You got it right, the Phenom II X4 and Phenom II X6 perform almost identically in the majority of tasks. Personally the only software I use that can for sure push 6 cores would be 3ds max, and F@H.
1. You can take this argument right back to the days of dual core vs single core CPUs.
2. Has multithreading increased lately? Probably not as fast as we have hoped, but yes and apps will continue to be better at using mutiple cores.
3. Do these processors OC to similar clocks? yes, even my 1055T gets all up in the 4.0Ghz range on a 890gx board, with little to no skill on my part.
4. Do you feel bad about having a 25% increase in TPD? The x6 have better idle core clock control features as well as Turbo core. If you rarely reach full load, then that max TPD is irrelevant.
5. Think of the resale value of a x6 in comparison to a x4 3-4 years from now. How much do Q9550 now go for compared to the e8400 for example, almost as much as what they cost new. This happens because if you are looking to replace a toasted CPU, you will most likely look for an upgrade as well, and the x6 is the fastest cpu you can get for an AM2+ mobo.
Hope these examples help.
The L3 cache definitely helps with some apps, less with others. The Athlon II X4 is not on par with the Phenom II. It's actually slower than the Phenom I, per-clock. At least he Phenom I had 2MB of L3 vs 0MB for the Athlon. But for the money, it's still a good CPU.
I also think 6 cores is the way to go now. At some point, games and other apps that currently don't scale beyond 2-3 cores will begin to use 6+ cores, hopefully. It's not that much more expensive than a Phenom II X4 and it has the benefit of Turbo mode if you don't want to overclock.
The Phenom is 5-6% faster than the Athlon with a price difference of $35 currently for the 3Ghz models. That's a bit more tempting than the $80 difference for the 1055T or the $130 for the 1090T especially if my software doesn't take advantage of the extra cores. I do agree that software will improve to use more cores but by the time it does, will cpus with even more cores be available and will the software still lag behind? Except for games, it seems hardware is always ahead.
And the prices will be cheaper by then which is why a 6 core at these prices isn't really an investment. No CPU is. Memory maybe, but not CPUs.
John
I'm looking at my first AMD processor. The price difference between the 1090T 6-core and the 965 4-core is fairly minimal. ($229 vs. $159 at Amazon)
Is there enough difference between the two for "everyday" use to justify the extra cost?
(everyday...MS Office, some gaming, etc....NO photoshop, no photo or video editing)
I'm not an overclocker, and those capabilities aren't a big concern.
Also, I bought a Corsair HX-620 PSU a couple of years ago for my current build. Will that work for this processor and necessary motherboard? (current draw should be fine...I guess my concern is more about the motherboard pins and such.)
This just became academic because Black Friday just got me with this deal: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...t=Combo.552987
Bought 4Gigs of ram for it and it cost $320. The sudden drop on the cpu plus the combo discount was simply to good to pass up.
1. You can take this argument right back to the days of dual core vs single core CPUs.
Athlon II X4 630 from amazon @ 79.99 is the best I could recommend.
Pair it with this mother board.. and you have a capable system for $150.
I had been looking at that same cpu myself but this article this last week convinced me that the deal from newegg was too good to pass up: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/cpu-benchmark-mainstream.html
What really focused my attention was the fact that the PII 970 was 900Mhz faster than the 750 and still lost in many of the benchmarks.