom's Hardware
About Tom's Hardware
Advertising
Purch Privacy Policy
Terms Of Use and Sale
Copyright Policy
Copyright & 2016
Group, Inc. All Rights ReservedTom's Hardware Guide &
Ad choices}