Updated CPU Charts 2008: AMD Versus Intel

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]Hawk66[/nom]I am still playing all of the new games on my AMD 2500+ and 6600GT.[/citation]
Of course you are, the 6600GT supports SM3.0, so you'll probably continue to play the latest games, just really slow or at resolutions/IQ settings that defeat the purpose of "advanced" graphics engines. Crysis on low is painful to look at, I think I'd rather play in wireframe mode.

 

[weinheimer]

Unfortunately...

Tom's hasn't been a reliable or objective source of information for years. Ever since Pabst sold out and left the company to be run without his guidance the reviews and data sets have successively degraded in quality and accuracy.

If you want accurate and honest hardware reviews checkout:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/

 

[Stickywulf]

Keep prices away from benchmark reviews. If someone is not capable of looking to the right of screen to see the prices in the adlinks then they are not capable of choosing a CPU anyway. Thanks for the article/update, I find this helpful as a general guideline for performance.

 

[roofus]

[citation][nom]weinheimer[/nom]Unfortunately...Tom's hasn't been a reliable or objective source of information for years. Ever since Pabst sold out and left the company to be run without his guidance the reviews and data sets have successively degraded in quality and accuracy.If you want accurate and honest hardware reviews checkout:http://www.xbitlabs.com/[/citation]

Are you a shill for Xbit or are you just bitter that charts do not reflect your personal opinions? TH wouldn't be being objective if they "fixed" the charts to make the unknowing believe that AMD is competitive on the high end. You know they aren't. If they did, there wouldn't be so many comparisons to AMD's latest offerings being matched up to the Q6600 which is a good CPU (almost two years old now?) but there have been many better released since.
AMD will be rolling out some very competitive, cool running, powerful CPU's so why argue that their current offerings deserve any higher regard than they get? Trust me, if their new ones coming at the end of the year work as advertised I will own one. Right now, I would have to respectfully say no thanks.

 

[weinheimer]

If you can't see the difference between the quality of reviews before Tom left than after than there is no use discussing anything with you.

any editor or current writer on Tom's knows it just the same.

 

[weinheimer]

Also, I love intel's core2duo, quad offerings. They are great!

This article and review composition still doesn't do the field justice.

 

[roofus]

weinheimer, if anything i would say they made the site easier for the novice. i find it odd being that most novice tech purchasers most likely rely on the sales rep at their local electronics store but it wouldnt be fair to say they aren't as objective as they always have been.
i honestly do not believe for one minute they built the charts with intent to make one company appear better than the other. if anything, they made a very obvious statement that the people who arent willing to go over 200 bucks for a CPU are swimming in choices from AMD.

 

[weinheimer]

That's not my point still...

It's a great tool. I use it, but when dialing down to the very last decision, the component selections, drivers used, cost of related required components, overclocking... and all of the varaibles, the current Tom's just doesn't get it all correct. Its good information, just not conclusive or entirely trustworthy without personally verifying the results.

Thomas Pabst would get down and dirty with all of the details. His charts were clean and clear... and he never filled the pages with fluff. The Tom's of today is a lot of fluff

 

[drew455]

This is nice...but what about gpu charts. i cant recall the last time those changed. i remember how it used to be...as soon as a new gpu came out a few days later it would be added to the charts. i see that new things have been added but, first and foremost, what took so long, and second...wheres the rest of 'em?

 

[randomizer]

Um, the GPU charts were updated last month.

 

[Guest]

The intel core2duo 7200/7300 info is wrong in the CPU tables since they do not include VT as the other models. You can check this on the intel site http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm

 

[ravenware]

[citation][nom][object HTMLSpanElement][/nom]Unknown[/citation]
There is nothing wrong with the 790FX board. I honestly doubt there is a big difference between a DDR2 and DDR3 setup on the intel machine.

I am displeased with the absence of the dual core athlon chips. The x2 5000+ - 6400+ chips are able to outperform several of the phenom chips and even some c2d's. Alos, I would have liked to see the difference between the 90nm 6000+ and the new 65nm 6000+ that runs at slightly higher clock speed and a lower TDP.

 

[Guest]

only a few Questions. whith the AMD, why not a ATI radeon 4870 or 3870? the AMD chipset 790fx is it the best perfomance with nvidia cards or ATI g.c.?? Is it the same nvidia and ATI?? why not 1066 DDR2 memory in the AMD plataform???

 

[Guest]

hmmmm any mobile CPU chart?
U T P version... etc.

 

[ashay_az_azar]

fighting over processors ???! stupid people !!!

if i didnt know what "processor" or "AMD/Intel" means, maybe i would think that these comments are about 2 new religions!

... stupid people!!! u r fighting over... hmmm, what... exactly...!?!?

 

[Guest]

With growth of DSLR market, any Adobe Photoshop Lightroom benchmark would be appreciated.

 

[Guest]

I'll agree with the comment on poorly chosen hardware - the board has an Intel chipset FFS. Why not a board with an AMD chipset for the AMD CPU? And not an ATI graphics card for the ATI system, either? Or, for that matter, a board with an nVidia chipset for the Intel system?

 

[krishna_gn]

According to my experience the best processor in this earth is AMD. I will justify. Let me explain my exp.

1) I bought P4@1.7GHz,128Ram,Mercury motherboard and 40gb hdd in 2002. One day i went to my friend's home he had a computer with AMD@1GHz and rest of the config is same as mine. In his home I conneceted my 40gb hdd and transfer 3gb data from his hard disk to mine hard disk. During the mean time he open the my computer at that moment the window is opened so fast. I tried in my home same thing. It will take hell out of the time to open the window at that momment.See the difference. How fast is AMD.

2) After 5yrs later I changed the my comp with AMD X2 Dual core 3800+ @2GHz, ASUS_M2NPV-VM Motherboard, 2GB Kingston Ram, 320HDD & sony DVD RW. OS-XPwith SP2.
In my comp I will transfer the 25GB data in 30min. 1GB data/min fro HDD to USB Hard Drive.
ok.
**In vista it will transfer 30GB in 30min.

My frnd had a Intel Core 2 DUO @2.4GHZ, Original Intel Board 965Seriece, rest of the thing is same. In his comp for 6GB data transfer it will take 30min.

Finally u now the difference. Dont consider the benchmarks and all those things. Those will done in some machines. U should consider the real time exp. i.e, user...

 

[randomizer]

The CPU has almost zero effect on transfer rates, you know that right? I could use a P3 and still beat you if I had a motherboard for it that supported a modern hard drive. The CPU is practically idling during file transfer.

 

[trstag]

Is there a reson the AMD Brisbane 64 x 2 5600 is not mentioned? I'm actually running two of them so they must exist!

 

[red_green]

These results are interesting. However the average computer user isn't using a best mobo/hard drive/gpu/memory platform.

A real world situation is more apt to be an HP Pavilion with an AMD Phenom versus an HP Pavilion with an Intel Q6600. These oem built machines both tend to use DDR2 memory, and either on board chips or a budget video card. I would be interested in bench marks that compare CPU types on more moderate type PC builds. I suspect that the advantages of Intels would be minimized or negated by real system bottle necks.

Yes I concede that the top line Intels out perform AMD's. A significant increase would only be seen on builds similar to the ones used in this bench test. For my needs I will stick to AMD. I was able to get 8 and 1/2 years of use out of my home built Athlon system. So my new computer is also AMD based. AMD was on top around the year 2000. Maybe they have slipped a bit, but I figure I will do my part to keep them in business, because if they went away, I am fairly certain we would all have to pay more for Intel CPU's. So you Intel diehards, instead of bashing us AMD users, you should thank us for helping to keep computer prices from sky rocketing!

 

[the_timonator]

[citation][nom]undefined[/nom]Unknown[citation][nom]undefined[/nom]Unknown[citation][nom]duzcizgi[/nom]Guys, OK, it's not price/performance chart, but cangelini had supported their decision as "AMD is well priced at the middle range" So, what's middle range here? Where does it start where does it end?I'm looking at this chart to see for the money in my pocket right now what is the best CPU that I can buy.If a chart is unusable for buying decisions, then what's the meaning of it?In all other comparisons, we get the price ranges/price points of the graphics cards, hard disks, memory sticks etc. But here in this chart I don't see anything about pricing.Please tell me, which CPU is the best one if I have $100 for CPU?[/citation]
[/citation]
[/citation]
probably this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103228 or this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103300

 

[the_timonator]

[citation][nom]the_timonator[/nom][/citation][/citation]probably this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103228 or this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103300[/citation]
actually I take back the first one it's the 90 nm version and very outdated. but you could actually buy a tri-core if you wanted to for that price.

 

[Guest]

I want to buy an amd processor with similar to intel i3 so plzz suggest me which one i hv to buy?