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

[MarcusL]

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

 

[nobly]

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.

 

[Techie22]

Vovember

LOL

do they even check what they write?

 

[haywood]

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

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

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

Nobody's perfect.

 

[gr8mikey]

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.

 

[dasickninja]

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.

 

[dasickninja]

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"

 

[Flopmouth_Fish]

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+.

 

[gr8mikey]

bump

 

[brainysmurf]

bump

 

[levicki]

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:

 

[Nitro350Z]

Bumb

 

[turpit]

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

 

[1Tanker]

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.

 

[nobly]

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.

 

[djgandy]

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.

 

[ltcommander_data]

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.

 

[MatTheMurdera]

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.

 

[SuperFly03]

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.

 

[lizzardking]

bump

 

[SuperFly03]

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.

 

[1Tanker]

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.

 

[SuperFly03]

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:

 

[joefriday]

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. 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.

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.