Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU price/performance update: AMD undercuts Intel on the low

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 6, 2006 8:11:47 PM

hmm, did Intel cancel the E6400 and E6300 processors but only tell Mark Raby and Wolfgang Gruener?

How can you show price/perf trends when you leave out the best processors in the bunch? Then you claim AMD undercuts in the low end.

Can we get just a little integrity? please?

Re: CPU price/performance update: AMD undercuts Intel on the low end
October 6, 2006 8:24:42 PM

Agree, the curve for intel is pretty warped without the 6300 and the 6400...

They really need to include those. The article's title is really misleading since its not considering the whole lineup.
October 6, 2006 8:46:27 PM

Quote:
Vovember


LOL

do they even check what they write?
Related resources
October 7, 2006 12:50:43 AM

Wondering how two guys that should know their sh*t could screw up so bad.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2006 12:54:23 AM

Quote:
Wondering how two guys that should know their sh*t could screw up so bad.


Nobody's perfect.
October 7, 2006 1:14:19 AM

Lets get this straight....


You are gonna do a price/performance article, yet you are gonna leave out the two best bang-for-the-buck processors currently available?

And the bad thing is that this article was written by 2 people. You would think at least one of them would have noticed this very serious flaw.
October 7, 2006 1:54:03 AM

I guess they have the last word on how the article goes out. I would have thought a technical editor would've pointed out this glaring flaw to them. Oh well. C'est la Vie.
October 7, 2006 2:03:42 AM

If you make a perfomace/price chart, you had better go out and benche them. In St. Lucia we have a saying, "Vous vérifier avant que vous vous exercez"
October 7, 2006 2:35:08 AM

IMO, the best price/performance CPU is this Athlon 64 3k Venice for only $55. $55 for an A64 is amazing, since, 6 months ago, that money would buy you a Sempron 2400+.
October 7, 2006 2:59:09 AM

bump
October 7, 2006 3:45:17 AM

Bullshit, even E6300 at stock speed is faster than x2 4600+ and it even leaves you with 60$ more in your pocket. Not to mention that hitting 2.8GHz with E6300 is childs play. It is not even funny watching it how it slices AMD to tiny little bits. :twisted:
October 7, 2006 6:57:25 AM

Its always been a tad annoying that they didnt separate the Intel core families.

Since they didnt------I did. Here it is.

Performance for the E6400, E6300 and X2 5200 was extrap-a-guest-a-interpolated. Feel free to correct my guestimation and I'll adjust the chart accordingly.

The numbers shift dramatically when the CPUs are sorted by respective family. E

October 7, 2006 7:05:25 AM

Quote:
Performance for the E6400, E6300 and X2 5200 was extrap-a-guest-a-interpolated. Feel free to correct my guestimation and I'll adjust the chart accordingly.
I think you coined a new word. Call Websters. :D 
October 7, 2006 6:28:30 PM

Quote:
I guess they have the last word on how the article goes out. I would have thought a technical editor would've pointed out this glaring flaw to them. Oh well. C'est la Vie.


In the august updated charts they had the E6400, and within that text they stated they did not put the E6300 in because they had not personally benched that CPU (understandable). But this does seem skewed.


Good find, Jack. We know they had the data for the E6400, so why didn't they include it? Its a glaring oversight to say the least, and downright suspicious at the worst.

And come on, I can't believe they haven't benched the E6300 yet. The C2D lineup is the biggest news in the CPU industry in years! We know they have an X6800, and anandtech gets away with it by underclocking the X6800 to the E6300 speeds to generate some data, so why can't they do it here too?

turpit, nice graph! It really shows what tom's graph should look like.
October 7, 2006 7:11:34 PM

Quote:
IMO, the best price/performance CPU is this Athlon 64 3k Venice for only $55. $55 for an A64 is amazing, since, 6 months ago, that money would buy you a Sempron 2400+.


Very true, some of the processors in this chart you just wouldn't buy because there is no point. If you are going to spend $50 the celerons/semps are what people want to see.

For the upper lower end there is the 6300 which will wipe the floor with a x2 3800. Why don't they just oc a 6300, it'll fly up that chart. Easily the best performance/$ cpu there is around.

If you know anything about cpu's this article just makes you wonder...For those that don't, it is just misleading.
October 8, 2006 12:47:48 AM

The reason why THG's chart makes Intel look weak on the low-end goes beyond not including the E6400 and the E6300. Intel looks horribly weak in the low-end, because they didn't include Intel's low-end chips the 2.8GHz 915D with it's $133 MSRP and the 3.4GHz 945D with it's $163 MSRP. The 960D, 950D, 940D, 930D, 840D, and 830D are only there for reference, but are no longer favoured parts. The Presler and Smithfield stocks are supposed to be clear through the 805D, 820D, 915D, and 945D.

For the E6400 and E6300, they didn't include them because they didn't test them. Fine. They have no such excuse for the 915D and 945D. For the 915D they've tested the 920D before and the performance is identical. The case for the 945D is even stronger, since the 950D is on their chart already and the 945D performs exactly the same. Now, they say the relative performance of a 3.4GHz 950D is 1.45 and the relative performance of a X2 4200+ is 1.44. That means that the 945D offers better performance than the X2 4200+ yet only costs slightly more than the X2 3800+. This gives the price/performance advantage to Intel not AMD.

What's more, the 915D is going to be replaced by the end of the month by the 3GHz 925D. The 915D will then drop to the 820D's current $113 MSRP and the 820D will then in turn drop to the 805D's $93 MSRP. This means by the end of the month Intel's low-end offerings will be even better valued just in time to deal with whatever price cuts AMD's upcoming 65nm process allows them to make.
October 8, 2006 3:49:21 AM

Quote:
hmm, did Intel cancel the E6400 and E6300 processors but only tell Mark Raby and Wolfgang Gruener?

How can you show price/perf trends when you leave out the best processors in the bunch? Then you claim AMD undercuts in the low end.

Can we get just a little integrity? please?

Re: CPU price/performance update: AMD undercuts Intel on the low end


This is to everyone in the thread, why dont we all PM the mods or whoever is in charge. I mean this is a serious problem here, especialy if a tech uneducated person looks at the chart when buying a processor.
October 8, 2006 4:00:57 AM

Quote:
Here the E6700 was just above the 3.25 index point, but on the Oct 6 curve it is just below the 2.2.


Just to clarify this, I figured out why there is such a difference. Someone else probably figured it out too, I just thought I would post it. The difference comes from what they decided to use as a base for comparison. Back in July they used a generic P4B (I think) @ 2GHz and what I assume is a 533MHz FSB, but now they have changed that to a P4 520 @ 2.8GHz with a FSB of 800MHz. This leads to a very distorted image when you change base lines, further more they left out several key processors as IT commander mentions (well expplained btw).

While I appreciate the update, it really seems half assed, because we had to finish out the graph for them (give or take). To me, that screams laziness on the part of two people who know better.
October 8, 2006 5:02:03 AM

I don't disagree that it was probably worth reindexing based on what they used to orginally evaluate the Perf/$ curve. They should really explain these things so people aren't confused why all of a sudden a X6800 has lost nearly a full point in performance indexes because it doesn't reflect good reporting and facilitates threads like this lol.
October 8, 2006 6:30:15 AM

Quote:
I don't disagree that it was probably worth reindexing based on what they used to orginally evaluate the Perf/$ curve. They should really explain these things so people aren't confused why all of a sudden a X6800 has lost nearly a full point in performance indexes because it doesn't reflect good reporting and facilitates threads like this lol.


I wonder if they will report on the E4300 when it is released, that will literally take away anything on the low end.If it overclocks as well as expected, it will likely put quite a damper on Conroe sales. :wink:
October 8, 2006 2:42:40 PM

Well the problem seems to lye with the motherboards on the low end processors, not because the mobo's suck, but just because they can't handle a high enough FSB for the low end chips. An E6300 is a 7x multiplier so to get it 3.5Ghz you need a 500FSB, and most crap out between 430-470. Ok, I am being biased towards record setting and hardcore people...

[edited due to incompetence lol]

I personaly will grab up a E6600 for the 9x multi. I am gunning for 4.0GHz which equates to a 445FSB, very doable with a high grade mobo and some DDR2 800.

Yes... I did say yall, I'm from texas back off!!! lol :tongue:
October 8, 2006 9:18:00 PM

To clear up some glaring mistakes, the Performance index is a Pentium 520, 2.8 GHz HT cpu, not a 3.6GHz P4 (if it was a 3.6GHz cpu, the poor Pentium D 805 would have a <1 index score, lol. While we're on the subject of the index cpu, would it not make more sense to use a dual core cpu as the base for a pure dual core cpu price/performance chart. Since the D 805 is the lowest performing dual core out there, I would think it would make more sense to use it as the baseline of 1, and then compare all the other dual core cpus to the performance of the D 805.

Special Thanks to Turpit, for making THE TRUE price/performance curve. :D  It makes it obvious that the only AMD worth considering is the X2 3800, and that can only be recommended if the individual already has an AMD setup, or can't afford to pony up the the E6300. The extrapolated origin of the AMD curve is a bit misleading, seeing as how they have no X2 CPUs in the sub $130 range. Not to worry though, the E4300, when released, will seal the fate of all of AMD's dual core cpus. :wink:

Also, the E4300 is a 1.8GHz cpu on the 800 fsb, meaning it's multiplier is 9x, and when on the 1066 bus will clock at 2.4 GHz, and 3.00 GHz at 1333fsb. It will without a doubt the the overclocker's delight.
October 8, 2006 10:08:25 PM

Crap, sorry about that. I am not usually that careless. Thank you for correcting me. I did go back and look at what the reference was before I wrote that up, but I clearly just misread the number (hmm too much sugar maybe? 8O ).

I went back and edited my original post where the mistake was. It now references a P4 520 not 560.

As for the E4300, that was just careless. Thanks for keeping a watch out for my idiocy hehe. I have my moments where my bran just doesn't function and normally they occur when I am not on the forums thankfuly.
October 8, 2006 10:11:03 PM

Quote:
It makes it obvious that the only AMD worth considering is the X2 3800, and that can only be recommended if the individual already has an AMD setup, or can't afford to pony up the the E6300.


Yup, nearly went for one of these. I don't get why some people won't listen when you tell them anything above is a waste of money.
October 9, 2006 5:37:36 AM

Quote:
Performance for the E6400, E6300 and X2 5200 was extrap-a-guest-a-interpolated. Feel free to correct my guestimation and I'll adjust the chart accordingly.
I think you coined a new word. Call Websters. :D 


:oops:  :oops:  :oops: 

Naaa....I just plagiarized the definition of fuzzy logic :wink:
October 16, 2006 6:32:25 PM

What do you guys think about TG Daily's updated performance curve?
(Other than there should be 3 curves, etc... ) :) 

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/14/price_performance_cha...

They're still not including the E6300. Because "performance data is not available"

I find it somewhat annoying that we can't access a full res shot of the graph and that each plot isn't labeled with what processor it was. I guess we can figure it out but I'm somewhat lazy at the moment.
October 16, 2006 7:12:21 PM

Quote:
What do you guys think about TG Daily's updated performance curve?
(Other than there should be 3 curves, etc... ) :) 

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/14/price_performance_cha...

They're still not including the E6300. Because "performance data is not available"

I find it somewhat annoying that we can't access a full res shot of the graph and that each plot isn't labeled with what processor it was. I guess we can figure it out but I'm somewhat lazy at the moment.


Well, ignoring the 3 curve argument, I really dont like that they've included the "upcoming Core 2 Extreme QX6700" but still dont have the 6300 in there.

They wont put a processor in because they have not tested it (a legitimate reason) but they are putting a processor in that's not on the market yet? And its a quad core? The only one in a chart of dual cores?

Whats that all about?

Lets be fair, if they are going to do that, they should throw in the 4x4s. Theyre not on the market yet either. Looking at the chart, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is draging the curve well to the right, increasing the split between the AMD and Intel curves. 4x4 would restore the balance.

They should either leave the QX out until its actually on the market, or put the 4x4s in. Oh, they should split the curves by family too :wink: Sorry, couldnt resist
October 16, 2006 7:48:31 PM

Ya, that's a good point about the QX6700.
You're right they should include 4x4 in there too - but there's the "we haven't tested it yet" argument.

I just find it hard to believe that they haven't tested a 6300 yet and its been almost 3 months since C2D was released. Its not like its some elusive rare chip.

They should really separate it by family too - I think everyone agrees with that one! :p 
October 21, 2006 11:37:17 PM

Well, Toms is still at it, and they still refuse to split uarch families. If they insist on keeping the intel prices bound to one curve, they should be including other AMD processors still in production and add them into the curve as well.

Bit of a suprise that C2D prices continue to fall. It is also interesting that the C2Ds actually make a very smooth curve as opposed the rest.

October 22, 2006 2:20:27 PM

Their graph is bull crap. The obviously didn't try very hard to find the prices of the processors. Pentium D 820 for $140? Ya right. Newegg has it right now for $120 shipped, and thats a little high. Like was mentiioned earlier, without the inclusion of the low cost 9x5 series of chips, the low end of the Intel graph is obviously messed up.

Here's something I find humorous: the only chip worth buying on AMD's side, the X2 3800, is currently sold out at most locations. Those places that still have it jacked up the price to $175, making it compete directly against the price of the Conroe E6300! :lol:  I guess if you want to buy an X2 3800, it'll have to be inside a Dell. :wink:
October 23, 2006 6:09:38 PM

Yeah, its quite obvious from the plot points that there are 2 Intel curves. Trying to average them is just silly when its that obvious.

Once they put the E6300 ($183 at newegg right now), you can surmise that the only AMD chips worth getting are the 3800 and maybe the 4200. Of course unless you overclock, then the E6300 will leave them in the dust if the overclocked E6400 is any indication...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

And as joefriday stated, the price up on the 3800 now makes it not worth it.
$169 at newegg right now... Thats a $14 difference... :p 

They really need to add the E6300 and split into 2 Intel uarch curves.
!