AMD fanboy writes the weekely CPU price/performance charts!

[adonlude]

Serously, who is this Wolfgang Gruener guy writing the weekely price to performance articles for TG Daily? Intel is presently outperforming AMD in every respect but this guy incredibly seems to portray them as beeing on the same level.

First, there is no E6300 anywhere in the article, it is left completely off the charts!!! Meanwhile he constantly likes to claim that AMD holds the crown in the low end. Well Mr. Wolfgang, if you included the E6300 in your charts it would show that NO AMD cpu could be a better value than an Intel CPU. This must be why he keeps comming up with some BS reason why he cant include the E6300 in the charts. I know, lets just pretend that E6300 doesn't exist, hahah

Secondly, and this is the most rediculous, he spends half of his article talking about a correlation coefficient. He actually had to pull some mathmatical number out of his statistics book to try to create some value for AMD products. In reality, correlation between a companies products has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line: who makes the best chips for your money. So what if a company makes a few bad overpriced chips AND a bunch of awesome well priced chips as long as all the awesome chips have a better p/p ratio than the competitor? This correlation coefficient might be useful to someone looking at the companies marketing strategies but how does that help the consumer buy the best product? I doesn't. All it does is show that Wolfgang Gruener is making a pathetic attempt at trying to make AMD sound like it is still in the running with Intel.

ADD SOME CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARTICLE AND INCLUDE THE E6300!

The article from this week:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/10/price_performance_charts_nov_10_2006/

 

[mr_fnord]

You got a link? I don't see the article.

Also, I don't know what the article meant by value, but I'd like to know what Intel has that is competitive in the sub $100 CPU range, or in the area of a $250 barebones system.

 

[adonlude]

You got a link? I don't see the article.

Also, I don't know what the article meant by value, but I'd like to know what Intel has that is competitive in the sub $100 CPU range, or in the area of a $250 barebones system.

Here is this weeks article (nov 10):
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/11/10/price_performance_charts_nov_10_2006/

These charts are updated weekly. Several weeks ago he mentioned that he couldn't include the E6300 becuase Tomshardware didin't have any data yet. It is inexcusable to act like it doesn't exist, especially when it would basically be the final knockout punch to AMD on his p/p charts.

 

[corsair8575]

it will make amd look so bad that they will pee in their pants!
e6300 is such pwnage oced to 3.5 on stock cooling with ds3 1000mhz ram.

 

[makrossv]

If you follow the chart, they are for stock processors. Of course the C2D will murder any AMD X2 on the market if both are overclocked. These charts and data are based on stock models unless indicated by the special quotes.

Not everyone overclocks...and for the overclockers and educated, we already know the unspoken truth about C2D power.

Only the real fanbois get upset over published numbers for mainstream stock. If you want to find overclocked reviews, go to overclocking sites. From what I see THG gives charts based on stock and sprinkle in OC as extra credit.

 

[adonlude]

If you follow the chart, they are for stock processors. Of course the C2D will murder any AMD X2 on the market if both are overclocked. These charts and data are based on stock models unless indicated by the special quotes.

Not everyone overclocks...and for the overclockers and educated, we already know the unspoken truth about C2D power.

Only the real fanbois get upset over published numbers for mainstream stock. If you want to find overclocked reviews, go to overclocking sites. From what I see THG gives charts based on stock and sprinkle in OC as extra credit.

I never said anything about overclocking and I am not upset at the numbers at all. Every stock Conroe chip on the charts beats AMD in price/performance ratio. I am just upset that they excluded the E6300 because it makes it look like AMD is the best p/p ratio buy at the low end when in fact it isn't.

 

[mad_fitzy]

Thank you makrossv. For the rest of you moron intel fanbois CALM DOWN. Its not the end of the world. Yes we all now that C2D is faster than k8 by a big margin. Why isnt that enough for you?


P.S. Don't call me an AMD fanboi either. My planned system is C2D

 

[corsair8575]

bah, sorry about the fanboi remark I made... uncalled for.

But they do include in the graph overlocked processors included.
So if you put a e6300 onto the value of what it costs and the fact it can
go upto 3.5ghz (given you need faster ram or oced ram).
It will make the blue line almost veritical far away from the green line to the right. Which is very good for the consumer making a decision on what to buy.

 

[adonlude]

Thank you makrossv. For the rest of you moron intel fanbois CALM DOWN. Its not the end of the world. Yes we all now that C2D is faster than k8 by a big margin. Why isnt that enough for you?


P.S. Don't call me an AMD fanboi either. My planned system is C2D

Wow look at the hostility. No need for namecalling. No, it isn't enough for me. I don't like it when a reputable site peddles misinformation.

I think you misinterpreted the article. I dont see anywhere that it says AMD has the best p/p ratio. It says the addition of the Intel quad is what made intels p/p ration go up this week. It also says the outrageous prices on the FX's and the EE's screw up the ratios also.

Please see JumpingJack's reply for just 1 example of when it is stated that AMD rules the low end. Comments like these are in every article. Last week they closed the article with something like: 'But if you dont want to spend a lot of money on a fast system, AMD is still your best bet', which is just plain wrong... unless you are pretending the E6300 doesn't exist.

Does it really matter, eh... not really I suppose, Joe Consumer will not know the difference, and for those who are enlighted by some encounter with Core 2 Duo in another setting will feel ripped off....

Excellent work JumpingJack, thanks for linking some examples. It does matter to me when a reputable site publishes misleading data that could convince Joe Consumer to buy an inferior product. This is a lie of omission and anyone that doesn't follow the technology as closely as we do will easily fall victim to it.

 

[sojrner]

normally I would not argue the merits of another review on another site here on Tom's, but I think it has a point here.

The review on [H] was not to say that the core2 was not a good proc. In fact he stated right on there that the proc was very powerful. The purpose of the way they tested on games was to show any difference that could be noticed by the user during games when run at settings that a user would have for a nice system.

Everyone that reads that type of article already knows that the core2 dominates, and they did not dispute that. They just said that you will not notice any diff on current games as they are gpu bound at high settings. duh.

Now, on the Tom's article it is a similar scenario. Everyone that reads that type of analysis (enthusiasts) already knows that the core2 is the leader. The analysis is simply there to show a view of the entire product line of both chip companies so you can see the prevailing mindset. You can see which individual chip performs better for a given price by ignoring the main line and look at individual dots.

I do agree that it sucks w/o the 6300, but the chart is not about individual chips so the trend is still there. It is just for information, and frankly the "average joe" is not going to read it all anyway. Very boring to a non-enthusiast. The cpu charts are what they are looking for.

Chill out and just take it for what it is, another piece of info. You read other sites like the rest of us apparently. Put the whole pic together with info from all of them. (except maybe the inquirer and anandtech )

 

[lbax]

Even though they are making small steps in the correct direction by breaking Intel data into two seperate series, Tom's continues to chart the 6400 incorrectly. A close look at the tabular data indicates that the relative performance index is 1.72 . However, they chart it as 1.63 . I advised them of this approx 10 days ago & they have carried the "error" forward into the last set of charts. Given their refusal to add 6300 data & their continued misrepresentation of 6400 data, it projects a poor image of their credibility.

 

[adonlude]

Even though they are making small steps in the correct direction by breaking Intel data into two seperate series, Tom's continues to chart the 6400 incorrectly. A close look at the tabular data indicates that the relative performance index is 1.72 . However, they chart it as 1.63 . I advised them of this approx 10 days ago & they have carried the "error" forward into the last set of charts. Given their refusal to add 6300 data & their continued misrepresentation of 6400 data, it projects a poor image of their credibility.

Ahh yes good catch. I didn't see it at first becuase it is only wrong in the chart where they show 3 seperate curves. In the other two charts it looks like it is listed correctly.

 

[lbax]

Correct, the error is only on the chart where Intel is displayed in two data series (Pentium & C2D).

I appears that they are working hard to "influence" the bottom of the C2D curve to support their editorial conclusions.

 

[WR]

Looking at the facts it sure seems there is pro-AMD bias... omission of the 6300, slight error on the 6400, attempting to fit a regression curve on a splash of bullet holes that is P4-C2D price/performance.... So in actuality the consumer would be better off with AMD only in the $150-$180 range (meaning the x2 3800+) because P4 and C2D sandwich the lower and higher price points, respectively, and you just have to know to avoid all those P4s past $150. Or maybe they should include all the Sempron/Celeron variants because we are talking budget after all. If you're in the know, regardless, AMD has been severely hammered technology-wise.

But to play devil's advocate, maybe THG is expending its hard-earned reputation to balance the competition in the CPU war and give us all better performance and prices. In addition there's a lot more to consider in the system price when the CPU costs barely $100-200, and I hope that Joe Consumer tries to ask a few questions to make better choices on supporting components that have a bigger impact than choosing between A64 and Netburst budget CPUs.

The review on [H] was not to say that the core2 was not a good proc. In fact he stated right on there that the proc was very powerful. The purpose of the way they tested on games was to show any difference that could be noticed by the user during games when run at settings that a user would have for a nice system.

This has been a trump card used for a while and might even explain Intel's massive profits during its Netburst era - if the games play fine, who cares whether the A64 is 13 or 29% faster? But here I'd like to state why it's wrong to advise like this. You're performing usability testing on today's games. Why would anyone only want to buy a CPU for a game today, unless they know this is their last game or last application they'll use before they upgrade their CPU again?

Again, devil's advocate. A year from now, Joe Gamer will have to turn down decal staying or shadow complexity one notch because he mistakenly bought a 4200+ instead of an E6400. Visually noticeable? Of course. But not gameplay altering.

 

[dasickninja]

A quick note to the ever so insightful Wr, the last time I checked, the guys at the THG are still human, and.... well forget what I was going to say. I agree.

 

[sojrner]

This has been a trump card used for a while and might even explain Intel's massive profits during its Netburst era - if the games play fine, who cares whether the A64 is 13 or 29% faster? But here I'd like to state why it's wrong to advise like this. You're performing usability testing on today's games. Why would anyone only want to buy a CPU for a game today, unless they know this is their last game or last application they'll use before they upgrade their CPU again?

Again, devil's advocate. A year from now, Joe Gamer will have to turn down decal staying or shadow complexity one notch because he mistakenly bought a 4200+ instead of an E6400. Visually noticeable? Of course. But not gameplay altering.

You did not reply to me, but you quoted me so here I am. This is not to be argumentative so don't start flaming; rather it is to make clear what I was saying.

The cpu relative performance in games has been unchanged for many moons. When a game is cranked up in quality it has been gpu bound for some time. "Joe Gamer" will not have to turn down the detail because of either of those procs. He will have to turn it down b/c of an outdated gpu. If you want only performance in current games then you can still rock the casbah w/ nearly all athlon64s and most p4s made in the last 3 years. That is because the majority of all the game goodies have been offloaded to the graphics cards and they are taking the majority of the work (and power reqs) from those cpus.

It is not a "trump card", it is a fact. If you ONLY game, then I would feel safe in saying your money is better spent on a graphics card (PCIe) than a new cpu if it is a year or so old. If you do anything else (vid/aud encoding, folding, graphics dev etc...) THEN you would see massive benefits. This was my point and I believe the point of those types of tests.

And tomorrow's games? So far the biggest thing that will be changing there is dx10 and multi-threading. dx10 is gpu (still) and multi-threading is covered by that 4200 you so easily disdained.

 

[adonlude]

This has been a trump card used for a while and might even explain Intel's massive profits during its Netburst era - if the games play fine, who cares whether the A64 is 13 or 29% faster? But here I'd like to state why it's wrong to advise like this. You're performing usability testing on today's games. Why would anyone only want to buy a CPU for a game today, unless they know this is their last game or last application they'll use before they upgrade their CPU again?

Again, devil's advocate. A year from now, Joe Gamer will have to turn down decal staying or shadow complexity one notch because he mistakenly bought a 4200+ instead of an E6400. Visually noticeable? Of course. But not gameplay altering.

You did not reply to me, but you quoted me so here I am. This is not to be argumentative so don't start flaming; rather it is to make clear what I was saying.

The cpu relative performance in games has been unchanged for many moons. When a game is cranked up in quality it has been gpu bound for some time. "Joe Gamer" will not have to turn down the detail because of either of those procs. He will have to turn it down b/c of an outdated gpu. If you want only performance in current games then you can still rock the casbah w/ nearly all athlon64s and most p4s made in the last 3 years. That is because the majority of all the game goodies have been offloaded to the graphics cards and they are taking the majority of the work (and power reqs) from those cpus.

It is not a "trump card", it is a fact. If you ONLY game, then I would feel safe in saying your money is better spent on a graphics card (PCIe) than a new cpu if it is a year or so old. If you do anything else (vid/aud encoding, folding, graphics dev etc...) THEN you would see massive benefits. This was my point and I believe the point of those types of tests.

And tomorrow's games? So far the biggest thing that will be changing there is dx10 and multi-threading. dx10 is gpu (still) and multi-threading is covered by that 4200 you so easily disdained.

Lots of talk here but bottom line: Why buy an AMD when you can have a better performing CPU for the same price? Intel beats AMD in performance and Intel beats AMD in price to performance ratio, who cares whether you only game or not... get the best for your money.

 

[sojrner]

I do believe that you were the one that started this "lots of talk".

I am not saying anything other than the chart is to provide information on the different company trends. Nothing more. The fact there is that it doesn't really matter at all in regards to individual performance. You can still be assured that the core2 is a rockin proc. Also, the reviews that show cpu performance relative to real world game settings are there to give you an idea if you need to upgrade to a core2 from oh, say a 4200+. Fact is you don't. Probably won't have to for a while longer either.

 

[sojrner]

riiight...

...who buys an 8800 (or any high-end card) and then runs it at 1024x768? Kindof a waste of $ if you ask me. Even 1280 is not doing anything for my eyes if I spend $600+ on a video card. If you spend the $ then crank up the candy and resolutions.

Go buy a G80 card and rethink your approach, the G80 clearly has put the throttle on the CPU if you are using an AMD chip:

really? hmm... looks to me like even on the review you posted that at 1600x1200 things start looking gpu bound w/ all the candy on. (even the high settings on 1280) If you actually read what I said you would see that I am talking about just that scenario. If current games can tax it at a "mere" 1600x1200, what will future ones do? Once new games come out that tax the hardware, that gpu bound issue comes right back to bite you. Thus my approach needs little rethinking as things stand now.

oh, and who the heck is "motherboards.org"? I could not even find if they used the HQ AF setting on the ati or Nv drivers. This probably means they did not, which is yet one more slap in the face of enthusiasts that buy these pricey cards. :roll:

 

[dlmacline]

I didn't see any bias on the review..he just made some mistakes just like not adding e6300 on the P/P chart..yes it could be a big mistake.e6300 is the mid-end killer thus losing credit to his article but it also doesn't mean that when he made that mistake, he already is already biased or an AMD fan boy..he based his opinions on fact and charts..he missed out on some,yes it could be critical but it isn't biased..biased would be him telling AMD will have the performance crown soon so its not advisable to buy Intel products because its not worth it..you got to watch your tongue (or your fingers)...everyone makes mistakes..What will you feel if you wrote something and someone convinced the world that what you said is BS?..and also THG is a publishing company..so they know he wouldn't be biased.. its bad for business

I think its would be a better response for someone who saw a mistake to actually inform the writter or some moderators or administrators here rather than calling him a fan boy in front of thousands of potential readers for making a mistake in doing his job

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

TOO much fanboism,faboi-paranoia?As the gpu's surpass the cpu's in ability then we WILL see throttling etc...when.It is swinging in that direction,but please no fanboi's,let it all play out,no ones getting deceived here

 

[dlmacline]

Yeah your right.. too much fanboism will only make us look like nerds..the AMD geek and the Intel geek (reminds me of beat the geeks)

one of these days GPU might be the new age of computers..maybe people wouldn't give a damn about their processors anymore.. soon AMD vs. Intel.. who cares??we can play the high end games on the entry level and mainstream processors.. they are all the same compare to the difference an investment makes to the one who gives more to a better video card.

When I switched from Pentium 4 to Pentium D I almost felt no changes compared to when I switched from 6600 to 7600. I was able to move to a higher setting in my gaming applications

But I think this will the topic way off..like what I said I only think what he did is inappropriate.. look at the title of the thread.. too much hate

 

[still_life]

There's not much wrong with siding with the underdog. In the unlikely event that a few AMD X2's get bought over some C2D it will only lead to more money going to the underdog, helping them to catch up and provide us with some more competition.

 

[deceneu]

If you follow the chart, they are for stock processors. Of course the C2D will murder any AMD X2 on the market if both are overclocked. These charts and data are based on stock models unless indicated by the special quotes.

Not everyone overclocks...and for the overclockers and educated, we already know the unspoken truth about C2D power.

Only the real fanbois get upset over published numbers for mainstream stock. If you want to find overclocked reviews, go to overclocking sites. From what I see THG gives charts based on stock and sprinkle in OC as extra credit.

You are wrong, the C2D will murder any AMD X2 on the market, not just the overclocked ones, look to the 6300, this little guy can murder the X2 4400+ which is 2 times expansive that the 6300, the 6600 will murder the FX 60 and be the equal of the FX 62, and agian the AMD cpus and more than 2 times more expansive.


SO, the buttom line: INTEL RULZ! HAIL TO INTEL!

 

[adonlude]

I didn't see any bias on the review..he just made some mistakes just like not adding e6300 on the P/P chart..yes it could be a big mistake.e6300 is the mid-end killer thus losing credit to his article but it also doesn't mean that when he made that mistake, he already is already biased or an AMD fan boy..he based his opinions on fact and charts..he missed out on some,yes it could be critical but it isn't biased..biased would be him telling AMD will have the performance crown soon so its not advisable to buy Intel products because its not worth it..you got to watch your tongue (or your fingers)...everyone makes mistakes..What will you feel if you wrote something and someone convinced the world that what you said is BS?..and also THG is a publishing company..so they know he wouldn't be biased.. its bad for business

I think its would be a better response for someone who saw a mistake to actually inform the writter or some moderators or administrators here rather than calling him a fan boy in front of thousands of potential readers for making a mistake in doing his job

His exclusion of the E6300 is not a mistake. In past weekely articles he has acknowledged its absence and claimed that he couldn't include it becuase "Tomshardware doesn't have any test data on it yet" while the rest of the world has had test data on it for quite some time.

He IS wrongly recommending AMD products to the low end and to anyone who doesn't want to spend a lot of money. He is either bias or he just really does not know the technology in which case he should not be writing or giving his oppinion in a tech article.