It's been about 3 years since I last updated my computer, Still running with DDR2 Ram and a q6600 2.4Ghz with a GTX 260 card. Started to look threw motherboards and processors and was leaning towards the i5's (only wanna spend around 200ish if possible) so I took a quick look to see What amd had to offer CPU wise and was curious about the Phenom II x6 1055t thuban 2.8GHz.   
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103851 (Amd)   
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067 (Intel)    
Any suggestions on which would be best or if there is another CPU in my price range that is better feel free to share

I think the i5 is faster, however the other one has more cores yet slower. Both will be an old cpu to overclock, however you will wind up with an amd mobo and if you want to buy a intel in the future, your out of luck. Honestly I would go with the intel, however ppl likes to have more cores so they can say I didn't pay a grand for i7's X6 cpu. Also if you want to sli, you probally can't with an amd mobo, it's all crossfireX mobos if you care for that kind of stuff, which might limit your options. It guess it really doesn't matter, if you overclock the amd cpu to it's limits, i'm sure it's good enough, however the i5 is faster by default. It's a tough choice. 
 
You could try to overclock your existing cpu, sure you won't get much more than 3.0Ghz, however it's still going to give you a few more frames.

" You won't need 6 cores unless you are doing video editing.  Drop down to a Phenom II x4 965 or wait for Bulldozer. "

Get AMD and spend more cash on the rest of your system such as a better graphics card. There's absolutely no point in getting a 6 core for gaming.

Keep your Q6600 (what a boss proc), upgrade your 260 and wait for the next-gen intel socket+chipset.

i7 930 is 200 at microcenter, if you have one close to where you live,  other wise go with the i5 ,  intel is still a lot better in  performance compared to amd

I would go with a Neuronet processor. But that's just me. 

There's little point going above quad cores for gamings; hell even big games like StarCraft 2 or the Total War series only utilizes or are optimized for dual cores initially.

"

@goodwood: Dispite what some ppl might of told you, the i5 is stronger than the phenomX4 which is really cheap these days (good value) or even X6 which will create bottlenecking even if you overclock it to 4.0Ghz. Well if you buy an i5, you will have a LGA 1156 mobo, which you can buy a i7 later on if you choose to in a few years. Overclocking the i5 as i've read is quite easy with an aftermarket cooler and you can get it past 4.0Ghz. There is really no disadvantages except it doesn't have X6 cores which doesn't mean much for gaming. The clock core with a stronger cpu will make a difference rather than a weaker cpu with overclocking. If you want less bottlenecking, go with intel.   You will get more framerates with an i7, however the i5 is a bit stronger than the competition. It's still a stronger cpu, yet of course ppl can argue at that point framerates are going to be about the same as amd stuff ingame, not sythetics, yet i7 will destroy the competition in game overclocked, i5 is still very powerful with overclocking. If you didn't overclock the i5, it might then start to have similar frames to the X4 phenom so you have to overclock it. Still I would go with an i5. "

There is very little difference, so saying the phenom x4 is weaker then the i5 is just plain wrong, below is a post I wrote on another forum: 
 

Compare the 965 to similarly prices i-series and then to a same type (x4, 3.2 GHz)

 
A:   965 $166: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727
B:   i5 661 $200 (same price, not really, but): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115217
C:   i7 975 EE $1k+ (same type): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115212

 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/13

 
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/clarkdalelaunch_010310105346/21126.png
A: 196
B: 187
C: 201

 
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/clarkdalelaunch_010310105346/21128.png

A: 54.3
B: 60.7
C: 80.3

 
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/clarkdalelaunch_010310105346/21127.png

A: 109
B: 107.4
C: 166.6

 
Keep in mind, the amd processors require a different motherboard and memory, which could change things, but you can see in something like DOW where it is much more CPU bound how things shape up.

I would just save up 100 more dollars to get the i7 950 imo.   It's just a better processor for 300$

" You won't need 6 cores unless you are doing video editing.  Drop down to a Phenom II x4 965 or wait for Bulldozer. "

The Core i5 760 is a lot better for gaming (this only really matters for RTSs and MMOs in the most strenuous of situations though, or if running a large number of graphics cards and memory modules). In fact, I'm fairly certain that even the Phenom II X4 965 is better than the X6 1055T in gaming due to a higher clock.  
 
The 1055T will only beat the Core i5 760 in video encoding and transcoding, and even then only barely.   
 
 A review for your consideration. 
 
As a whole, I would stay away from the X6 series. At the $200 price point the Core i5 760 is an overall better performer than the 1055T, and at the $300 price point the Core i7 930 is a better performer than the 1090T. AMD has been shoddy at the high end these few years and looks like it will continue to be until perhaps Bulldozer comes out. 

Intel has been slamming AMD since the Core2 series, AMD were sencond fiddle at every turn after the Athlon X2.  That being said I wouldn't go past suggesting a high range PII or an X6 to someone on a genuinely tight budget, but once you move into i5 760 territory and above there is no substitute if your after absolute performance (at least at a CPU level).

Isn't the i5 a dual core? Just keep the q6600, I still am using a E6400 2.2GHZ C2D (same generation) OCed to 3GHZ and it works like a charm. Sadly, the laptop I bought had a i7 1.6ghz, and it performs slower then my 3 year old desktop CPU, even though it has 2 more cores :(.

" @nabokovfan87 said:

" You won't need 6 cores unless you are doing video editing.  Drop down to a Phenom II x4 965 or wait for Bulldozer. "

I really want to get the black edition of the 965. Its like a 170 bucks on newegg with a stock 3.4ghz. Apparently it's pretty easy to get that baby up to 4.0ghz with some appropriate cooling of course.  Now if only I had the money as I'm getting close to upgrade time. Not quite there, but I wouldn't hurt. "

" @nabokovfan87:  That's a dual core midrange i5.  Try comparing the AMDs to the i5 750/760.  Troll comparison is troll. "

" @nabokovfan87: I thought the comparisons you posted were interesting but a little confusing, are you saying that the AMD 3.4ghz quad core Black Editions are priced at around the same level as the 2.8ghz i5 CPUs and comparing them on that basis, or are you saying that the two are being compared as they are both in the same performance bracket as each other? If it's price then the AMD seems to make more sense, if it's performance then I'm sure a 3.4ghz i5 would pee all over the AMD if both were running at stock speeds with a good mobo and ram. "

I like AMD as a company, but the i series Intel's are just awesome performance especially if you overclock.
 
A i5-760 with a decent cooler is a very solid choice. 

 @nabokovfan87:  I usually work on the basis that I can afford so much per component and tend to look at what would give me the best performance at that budget. Up until now I have found that AMD offer me the best bang per buck, but if I had the money to burn I would go the Intel route. 
 
The 3 benchmarks that nabokovfan87 posted look to put the i5 661 and Phenom 965 very close together and in 1 of the tests the AMD was only just a few points off the i7 score, which most likely indicates that the way the game was coded works better with the way the AMD chip was made then it does with the Intel design. This happens with graphics cards too, many benchmark test for games will give better results on certain cards as the games were developed using that brand of GPU. The benchmarks serve as a forecast, use them in the same way you might use a weather forecast to decide whether or not you might need an umbrella when you go out.
 
@ChrisOVC:  As this thread is now a few months old, I was wondering whether or not a decision had been made on which processor to get? If so, what was it? and What did you base your decision on? 

yeah this thread is old, but if you haven't bought one yet, wait for Sandy Bridge cpu's to drop in january and then there will be tons of price drops on older I7 cpu's

i5 is the best bang for buck CPU, the i7 is redundant because of it. (for gaming)  Even in Photoshop tests and such the i7 is barely faster, in gaming they are neck and neck. 
 
I have my i5 750 stable @4Ghz, awesome overclockers.

I'd pick da second.

" Don't listen to people talking about Intel being better for gaming. Although it's True, just get the best CPU possible for the cheapest price coupled with a great graphics card and you will get at least 60 fps at a decent resolution anyways. Our Human eyes won't notice the difference if for example it's a GTX 460 with Intel or GTX 460 with AMD. Just make sure you can hit the CPU clock requirements with a good,cheap CPU and stick in a nice GPU. However if you see an Intel deal you may as well go for it. "