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."
No, but the $300 i7 920 surely is...
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
What is the cheapest CPU that can playback 780P flash well?
That is probably a good CPU for 99% of the population. Flash is a resource hog and is likely to be most intensive thing that most people use.
The next step up would be to list several games and see what is the cheapest CPU that can play them at say 60FPS at good settings with a $99 video card.
If your a video editor, hardcore PC gamer, transcode a lot of video, or run CAD get the fastest CPU you can afford.
So hard core types should buy I7s and pretty much everybody else should buy AMDs once you take into account ram and motherboard prices.
Also if you are planing on running virtual machines AMD are often a better choice. Intel doesn't support virtualization on a lot of their CPUs while I think AMD does on their AM2 and up CPUs.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It does if you want to turn.
Or if you want to not look like a redneck.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
The performance scales sub-linearly with the price, and ends up almost flat at the extreme end. This means you need to examine the cost of SMP vs. a more powerful CPU. Two X2 6400+ chips in an SMP should give you about the same performance at the same cost as one i7-920, after you add in the extra for the upgraded chipsets and mobo.
More powerful low-end chips become more and more effective when SMPed versus their higher-end rivals. The other benefit of going SMP is that you have fewer cores sharing the same cache, therefore increase the number of distinct tasks you can perform in parallel effectively without cache-flooding.
Of course, you can't SMP forever - the largest SMP array you can make before the system slows down by more than the CPU increases performance is 16-way. Even before then, you lose linear scaling fairly early on. So you end up balancing the different CPUs against the different methods of arranging them to get the best performance for your money.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not if you factor in the motherboard price difference - about $100 for x58 over AM2+. The i7 is brilliant for heavy, multi-threaded workloads but I question how much of that performance is really worth it for an average consumer or even Slashdot reader.
Apparently, the tech report should have benchmarked their web server before putting this article up.
The Phenom II X4 955 beats the i7 920 in 3 out of the 4 games they tried. The only one it lost was Cryis Warhead and it was a narrow loss (48 vs. 46 FPS).
These price difference of these two chips is about $35 on Newegg. I think for gamers, getting the X4 955 and putting that extra $35 towards the video card will net better results. This isn't counting the additional cost of DDR2 vs. DDR3 memory which has minimal effect on performance right now but still has a big price difference.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
I'd also question its price/longevity scale as well, since the sort of folks who are going to drop $700+ on a basic (no video card, no monitor, no hd's) high performance system are probably the same sort of folks who are going to scrap that box as soon as Larrabee hits.
My AMDx2 3800+ is starting to show its age, but there is no way I am going to buy a high end part with Larrabee so close.
"His name was James Damore."
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...
Not to mention that for most folks that "ludicrous speed" is simply overkill. I've been building my customers a mix of Pentium Duals and AMD 7550s and all they can talk about is how blazing fast they are. Because for most of the stuff folks are doing today, even games, the CPU is rarely the bottleneck and passed "good enough" a few years back.
So at least for my customers and myself (I liked how the last AMD 7550 ran so quiet so I built one for myself) it is more about "bang for the buck" and when I can build a nice AMD 7550 with 4Gb of RAM, a 780 board along with a 300Gb Sata 2 and a nice black case for $281 shipped it is just nuts to blow all that extra cash in this economy to get a bigger epeen. For most of us even the bottom of the line dual cores are sitting idle a good 80% of the time, so why blow the extra cash? I just checked process Explorer and with 9 tabs plus Comodo Internet Security on XP X64 I've still got 3.2Gb of RAM free and am only using an average of 1.4% CPU, plus I got another 1Gb of RAM on the $50 HD4650 for watching videos.
Considering my first machine was a VIC20 where I had to peek and poke everything all this extra power is nice, but I doubt I'll be saying "you know what? I need more power!" for quite awhile yet. So for a box that cost a hair over $500 counting the OS and GPU I'm a happy little camper. While having ludicrous speed might be good if I was doing major CAD or graphics work, for the things that myself and my customers do with their PCs there just really isn't a point. Hell I gave my nearly 5 year old 3.6GHz P4 to my oldest and he is blasting zombies in Left4Dead even as we speak, so even that CPU is "good enough" for what he wants to do with it. The "bang for the buck" you get nowadays even on the low end is frankly unreal!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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/
In science we call that honesty. You can make a tiny little difference look REALLY BIG by cropping your graph so that it only shows a very tiny range. By showing the origin tiny differences look, well, tiny.
My issue with the graph is someone needs to take a class on "how to make a graph". 0% performance and $0 cpu.... why? Was there a $0 cpu? Did any of the cpus get a 0%?
Probably because the person who made that graph for The Tech Report wanted all the proportions to be honest.
Did you ever read the book How to Lie with Statistics? Or the book How to Lie with Charts? Or a nice, short blog post called Graphs That Lie?
When you chop out some of the "wasted space" in a graph, you distort the graph. Unless people are careful and check where your axes begin, and then mentally visualize where the axes go, they'll get a misleading idea of the data from the graph.
Suppose the bottom part of the graph was sliced off, at the 90% line, to make you happier. Imagine what it would look like. The AMD X2 6400+, sitting at the 100% line, would have very little white space under it; and the Intel i7-920, sitting a bit below the 200% line, would now appear to be ten times faster than the AMD X2 6400+. The numbers would be the same, but the visual impact would be that the Intel chip totally blows away the AMD chips.
The graph is good the way it is.
I'll meet you halfway, though: it wouldn't have hurt for them to have put in a second chart, zooming in on just the most crowded areas.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely