Pentium III 1.13: Tops For Speed, 'F' For Price?

fjordboy writes: "CPUscorecard has some multiple reviews and benchmarks of recent CPUs. Somewhat surprisingly, the Pentium III 1.13 GHz processor tops the list, but only for speed. CPU Scorecard also gave the Pentium III an "F" when it came to pricing. Is the high price tag worth it for the top-notch speed? Click here to see how the Pentium III stacked up to the other CPU's."

Comments

CS101/ECON315: Laws of computer buying

[wmoyes]

There is nothing surprising about Intel's fastest chip being a loser when it comes to price. Intel isn't dumb, this chip is targeted towards the people that will pay any price for that fastest machine on the block (at least fastest in their minds). Other companies do this as well. In the past hard drive manufactures did the same thing. The largest harddrives had a terrible cost per megabyte ratio.

When buying new hardware you need to look at two price points and choose in the middle. There is the point when the price takes off to catch those who will pay through the nose to get the 'best' (only to realize in two months that something better came out), and the other price point is where they catch those who try to be cheap (yea, it's the cheapest, but for $5 more you can get something twice as big/fast). Those who go the cheap way get disappointed and lose money on upgrades.

When I buy a new machine I mentally graph out cost vs. performance. Usually you will see a slow rise in price and performance takes off. Then it will level out somewhere in the middle and then about 2 generations from the top the price will skyrocket while the performance just creeps along. I buy at the point just before where the price takes off. This way I get very good hardware that only a little behind the best, and it doesn't cost much more then the junk I would get if I was cheap. I can then use the money on peripherals (a good monitor is better than a 50 MHz jump any day).

I have a second rule of computer buying: When you own a computer you need to put $XXX into it every year. The more you put into it the closer to cutting edge it will be. If you put $1000 into you machine every year you will have the best machine on the block. If you only put $50 or less into the machine you will be facing obsolesce. Custom PC's don't become obsolete, they only become obsolete through neglect. They are more like a car than a VCR.

Yes, I know my two rules sound obvious to any geek, but there is wisdom in there. This is the same spiel I give to anybody who comes to me for advice in buying a computer.

When was Intel's top CPU ever worth the price?

[swb]

I've never known it to make sense to pay top dollar for Intel's fastest CPU. From a value perspective it just doesn't make sense, especially with SMP boards so cheap. The CPUs one, two or even three steps down from top of the line running in pairs often deliver *better* performance than the top CPU and at a lower cost(YMMV, IANAL, etc etc). Even in single-CPU installations the price differences are so great and the performance advantages so minimal between Intel's #1 CPU and the lower-clocked family members that the marginal gain doesn't exceed the marginal cost.

It would only seem to be of value in those rare situations where the marginal gain in processing is so profitable or desirable that it outweighs the marginal costs -- but places like that probably already buy bigger machines than Intel boxes.

The thing is, its always been this way. I remember buying a P150 when P200 was out and the price difference was astronomical. To this day, when I use my P150 (running @ 166) I still don't feel the performance difference is substantial over a P200.

'F' for reliability too

[Bob Ince]

Since the Pentium !!! 1.13GHz has been withdrawn, its price seems pretty irrelevant.

The pricing of the Pentium 4 is much more interesting...
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.