Slashdot Mirror
Phenom IIs, Core I7-920 Win Out In Value Analysis
An anonymous reader writes "We've all seen processor benchmarks, but how do today's enthusiast CPUs look when you account for performance per dollar? Using a smorgasbord of charts, scatter plots, and performance tests, The Tech Report attempted to single out the highest-value offerings out of 16 popular Intel and AMD processors. The results might surprise you: AMD's 45nm Phenom IIs (both triple- and quad-core) prove to be strikingly competitive with Intel's Core 2 Quads. And, on the high end, Intel's $266 Core i7-920 turns out to be a compelling step up despite the higher costs of Core i7 platforms in general."
Really, who doesn't know that AMD is higher performance per dollar.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
It is wrong to compare performance/price because this assumes price scales linearly with performance, which is clearly false. Nobody expects to get 50% more performance when they pay 50% more. But if there is a $100 process having a performance of 1000, then we would normally consider it an excellent deal if we could pay $150 for a performance of 1300. The value for your money therefore scales in a non-linear way, and it's better to just have everyone look at the scatter plot and choose their own price point based on their personal internal scaling function. The core i7 has the greatest discontinuity in jumping ahead of the rest of the crowd in this regard.
Until electricity is free, comparing CPUs based on up-front cost of the CPUs alone ignores a major part of the expense of owning and operating computers, particularly if you're running servers.
But that's okay, Slashdot. I understand that you live in your parents' basement and you don't pay for electricity anyway.
Buying a faster chip is a lot cheaper and faster than rewriting something to be multithreaded.
0/0 gives me a headache. Have to keep carrying the zero.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
It's because Intel dominates the high end. AMD can't sell a processor with a premium pricetag because its performance would compete with Intel's midrange which is priced pretty reasonably.
AMD is the loveable underdog, but don't forget how expensive their X2s were when they were dominant. AMD isn't cheap because they're doing us a favor, they're cheap because they have to be.
Capitalism does not lead to corruption, lack of character does.
Indeed. Something that stood out to me (from that scatter graph) is:
* If you don't want to spend more than $100 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $150 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $200 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $250 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $300 on a CPU, Intel's (cheapest) i7 wins by far.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
I just redid my system line by putting an e8400 in my desktop, where I mostly game. I switched out a Phenom 9600 (cause the tlb erratum for vista x64) to my file server/media center (which runs Ubuntu). and really as this graph will tell you: fast dual-cores are going to blow away slow quads in gaming because most games are not programmed for multiple threads and take advantage of a higher clock core. However, for most other tasks I do, like compiling the Linux Kernel (I run gentoo side by side with vista), the Quad Core Phenom 9600 seems to be much faster. Plus, I had a hard time overclocking the 9600 to anything past 2.6 ghz whereas the 3.0 ghz stock e8400 easily clocks up to ~4.0ghz on air. I should also note that I picked the e8400 over the q8200 because of the virtualization tech as I do alot of virtual systems for testing.
Live Free