Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assault

Last response: in Memory
Share
August 21, 2006 3:43:01 PM

Intel\'s Core 2 might be the cure to Pentium pains, but it isn\'t necessarily the best choice for everyone. We test-drove 83 processors across a 37-benchmark parcours and once again offer the best processor comparison on the web.
August 21, 2006 4:14:35 PM

Buy a 6400 or a 6600...OC it past the stock Ghz of the Extreme...Merry Christmas, you have yourself a $1200 processor for only $270 or $370.
August 21, 2006 4:18:24 PM

The god damn fucking link dosnt wooooooork! Wanna see how good my E6400 is against my old P4 640 @ 4,2 ghz...........

And see how muck it kicks ass against AMD :twisted:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 21, 2006 4:23:27 PM

if you look at the second page, under the first picture you'll notice the author spelled the work click as 'Klick'. Don't worry i've already notified them. :D 
August 21, 2006 4:41:26 PM

Quote:
The god damn ****** link dosnt wooooooork! Wanna see how good my E6400 is against my old P4 640 @ 4,2 ghz...........

And see how muck it kicks ass against AMD :twisted:


I think the charts are overloaded. It works for me, but the server is really SLOOOOOOOOOOW.
August 21, 2006 4:44:44 PM

the sad part is as soon as you upgrade... something newer comes out and yours is outdated
August 21, 2006 5:06:05 PM

Crappy THG servers... :roll:
August 21, 2006 5:29:25 PM

:cry:  it still dosnt work for me :cry: 
August 21, 2006 5:59:50 PM

Quote:
now all you have to do is get an updated gfx charts and we will be sorted.

Preach it man!
August 21, 2006 6:25:45 PM

Why is it that most of the AMD chips don't have DDR2-800 in the tests? (obviously I'm talking about the AM2 ones...)
Must be compatability issues or something ;) 
August 21, 2006 6:37:38 PM

yah makes no sence why this is up faste rthen the vga charts. i want toknow how my 7900 gt stacks up!
August 21, 2006 6:50:00 PM

It would be nice to include the E6300...
August 21, 2006 6:56:32 PM



Once again, we've got a tomshardware.com.com url, and once again this is posted in memory. Just... why? Why does it always have to be this way? Has an answer ever been presented, and would it really take that much effort to edit a little better (say, testing a link after you post it?)?

Also, there's an untranslated caption under one of the pictures in the article, but whatever.
August 21, 2006 6:58:05 PM

i dont think i saw any semprons or Celerons either... or socket A... but thats kinda dead now... And, like sid said, no 6300


edit: added Celerons
August 21, 2006 7:15:21 PM

I'm a little confused by the AMD processor summary table:
http://images.tomshardware.com/images/tables/cpu_table_...

I could be wrong, but I think at least one listing for the AM2 processor line is wrong. I just bought an X2 3800+, dual 2000MHz, 1.3-1.35V, 2x 512K L2 Cache, and newegg lists this processor as Windsor core, not Brisbane.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

In fact, newegg lists all the AM2 Athlon X2 processors as having Windsor core:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&ty...
and a search for Brisbane returns nothing:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&ty...

AMD's site wasn't much help because I couldn't find reference to the core names, but the core voltages in the table above can be found in the product lineup:
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

From this I'm assuming that Brisbane is the low-wattage lineup (35W, 65W) and it just isn't available yet?

In any case, there are problems with the chart, because 3800+ Windsor isn't even listed, and Brisbane is listed but does not appear in your product tree:
http://images.tomshardware.com/images/tables/cpu_amd_bi...
August 21, 2006 8:52:22 PM

I had a thought about how to make the charts better, though I haven’t fully thought this out it has a good chance of being quite dumb. tell me if you guys think this is a good or bad idea.

just to get an overall ranking of cpus take all the benchmark numbers and fps numbers then grade each cpu on a curve.

Example cpu A gets a 124 fps in a game and it has the highest fps for that game out of all the cpus. Make 124fps= 100% and then give the other cpus a % based off of the 124fps=100%. so if cpu B got 62fps, it would get a 50%.

do this for all the benchmarks and then average out all the percents to see what cpu has the highest % overall. I don’t know what to do for things that the lower number the better, but like I said I didn’t think this all out.

I think this could be misleading in some cases but maybe toms could weight some benchmarks games ect. It would be a lot of work to do this but it might be helpful.

What do you guys think?
August 21, 2006 9:05:46 PM

Quote:
sorry i don't get that

oh and sojrner, hallelujah.



On the chart, most of the AM2 chips were tested with slower RAM.


And whoever said they need the e6300, I agree.
August 21, 2006 9:15:09 PM

Quote:
sorry i don't get that

oh and sojrner, hallelujah.



On the chart, most of the AM2 chips were tested with slower RAM.


And whoever said they need the e6300, I agree.

if you read the initial reviews of teh am2 chips when they came out you would see that depending on the chip and multiplier the ram runs at different speeds on am2 procs. b/c of the integrated controller and b/c of the restrictions on the multiplier you end up not always getting "full speed" from the ram. search up the article here on Tom's. The ram itself is the same, it just runs slower on some of the am2 procs. Not a really big deal, as they still perform nicely.
August 21, 2006 10:37:31 PM

Quote:
sorry i don't get that

oh and sojrner, hallelujah.



On the chart, most of the AM2 chips were tested with slower RAM.


And whoever said they need the e6300, I agree.

if you read the initial reviews of teh am2 chips when they came out you would see that depending on the chip and multiplier the ram runs at different speeds on am2 procs. b/c of the integrated controller and b/c of the restrictions on the multiplier you end up not always getting "full speed" from the ram. search up the article here on Tom's. The ram itself is the same, it just runs slower on some of the am2 procs. Not a really big deal, as they still perform nicely.


Ahhh... it all makes sense now.
August 21, 2006 11:09:30 PM

The price/performance chart leads to a question.
The P4 670, vs the Core 2 Duo E6600. The E6600 is listed as at a 25.48% disadvantage to the 670.
The 670, in the TG Stores listings seems to be in excess of $600.
The 6600, closer to $370, maybe as high as $420, once you average in the wiggier listings.
For the P4-670 to have a 25.48% advantage, it would have to either be clobbering the E6600 in various benchmarks, or be considerably cheaper, neither of which seems to be true. Day to day price fluctuations don't seem to approach an explanation either.
The Dual-core price/performance chart in the article:
"Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 invades AMD territory on price/performance chart", seems to give a better gauge of value, when I look at the slope of the line from the origin to the processors I'm interested in.
What am I missing? Thanks.
August 21, 2006 11:32:04 PM

someone at THG has their clock wrong: click on details for any processor and you'll see that it was "last updated: december 31, 1969"

Ara
August 21, 2006 11:44:48 PM

What does this chart tell me? Tells me that if I have the 1900XTX I can play any of the games they benchmarked at playable frame rates with any CPU listed. From a gamers point of view and looking at the FPS I see a lot of great CPU's from both camps that are cheap and are more than enough for todays games. Who says you need the best CPU to play games and have fun. Of course the AM2 and Core2 chips are more future proof and the cheaper Core2 chips perform well. Wish they tested the intel E6300 chip but I am sure that it is not much slower than the 6400. :D 
August 21, 2006 11:45:46 PM

I think the clawhammer chips are 754 chips. The 3700+ did quite well in the charts.
August 22, 2006 1:02:17 AM

Why core2duos are at the bottom of price/performance chart ?Price/performance curve showed the opposite of this chart. Or I misunderstood ? e6400 should be a better performer than a x2 4600 from both price and performance aspect.
August 22, 2006 1:04:29 AM

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_...


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.
August 22, 2006 4:18:25 AM

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 :wink:
August 22, 2006 9:40:00 AM

The thing about the new speedy core 2s is they are at the bottom of the price/perfomace in the cpu charts
August 22, 2006 12:37:41 PM

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.
August 22, 2006 4:02:58 PM

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?
August 22, 2006 10:02:36 PM

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.
August 22, 2006 10:14:16 PM

initial testing ive seen has placed it between a 4400 and a 4600+ athlon x2
August 22, 2006 11:37:21 PM

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.
August 23, 2006 1:54:28 AM

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.
August 23, 2006 5:00:03 AM

Quote:
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... ;) 
August 23, 2006 4:24:02 PM

Quote:
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.
August 23, 2006 4:58:02 PM

[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.
August 23, 2006 5:20:21 PM

Quote:
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. :oops:  (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...
August 23, 2006 5:31:26 PM

Quote:
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. :oops:  (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. :D 
August 24, 2006 6:05:20 PM

@mlbspike: something is *utterly wrong* with the price / perf chart indeed, does Tom ( :)  ) watch this forum at all ;)  ?
August 25, 2006 2:22:14 AM

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.
August 25, 2006 4:59:53 AM

Last time I checked, there was a giant AMD Price Drop Ad next to the charts, I hope there is no connection :) 
August 25, 2006 4:11:12 PM

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. :( 
August 26, 2006 2:18:56 AM

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! :) 
August 26, 2006 3:15:41 PM

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 :)  )
October 11, 2006 6:36:56 PM

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?
!