TR Forums

I guess it's about time to update the ole chart. ugh.

added
Core i7-975,
Phenom II 955,
Phenom II X2-550,
Athlon X2-250

also changed the label on the Phenom II 720.. it was incorrectly shown as 710

It's a little sad that the 3.2GHz Phenom II 955 is still a ways behind the i7-920 at 2.66 GHz.
.. a complete reversal from a couple years ago.

danny e. wrote:

It's a little sad that the 3.2GHz Phenom II 955 is still a ways behind the i7-920 at 2.66 GHz.
.. a complete reversal from a couple years ago.

Depends on what you're doing. If we're talking about gaming, the Phenom II 955 is quite a match. It gets beaten in media encoding, etc, however, though.

morphine wrote:

danny e. wrote:

It's a little sad that the 3.2GHz Phenom II 955 is still a ways behind the i7-920 at 2.66 GHz.
.. a complete reversal from a couple years ago.

Depends on what you're doing. If we're talking about gaming, the Phenom II 955 is quite a match. It gets beaten in media encoding, etc, however, though.

yeah.. it's decent in gaming. I dont think the processors matter so much anymore for gaming.. it's all about the video card.

Meanwhile my system is still X2 5000+ based. It will be about time for an all-new system come Q4 or Q1 of 2010

955 advantages
cheaper ram
cheaper motherboard
unlocked multi
cheaper cpu

Similarities
Sockets have a future
Both are good in the high-performance-"value" compared to 940/965/975

940 advantages
kewler ram kits
(the usual intel advantages like faster encoding etc)
you get an i7 cookie
more power efficient(?)
more feature loaded mobo's

...

shaq_mobile wrote:

955 advantages
cheaper ram
cheaper motherboard
unlocked multi
cheaper cpu

Similarities
Sockets have a future
Both are good in the high-performance-"value" compared to 940/965/975

940 advantages
kewler ram kits
(the usual intel advantages like faster encoding etc)
you get an i7 cookie
more power efficient(?)
more feature loaded mobo's

What are you comparing here? Specifically, what is a 940?

danny e. wrote:

yeah.. it's decent in gaming. I dont think the processors matter so much anymore for gaming.. it's all about the video card.

Going from an E6420 overclocked to 3.2GHz (65nm dual-core) to a Q9550 overclocked to 3.4GHz made a pretty big difference, considering that I already had a GTX260 installed and 4GB of RAM (now 8GB). The GPU is the most important for getting those framerates, but if you want them to be smooth, you're going to have to take the CPU into account. Having enough cores running at a decent speed goes a long way toward making a smooth gaming experience, regardless of the GPU!

gosh wrote:

...

alright, alright.

I'll work on getting it updated tonight.
-----------
Edit: Updated. Added the PII X4 965

Some of the processors prices fell off as they are no longer available.

added the i7-950, i7-870 and i5-750

the i5-750 looks like a super good deal up in that higher-end group. price /performance better than any of the current AMD highest end models.

Awesome listing there Danny... only one question, is it possible to update the prices *which would inadvertently also change the price/ratio score i know*

Thanks

Welch wrote:

Awesome listing there Danny... only one question, is it possible to update the prices *which would inadvertently also change the price/ratio score i know*

Thanks

updated.

Almost all of the intel processors went up in price. Most of AMDs went down. Interesting

Very Interested... Matched with a less expensive components like a motherboard, AMD seems like a bargain in comparison. I should also note that it seems like the Phenom II X4 965 is a favorite for some REALLY big discounts on newegg the last I looked. They had over 3-4 combo's bringing the price of the CPU down by between 30-45!!! Making it closely matched with its little brother the 955 (which so happens to be the same damn chip just not clocked as high)

Thanks Danny, your not as lazy as you said you would be we appreciate it.

high time for someone to do their job and update this!

I went with the AMD Phenom II X2 555 for 99$ last week + a cheap mobo with core unlocking.

Worse case I get a 3.2ghz dual core system with 6meg L2 cache 80w
Best case I get a 4GHz quad core...

I will most likely undervolt/underclock for its first few years of life, then go back to regular clock or overclock VS upgrading.

For 99$ Intel doesn't have anything remotely interesting. (I was thinking at first to get an i5 , but the HD graphic video decoder quality was a nono for an HTPC)
i5 + MB vs X2 555 + 5770

Went with the future proof solution.

There is one major problem with that table; it doesn't take into account the cost of the rest of the system.

If an Intel CPU is 100% more expensive than an AMD CPU with "only" 50% higher performance, it still might be the better choice, if the CPU cost is only 25% of the system cost.

Look at it this way: would you pay an extra 25% for you system if that means 50% better performance? Or, for those who are percentage-challenged, would you rather pick a $500 system with a SUPERDUPERMARK score of 1000, or a $625 system with a SUPERDUPERMARK score of 1500?

Very useful info Danny... I know some here have griped about something or other but it does serve the community well. (it's not like you had to put it together for us)

Thank you!

someone else needs to take this over. I simply do not have time anymore... nor do I foresee that changing anytime soon.

See here.

I persoanlly think that AMD is better Intel is just a brand name that everyone recognizes. AMD has just as good processors,CHEAPER and just as fast.
But dont get me wrong intel i7 xtreme is sick, im planning on getting it on my new coolmaster tower i just bought cant wait till its done!!!

another thing I like from AMD APUs is it includes AMD Catalyst Graphics driver, Vision Engine Control Center, and AMD’s driver for OpenCL

Nice review! I could now compare which has better performance between the two. But I much preferred Intel then.

It's not quite that simple though - if you read the tech report articles (which are some of the best on the net no doubt) you'll see that for gaming the time between frames is actually the most important thing for smooth game play and a good experience. For this you need a good cpu but also good memory, good chipset and good general motherboard design (and maybe an SSD to minimize in-game load-times). The i7 is still king of the hill it seems when it comes to gaming and AMD - sadly - are lagging behind a bit. There really are no short-cuts if you want the best - you've got to think of the system as a whole with all the components interacting with each other.

If I was building a new dedicated gaming PC today I'd probably go for the simplest i7 (to get the 4xRam channels and X79) or middle of the road i5-ivy. These will give you the best gaming experience according to the tech report articles.

Where us the AMD FX chips? I have the 4170 Quad 4.3 and I love it. one of the best chips AMD makes and it is fast

Unfortunately benches don't tell the real performance of current CPUs as far as system performance goes. The synthetic benches help characterise and somewhat quantify the processor's potential but they don't show you for instances that any of the mid-range priced CPUs are plenty fast enough for 90% of consumers including enthusiasts.

Many years ago when we were working with slow CPUs the benches were more useful because they indicated what you actually could do with a CPU based on time. Today any modern desktop CPU/system is more than fast enough to run any common app or video without issues. ULV laptop APUs like Intel with poor graphics such as the HD 2500 may not be viable for video games but AMD's laptop Llano and Trinity certainly are fully capable and they can run any application desired without issue nor apology

Until PC hardware reviewers start comparing actual system performance running real apps, most consumers really won't know what CPU, APU or GPU is really best for their needs.

mghong wrote:

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 ?

If you include the Atom processor then you have to include an abacus.

Nec_V20 wrote:

mghong wrote:

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 ?

If you include the Atom processor then you have to include an abacus.

hahahahah that cracked me up.

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.

Any chance of this being updated... afterall we just had some decent AMD price cuts. Curious to see if and which AMD products remotely come close to being competitive.

sandralambert 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.

A rational way to look at it, and a good first post (welcome to TR!)

Sadly, with deals and ever-changing prices I don't think this thread is ever going to get the update it deserves - I just price the cost of the CPU and motherboard (or CPU, motherboard and RAM if it's an AMD A-series relying on integrated graphics) and look at performance/cost based on the easiest-to-browse retailer (ebuyer in my case, probably newegg in your case).