Slashdot Mirror
Value Propositions of Current CPUs Put to the Test
J. Dzhugashvili writes "Processors are typically compared by their performance alone. However, the folks at The Tech Report have put together an article that attempts to quantify the value propositions of AMD's and Intel's latest processors. The article takes 16 processors through an extensive battery of tests that range from gaming and video encoding to Folding@Home and energy efficiency, and examines the value they offer in each. The results may surprise you."
That, now more than ever, the best processor for a person's needs depends on what they are going to do with their machine. The large number of choices in CPUs means that if your needs are simple, you can put together a fast machine with relatively few dollars. Ditto for video cards really. If you aren't married to the fastest cards, there are a lot of cards for around $100 give or take that will give great performance in most things, and even run a few games decently. The hype that CPU makers love to throw out there and the cost of high end parts belies that you can put together a machine cheaper now for most needs than ever before.
Bargain basement CPUs do better at $ / work than faster, more expensive ones, because they are so cheap. AMD does well at the low end.
But this doesn't consider the total price of a computer which would help mid priced chips. A $113 CPU is 54% more expensive than a $73 one, so it would have to perform 54% better. But when you throw them into identical $200 systems (case, hard drive, fan, power supply, memory, etc), the $113 CPU (with a total system cost of $313) is only 14% more expensive than the $73 CPU (with a total system cost of $273).
So, while the extremely low end chips do well with this analysis, they make much less sense when you consider total system costs.
Note that the Power consumption and efficiency section in the linked article shows CPU power plotted against cost of the CPU, rather than CPU power plotted against the cost of the electricity.
For computers that are on much of the day, the cost of the electricity over the perhaps 4-year life of the system is significant, and more important than relatively small differences in the cost of the CPU.
Although the article has some flaws, it is very useful.
Saying "wait" in these comparisons is foul-play.
I'd like to see computer manufacturers get to the point where all non-essential components can power down when a machine isn't using them. This would be huge for server rooms, where most machines are there waiting for users to connect. For my mythtv server, it's running non-stop, but hardly using any cpu until it's recording or playing back. Same goes for a mail/file server. The 100-200 watt idle numbers are wasteful, lets get this down to 10-20 watts. Hibernating or suspending doesn't work when you need to be standing by to service a user.
If you don't need OSS graphics drivers AMD is a damn good choice. And it has been for the last 20 years except small K5 vs Pentium period.
As for Vista being the last 32-bit MS OS, it could well be the last MS OS period. Anyway - it really stretches 32-bit address space as it is trying to fit its fat ass within i386 pants.
Games cost $60, less if you are willing to wait, often for a hundred hours of play time. No travel expenses. No special clothes required. Hell, gamers don't even need to buy deodorant. Ever priced a round of golf at a good course? How about membership at the club so you can play there?
I know... if you want to compete with the best players or impress your friends you may choose to buy lots of bleeding edge hardware. My point is you don't have to do so if you just want to play games.