Slashdot Mirror
26 Desktop Processors Compared
theraindog writes "The number of different CPU models available from AMD and Intel is daunting to say the least. The Tech Report's latest CPU review makes some sense of the landscape, exploring the performance and power consumption characteristics of more than two dozen desktop processors between the $999 Core i7-975 and more affordable sub-$100 chips. The article also highlights the value proposition offered by each CPU on its own and as a part of the total cost of a system. The resulting scatter plots nicely illustrate which CPUs deliver the best performance per dollar."
AMD has pretty embarrassing performance on the high end, which makes your choice there downright trivial; but is an excellent value in those niches where they have an entry.
Its too bad the article doesn't talk about things like Execute Disable, Virtualization support, etc. For a power user audience like /. these are important considerations.
For me not being able to install Xen, or Windows 7 XP mode, etc are complete deal killers. I want CPUs with those features, especially when shopping "value CPUs".
Getting something like an E8190 is a mistake that will bite a /. power user in the ass eventually even if it is a few bucks cheaper than an E8200 and delivers the same performance, at the same wattage, etc...
Tom's cpu chart is a great tool, but they don't generally compare older chips to newer ones. They also change the testing credentials from time to time, so there's no real way to directly compare old vs. new.
Anandtech has a new cpu benchmark site that compares everything from a single-core atom up to the top-of-the-line core i7. They've also recently added two pentium 4 chips to the mix so you really can directly compare them to the newer stuff. Check it out:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/
I've been something of an AMD fanboy ever since the Athlon came out, but I just bought an Intel Atom 330 for a lightweight file server, and I have to say I'm thoroughly impressed. 64-bit, dual-core, virtualization extensions, and low-power to boot for around $80 which includes the motherboard. Simply unbeatable.
Also wanted to mention that these guys have easy-to-read benchmark charts of a wide variety of CPUs. Certainly more than the 26 in TFA. Benchmarks don't tell the whole story of course, but it's a good start for quick-and-dirty comparison.
Seconded. I have a Radeon HD3200 and an Athlon 7750 in my Mythbuntu media center, and I couldn't be happier. Plays HD video like a dream and the total system including 4GB of RAM and 4 1TB hard drives clocks in at around $600 or so, $700 with the nice Antec case I got for it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Well, it seems somebody makes ARM PCs... ;>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A9home
http://www.advantage6.com/products/A9home.html
http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/ - just 600 Pounds!
But yeah, I agree with you.
Though I wonder what upcoming ARM netbooks will bring; with existing official Debian ARM port, be might even see the one true desktop Linux distro that you mention, Ubuntu...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Yep, this would have all been true if not for Intel and AMD's unfortunate market segmentation. The original Pentium Pro could support 4 CPUs, the Pentium II and III only supported 2 CPUs, with Pentium II and III Xeons being required for 4 or more CPUs. Intel goes a step further with the Pentium 4, requiring Xeon DPs for even 2 and Xeon MPs for 4 or more. Eventually Xeon DP was renamed the Xeon 5000 series and Xeon MP was renamed the Xeon 7000 series when Intel adopted processor numbering for Xeons, with a new 3000 series for single CPU only Xeons. AMD followed when they adopted SMP with the K7-based Athlon MP for dual CPU, and later the K8-based Opteron 1xx for only one CPU, Opteron 2xx for two, Opteron 8xx for four or more.