Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assault

[PunchGrinder]

The story here in TG Daily:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 invades AMD territory on price/performance chart.


http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/21/intel_core2duo_e6400_invades_amd_territory/


If you look at your chart comparatively the E6400 and Athlon 4600+X2 are almost complete photo finishes apart from each other.

I didn't know where the 6300 was,so I compared the 6400 you have there.

Whats intrigueing is the reason the Multimedia Content is astoundingly high for the 4600 x2(Windsor). Just like the Memory scores -Memory Integers.

The only comparitor wich the AMD took first between them I saw,was the IPOD audio DVD.(I dont know what this is).

The AMD 4600+ romped in the raw memory scores.Though.

I couldn't figure here why the scores were so high for AMD. Yet the NF5 is the chipset being used here-relatively new like DDR800 memory.Compartitively speaking to the 975x for/from Intel(also relatively new for a chipset/platform).

Was also saddened by the power differences between the two. However,
these two are actual equals.As it is assumed that in the price comparison that the 975x will be used for a chipset.And a 200+ dollar graphics card. But I dont think that will be the case.

While AMD users will be souping up on bigger upgrades,processors,memories. Intel users can take the 965 motherboards. STill a photo finish. Since as well it can be expected the 965 will require less power than the 975x used here.

And in moderation,if OEMs dont create a supply shortage.Rarity by default.This should be a good thing.

Certainly fun driving your "Interactive CPU Chart" around.

 

[rwinches]

Sorry the correct link for the charts is www.tomsINTELhardware.com.
:lol: I can't believe that Tom's has got such a woodie over pretty poor performance of the new intel cpus. remember the AMD chip have been beating the snot out of Intel running at much lower clock speeds. this will be such a short lived 'victory' for Intel. Most of the 'new' is speed throtling big deal. I will give tom's credit for saying intel should use the M as a design starting point though. When AMD puts out its 65 chips with new mem controlers this will all seem like a very short dream. I will still be enjoying my DFI NF3 MB with AM 64 3700+ 939, 6800GS 512 APG, 2GB Corsair 500Mz Led Mem and Dell D1626HT real monitor 20" Raid 1 250GB Maxtors. Half My machines are 98SE and Half XP SP1. There is nothing I have seen here that would make be want to upgrade. Hmm maybe a dual 939 3700+ board APG of course. I wish someone would come out with a dual APG board yeah thats the ticket

 

[impreza]

The thing about the new speedy core 2s is they are at the bottom of the price/perfomace in the cpu charts

 

[meclinton30]

I would love to see some Woodcrest and Merom stats on there as well. I would also love to see Woodcrest benchmarked against Dempsey, the 7000 series and Opteron.

 

[Arexcedian]

If you are a non-overclocker this chart is great. But if you are, an entire new chart is needed. Just take the PD805, as overclocked by TH it would rank close to the Conroes. Talk about price/performance! That would be the ultimate CPU chart. I realize it would take a lot more work to produce but I would think it would be worth it since the vast majority of TH readers are overclockers.

Anyone agree?

 

[Inked]

im really disappointed there's no e6300 on that list. that was the reason i looked at the list to start with as i have been planning an e6300 system and wanted to know where it placed...

that sucks.

 

[weilin]

initial testing ive seen has placed it between a 4400 and a 4600+ athlon x2

 

[caamsa]

As far as over clocking goes I am not a big fan of it as it can create problems. I will admit that as my system ages I some times over clock to get more FPS in a game but usually you only get a few more FPS so it is not always worth it.

As far as an over clocking chart. I think there are plenty of sites that over clock cpu's and people will just have to do their own home work. I don't think it would really benifit anyone for Tom's to do an over clock chart becasue of all of the variables in a system. You have the CPU, memory, motherboard, power supply, system case, etc. all factors in over clockng a system. It would be quite a task to test all the CPU's with all the different kinds of motherboards, memory, water cooling vs air cooled etc. As far as a overclocker poll I would say yes I do over clock sometimes but I am certainly not a hard core over clocker.

I was disapointed that they did not test the E6300 but there are some other sites have benchmarked it and I would say it was rather close in speed to the E6400.

 

[mlbspike]

Doesn't it bother anyone that
The Price/Performance Chart is broken?

It seems closer to being just an averaged Performance chart, with price not figured in ... although if it was exactly that, I see an occasional unexpected ordering.

$1000+ Pentium EE processor listed as a better values than the new Core 2 Duo's? 600$ 670 also listed as a better value? Obviously ... something is wrong.

Aside from that one chart ... very useful information ... as you'd expect.

 

[sojrner]

Doesn't it bother anyone that
The Price/Performance Chart is broken?

It seems closer to being just an averaged Performance chart, with price not figured in ... although if it was exactly that, I see an occasional unexpected ordering.

$1000+ Pentium EE processor listed as a better values than the new Core 2 Duo's? 600$ 670 also listed as a better value? Obviously ... something is wrong.

Aside from that one chart ... very useful information ... as you'd expect.

methinks you need to learn to read a chart. It is set up right, and if you actually read it right the 670 is far from better.

Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy:
price on the left side, performance on the bottom. If it falls under the main curve line then it is a good price/performance chip. The bottom right corner would be the ideal chip (highest performance for no money) and so if you are farther to the right while staying under the curve then you are doing good. All the core2 chips are there, and all towards the bottom right.

clear izabel...

 

[mlbspike]

Doesn't it bother anyone that
The Price/Performance Chart is broken?

It seems closer to being just an averaged Performance chart, with price not figured in ... although if it was exactly that, I see an occasional unexpected ordering.

$1000+ Pentium EE processor listed as a better values than the new Core 2 Duo's? 600$ 670 also listed as a better value? Obviously ... something is wrong.

Aside from that one chart ... very useful information ... as you'd expect.

methinks you need to learn to read a chart. It is set up right, and if you actually read it right the 670 is far from better.

Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy:
price on the left side, performance on the bottom. If it falls under the main curve line then it is a good price/performance chip. The bottom right corner would be the ideal chip (highest performance for no money) and so if you are farther to the right while staying under the curve then you are doing good. All the core2 chips are there, and all towards the bottom right.

clear izabel...


And perhaps you need to actually read my post.
This being the discussion linked to "Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assult",
click on the CPU charts button on the 1st page. Then choose the benchmark, "Price/Performance Index - 50% Games, 50% Applications", then tell me how I'm misreading the chart.

The chart you are referring to is associated with the article "Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 invades AMD territory on price/performance chart", and, as I commented in my first post, that chart seems accurate, and useful. Maybe that chart is linked to somewhere in the "Charts Assult" article also, and the problem is that I wasn't clear about what chart I was referring to ... but I found no such link.

methinks ... ha. Thanks for the input, Shakespeare.

 

[mlbspike]

[quote="sojrner

Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy:
price on the left side, performance on the bottom. If it falls under the main curve line then it is a good price/performance chip. The bottom right corner would be the ideal chip (highest performance for no money) and so if you are farther to the right while staying under the curve then you are doing good. All the core2 chips are there, and all towards the bottom right.

clear izabel... [/quote]

I would have just said (for the graphics chart you are discussing):
draw a line from the origin to the chip you are interested in. The lower the slope, the better the value ... but that's just me.

 

[sojrner]

Doesn't it bother anyone that
The Price/Performance Chart is broken?

It seems closer to being just an averaged Performance chart, with price not figured in ... although if it was exactly that, I see an occasional unexpected ordering.

$1000+ Pentium EE processor listed as a better values than the new Core 2 Duo's? 600$ 670 also listed as a better value? Obviously ... something is wrong.

Aside from that one chart ... very useful information ... as you'd expect.

methinks you need to learn to read a chart. It is set up right, and if you actually read it right the 670 is far from better.

Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy:
price on the left side, performance on the bottom. If it falls under the main curve line then it is a good price/performance chip. The bottom right corner would be the ideal chip (highest performance for no money) and so if you are farther to the right while staying under the curve then you are doing good. All the core2 chips are there, and all towards the bottom right.

clear izabel...


And perhaps you need to actually read my post.
This being the discussion linked to "Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assult",
click on the CPU charts button on the 1st page. Then choose the benchmark, "Price/Performance Index - 50% Games, 50% Applications", then tell me how I'm misreading the chart.

The chart you are referring to is associated with the article "Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 invades AMD territory on price/performance chart", and, as I commented in my first post, that chart seems accurate, and useful. Maybe that chart is linked to somewhere in the "Charts Assult" article also, and the problem is that I wasn't clear about what chart I was referring to ... but I found no such link.

methinks ... ha. Thanks for the input, Shakespeare.

8O wow, I must have been more tired then I thought last night. That is totally my bad man, sorry about that. (incidentally I was not trying to sound like a jerk either... but it sure does look like that reading it now, sorry about that too man)

I was writing one thing and thinking another aparently...

On the particular chart you are talking about you're right, very strange... wonder what they do use for a metric? if price was a factor at all then the 670 should not be higher then the core2's I would think...

 

[mlbspike]

Doesn't it bother anyone that
The Price/Performance Chart is broken?

It seems closer to being just an averaged Performance chart, with price not figured in ... although if it was exactly that, I see an occasional unexpected ordering.

$1000+ Pentium EE processor listed as a better values than the new Core 2 Duo's? 600$ 670 also listed as a better value? Obviously ... something is wrong.

Aside from that one chart ... very useful information ... as you'd expect.

methinks you need to learn to read a chart. It is set up right, and if you actually read it right the 670 is far from better.

Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy:
price on the left side, performance on the bottom. If it falls under the main curve line then it is a good price/performance chip. The bottom right corner would be the ideal chip (highest performance for no money) and so if you are farther to the right while staying under the curve then you are doing good. All the core2 chips are there, and all towards the bottom right.

clear izabel...


And perhaps you need to actually read my post.
This being the discussion linked to "Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assult",
click on the CPU charts button on the 1st page. Then choose the benchmark, "Price/Performance Index - 50% Games, 50% Applications", then tell me how I'm misreading the chart.

The chart you are referring to is associated with the article "Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 invades AMD territory on price/performance chart", and, as I commented in my first post, that chart seems accurate, and useful. Maybe that chart is linked to somewhere in the "Charts Assult" article also, and the problem is that I wasn't clear about what chart I was referring to ... but I found no such link.

methinks ... ha. Thanks for the input, Shakespeare.

8O wow, I must have been more tired then I thought last night. That is totally my bad man, sorry about that. (incidentally I was not trying to sound like a jerk either... but it sure does look like that reading it now, sorry about that too man)

I was writing one thing and thinking another aparently...

On the particular chart you are talking about you're right, very strange... wonder what they do use for a metric? if price was a factor at all then the 670 should not be higher then the core2's I would think...

Very gracious. No worries ... momentarily annoying, but I understood what chart you meant, and figured it wasn't meant as a personal slur ... and you made me laugh in the bargain. Thanks.

 

[hesido]

@mlbspike: something is *utterly wrong* with the price / perf chart indeed, does Tom ( ) watch this forum at all ?

 

[mlbspike]

apparently not. I also sent a message to the author of this article, but no change to the charts. I sent a general feedback to the site ... guess we'll see if anybody is alive and awake, for that one. Not optomistic, at this point. Conroes ... worst in the price/perfomance chart ... I'm sure AMD won't be sending complaints to them.

 

[hesido]

Last time I checked, there was a giant AMD Price Drop Ad next to the charts, I hope there is no connection

 

[lbax]

Tom's has been having a lot of data management problems in the recent past. These poorly done price/performance charts is yet another example of their good chart design gone bad in implementation. Perhaps they have bitten off more than they can effectively chew. I can only hope that the author or editors wake up to their loss of credibility & devote more resources to a QC process.

 

[lbax]

I am happy to report that it appears that someone is making an effort to fix the price/performance charts. Maybe Tom's is reading this forum after all!

 

[hesido]

Great, it now started to make sense! (I still don't think they are reading this, but if I were an Intel executive, I'd sure be making a call to Mr. Tom )

 

[michaelsil1]

I thought I saw AMD lower its price on the FX62 Dual to $240.00 did anyone else see this or am I going mad? If it is true where can I find one?