Tests (for games) shows, that 965 is a bit better (or equal) than 1090T...
Look up a bit in the thread and you see the link.
Limited amount of games I think. I think you should look up reviews. I'll see if I can fuind anything.
EDIT: Had a quick look around (
TPU,
Neoseeker) and yeah they appear to be very close in games. They were posted almost 2.5 years ago though, I don't know how games like BF3 and so on behave on them.
More cores doesn't always scale well for older games which is why the 965 appears faster or equal. Essentially, they are the same architecture so they are the same performance in non multi threaded games. At best in a 1-4 threaded game the 965 will only get a few frame rates more because the L3 cache is being shared across fewer cores. The performance increase will be negligible which is what that review shows.
But newer and upcoming games are supporting 6 cores, the 1090T would be in a different league. Games like BF3 which would have a 4 core at 100% CPU would be balanced across 2 additional cores thus freeing resources to manage background applications.
An example would be when the Phenom II X2 550 BE was released it was outperforming the Phenom II X4's in games. The primary reason was because the games were old and single threaded. 3 years later The Phenom II X2 would struggle in BF3 and other multi threaded titles but the Phenom II X4 would be fine. It's the same concept with the X6. We are moving towards multi threaded environments.
Gaming aside. The 1090T, being 6 cores would be generally snappier, and would be much more productive in graphic design, CAD, encoding and pretty much all other areas. It's the all round better processor.
This is comparison (720 and 965) (games):
Code:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-965,2389-8.html
Ignore that. Those games are old, most are single threaded. The 965 would be even faster in today's multi-threaded games. Likewise the 1090T would be faster than the 965 in upcoming titles.