TR Forums

The following chart is based on TR reviews. Notes below.
--------------------
CPU .................. Performance ......... Non...........Gaming.............Price.......... Performance/Price
Core i7 975..............206.71...............215.60.........178.54..............1000..................2.07
Core i7 965..............197.43...............206.99.........167.18
QX 9775 .................193.50...............211.38.........136.90
Core i7 950..............186.10...............195.45.........156.50................570.................3.26
Core i7 870..............184.62...............192.11.........160.92................550.................3.36
Core i7 940..............180.12...............189.95.........149.00
QX 9770 .................169.16...............172.13.........159.77
Core i5 750..............168.30...............172.87.........153.81................200.................8.41
Core i7 920..............167.14...............175.88.........139.46................289..................5.78

Phenom II 965..........157.07...............159.74..........148.63................196.................8.01
Core2 Q9550............152.88...............154.62..........146.54................270.................5.65
Phenom II 955...........151.62...............153.39.........146.02................176.................8.61
Phenom II 940...........142.70...............144.44.........137.18................166.................8.60
Core2 Q9400.............141.64...............145.44.........129.62................190.................7.45
Phenom II 920...........135.11...............136.29.........131.39

Core2 E8600.............134.87...............132.52.........142.31................280.................4.82
Core2 Q9300.............133.60...............136.27.........125.15
Core2 E8500.............129.20........................................................190.................6.80
Phenom II 810...........127.80...............129.16.........123.51................156.................8.19
Core2 Q8200.............125.82...............129.42.........114.41................150.................8.39
Core2 Q6600.............124.82...............128.41.........113.46
Core2 E8400..............124.74...............121.59.........134.71..............168...................7.42

PhenomII X2-550........122.66................121.17........127.39..............102..................12.03
Phenom II 720............121.51...............116.66........136.87...............119..................10.21
PhenomX4 9950..........121.03...............124.10........111.30
Athlon II X2-250..........113.74...............115.37........108.56................76..................14.97
Core2 E6750..............109.50
PhenomX4 9750..........108.97
Core2 E7200..............107.89
X2 6400+..................100.00...............100.00........100.00
X2 6000+...................97.35
X2 5600+...................92.47

******************************
NOTES
----------------
All scores based on TR reviews.
Prices are from Newegg as of Nov 2, 2009
----------------------------
Q: How is the total score calculated?
A: Non-Gaming = 76%, Gaming = 24%

Q: Why do some CPUs only have a "peformance" score?
A: The performance score for CPUs from older reviews do not have a gaming score or non-gaming score because of non-inclusion of games for older reviews in the chart. However, because of the way I calculated old scores using base from the newer reviews, gaming scores from the current reviews impact the older CPU scores.

Q: How come processor X isn't in the list?
A: I'm lazy.

Q: How come you only included 13 of the benchmarks for the non-gaming portion instead of all of them?
A: I'm lazy.

Q: How come the older cpus aren't there? This makes comparing my current cpu to the newer ones impossible!!! *%$#D##@!
A: I'll try to add more cpus in the future.. eventually.

Q: How come AMD looks to have the performance / price win across the board?
A: They have lower priced cpus.

-------------------------
Gaming portion includes the 4 games benched in the Phenom II review.
The Non-gaming portion includes the following benchies: World Bench, MS Office, Firefox + encoding, winzip, Nero, Photoshop, Panorama, Pic Color, x264 HD, windows media encoding, Lame MT encoding, cinebench, POV ray.

Base is currently the X2 6400+.

Naturally, the peformance/price numbers don't mean everything.. but it at least gives you an idea how much extra you're paying for the higher performing cpus.

Yeah... OP aside, I kinda wish TR would employ a breif "performance/dollar" index behind each system for their system guides. That way, people actually buying the hardware would know what to expect.

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

shank15217 wrote:

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

Ok jerk. There are ALL sorts of ridiculous requests for more this-and-that in the comment threads at the end of EVERY single review. Some calling Geoff "lazy" for not using different RAID cards in addition to etc etc etc. I have the AUDACITY to suggest maybe a quick 3-game benchmark or even a simpler "performance index" and I'm asking too much.

shank15217 wrote:

Gee, should they also color code it and add ice-cream cones and stickers to it as well. Read the reviews properly and read the comments then make a decision based on the whole article. What the above poster did was summarize the benchmarks and when you create benchmark indexes a lot of information and subtleties about why you would buy one system over the other is lost.

not really sure what you're trying to say.

all the post above does is summarize the information in a easier to read at a glance chart.
.. obviously the review contains many more benchmarks though.. so it doesnt tell nearly the whole story. If I added all the benchies to the chart then it'd be more meaningful.
however, there isnt ever going to be any subtlety that will make the Core i7 965 a good buy from a performance / price perspective.

ssidbroadcast wrote:

Ok jerk.

yikes.
too much caffeine?

Do you have the numbers for the Q9550 or Q9400?

danny e. wrote:

ssidbroadcast wrote:

Ok jerk.

yikes.
too much caffeine?

derFunk pointed the word "dumb ****" in the general vicinity of other TR members. I pointed the much, much tamer word "jerk" at ONE tr member. Too much caffiene?? YOU DECIDE!!

And yeah, obviously this chart OP suggested leaves out a lot of information, but I really like the direction he's heading and his head is in the right place. (er, in that he wants to make a performance/price ratio, not so much the pro-AMD bias).

ssidbroadcast wrote:

danny e. wrote:

ssidbroadcast wrote:

Ok jerk.

yikes.
too much caffeine?

derFunk pointed the word "dumb ****" in the general vicinity of other TR members. I pointed the much, much tamer word "jerk" at ONE tr member. Too much caffiene?? YOU DECIDE!!

And yeah, obviously this chart OP suggested leaves out a lot of information, but I really like the direction he's heading and his head is in the right place. (er, in that he wants to make a performance/price ratio, not so much the pro-AMD bias).

haha It does look like I'm a bit biased in the chart, but that wasnt on purpose.. I just included the top cpus from intel & amd and a few lower ones for base.
I'll add a few more. intel would look more competive if the E8400 was in the review... or they dropped their Core i7 prices in half

Having seen the last price/performance guide for CPUs, I think that it's always the cheapest CPU that wins. I'd bet that if they added AMD 4200 X2 then it would be an even better "value" than the 6400 x2.

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

updated.

Great job once again. Can't wait to see more CPU's up there.

The blue text is kinda hard to read against the blue background, other than that great list.

danny e., TechReport needs to hire you. This thread delivers. Please keep it up.

Thread stickied for Epic Usefulness.

question for everyone: Ok to change the overall performance to (gaming + (non *2))/3 ? ie.. non gaming is worth twice as much as gaming.
Reason I'm thinking of changing is that the gaming scores are calculated from 4 games.. while the non-gaming scores come from 13 benchies. So, one game could have a profound impact on the final score.

Another reason I have thought about changing is I started looking back at the older CPUs to add them into the list.. and the gaming scores for some of the old reviews became very problematic. Ie.. some of the slower clocked cpus performed better in some of the "games" in one of the reviews throwing the total number off .. and since the older reviews do not use the same games I don't want the crazy numbers throwing off the newer review numbers.

I could also leave the newer cpus that were all in the same review (everything up there now) the current way and just change the formula for the older cpus as I add them in.

thoughts?

What you are doing makes no sense what so ever, if you want a gaming index there are several out there. The only reason to do detailed benchmarks is to make informed decisions, and you are taking all that work and putting right back in the pot mixing it up and coming up with a score.

shank15217 wrote:

What you are doing makes no sense what so ever

I disagree.

When I first read your post I though you shouldn't, but because there are so many benchmarks in non-gaming I would say you should. Could you do a "gaming/dollar" column too?

shank15217 wrote:

What you are doing makes no sense what so ever, if you want a gaming index there are several out there. The only reason to do detailed benchmarks is to make informed decisions, and you are taking all that work and putting right back in the pot mixing it up and coming up with a score.

He is taking the numbers in the TR reviews and running through a defined set of rules to reach upon a performance rating to combine with the price to reach a value rating. Care to explain exactly what part of that is "mixing it up and coming up with a score", or are you just here for the put-down?

JustAnEngineer wrote:

The way to rationalize more expensive CPUs to yourself is to count the cost of the motherboard and RAM. This may push the optimum to the middle of the processor series, but the bleeding edge top-end is never a good value.

Yeearrrghh! My 965 was a GREAT value....errrr......if you inherited the money...or found it......

LOL

This chart should have had the value champ E8400 3GHz, 6MB cache 45nm Intel dynamo that runs on superior socket 775 mobos and just about every sane person on the planet buys instead of much slower, much dated X2 6400+s.

Love the AMD and have a Phenom 9850BE in my secondary rig to support'em- but you are castrating a gaming rig putting an AMD CPU in it. Just the way it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C4Z2ggtnL0&feature=related

EDIT:
I do like the 940, and it's a decent value cpu.

Another vote to get the E8400 up there. It can't compete with the low price of the 6400+ but it's definitely the enthusiast's choice for bang for the buck.

Can you also add the PhenomII 720 X3?

Come on Danny, you're slacking

updated.

I have changed the total score to be 76% non-gaming & 24% gaming for any cpu in the latest review.
cpus from older reviews only have one score.
read the notes for further explanation.

danny - thanks for all the work putting the chart together. I'm looking at a Phenom 920 and the chart is confirming my own reading.

The e8400 still stands as best bang for buck. nice.

I'm not sure what you're looking at because it seems to me like the X3 710 beats it hands down; you could even go a little higher and say the X4 920 wins the title. It's pretty interesting to see the E8400 and Q6600 so close because of all the heated debates that have gone on between those two, especially when they were priced closer together.

Out of the intel range. I forgot to mention sorry.
But yes, you are right, AMD offers better performance per dollar ATM.

ub3r wrote:

Out of the intel range. I forgot to mention sorry.
But yes, you are right, AMD offers better performance per dollar ATM.

How about ATom processor ?