I've had issues with the way several articles on price/performance rankings of processors have been portrayed. When I look at a price/perf article, I want to know how to best spend my money. I only want to see the products that have competitive prices and performances. I don't care about other products that are off of this curve. The previous articles on Tom's have drawn conclusions from curve fits that don't really help me judge good value. Sure, they tell me that Intel's product line as a whole is whacked, but that doesn't help the CPU buyer make a good choice.
Here is how I view a price performance chart. The curves show me how to buy the best performance for my money. The following picture uses the same data as the Oct 14 price/perf article on Tom's. I only drew the lines through the best performing processors in each price range for each company.
1) Products that did not have competitive price/performance rankings were ignored (ie. EE955, FX-50, etc)
2) I left out the all of the overclocking data since none of the AMD chips had overclocking data. Not fair to show the D805 overclocked but not show the 3800+ overclocked and so on.
3) I added E6300 data at $183 and 1.5 performance. This should be pretty close. E6300 is right in the heart of Intel's competitive product line.
According to my chart, Intel has the lead across the entire dual-core CPU market. But, system builders know that $20-50 can be saved on the AM2 motherboard so the system picture is not so grim for AMD.
It's bad form to draw conclusions from a plot when you know you are missing key data. At least, the ommisions should be called out prominently. This chart should redone with real E6300 data before drawing conclusions. This was just to show how I would like to see these graphs in the future. This kind of graph provides useful data that anyone can use to easily see where the value lies.
Here is how I view a price performance chart. The curves show me how to buy the best performance for my money. The following picture uses the same data as the Oct 14 price/perf article on Tom's. I only drew the lines through the best performing processors in each price range for each company.
1) Products that did not have competitive price/performance rankings were ignored (ie. EE955, FX-50, etc)
2) I left out the all of the overclocking data since none of the AMD chips had overclocking data. Not fair to show the D805 overclocked but not show the 3800+ overclocked and so on.
3) I added E6300 data at $183 and 1.5 performance. This should be pretty close. E6300 is right in the heart of Intel's competitive product line.
According to my chart, Intel has the lead across the entire dual-core CPU market. But, system builders know that $20-50 can be saved on the AM2 motherboard so the system picture is not so grim for AMD.
It's bad form to draw conclusions from a plot when you know you are missing key data. At least, the ommisions should be called out prominently. This chart should redone with real E6300 data before drawing conclusions. This was just to show how I would like to see these graphs in the future. This kind of graph provides useful data that anyone can use to easily see where the value lies.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram