Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD fanboy writes the weekely CPU price/performance charts!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 13, 2006 4:36:41 PM

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 :p 

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_cha...
November 13, 2006 4:41:44 PM

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.
November 13, 2006 4:45:33 PM

Quote:
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_cha...

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.
Related resources
November 13, 2006 4:58:17 PM

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.
November 13, 2006 5:09:37 PM

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.
November 13, 2006 5:24:50 PM

Quote:
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.
November 13, 2006 5:46:15 PM

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
November 13, 2006 6:56:26 PM

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.
November 13, 2006 6:56:31 PM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
November 13, 2006 6:56:32 PM

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 ;)  )
November 13, 2006 7:06:41 PM

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. :( 
November 13, 2006 7:16:01 PM

Quote:
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.
November 13, 2006 7:23:52 PM

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. :wink:
November 13, 2006 9:38:47 PM

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.

Quote:
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.
November 13, 2006 9:41:12 PM

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.
November 14, 2006 2:44:59 AM

Quote:
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. ;) 
November 14, 2006 4:23:39 AM

Quote:
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.
November 14, 2006 4:42:46 AM

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.
November 14, 2006 4:57:47 AM

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.

Quote:
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:
November 14, 2006 9:45:10 AM

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
November 14, 2006 10:38:40 AM

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
November 14, 2006 11:54:10 AM

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 :) 
November 14, 2006 12:27:57 PM

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.
November 14, 2006 1:12:06 PM

Quote:
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!
November 14, 2006 1:24:32 PM

Quote:
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.
November 14, 2006 1:38:29 PM

Quote:
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.


Umm... Ok, thats all well and good if you like playing for the loosing team, paying more and getting less, and not having the best. Unless you mean to purchase C2D but talk up AMD in hopes of fueling competition. Doesn't seem right though. When a company busts its ass to bring you an incredible product they deserve your gratitude. Besides, you cant really talk up AMD these days without sounding ignorant.
November 14, 2006 2:06:20 PM

Quote:
Woww!!! We should look at the data more closely.
Look at oblivion, same FPS at 1024x768 as at 1600x1200,
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1672_10.ht...
Look at oblivion with 16x FSAA
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1672_11.ht...
Wow, same FPS even at 1280x1024
Wow, losing only 8 or so frames at 1600x1200, only at 1920x1200 do we see a signficant dip.
This is CPU throttling at it's finest, one of the most heavily GPU intensive games throttling at the CPU -- go figure.


Stop for a second and read what I am saying. You are putting numbers up that have noAA, noAF. I am saying that AT 1600X1200+ WITH ALL CANDY (effects) TURNED ON!

simply put you are not getting it at all.

Quote:

Most all games in this review are behaving in some way or another to behave just like that. Some are scaling with GPU, good, others are not... that is the FX-62 slowing it down.


ya, at settings that no-one that owns that card would (should) run.

Quote:

Choose your poison, FX-62 is throttling even at 1600x1200 and in most cases at 8x and 16x AA .... using the G80, that is ovious in the data, it only begins to taper off at 1920x1200

Who buys a 4k monitor to run this resolution (or even 1600x1200)?? Above 1280x1024 resolution is a waste as this is the max resolution of the install base to begin with.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Greater than 80% of the gamers out there (people who actually play) are at 1280x1024 or 1024x768.... why?? Because this is where the decently affordable monitors are.


Above 1280 is a waste?! Wow, sounds like you need to up your standards. And the "install base"? While I would agree w/ you for the average gamer, but the enthusiast that buys an 8800? I doubt they are stuck at that level. Again, why buy it if you are only running 1280...

Quote:

Nonetheless, the benches are clear that the G80 is capable of taking the current mix of games and putting the throttle back on the CPU if you are using an AMD chip, the other 2/3s of the reviewers (those who know how to bench a GPU) wisely chose the fastest CPU they had (X6800), at least there we observe no bottlenecks or not as many, even with an X6800 there is still some evidence of the CPU providing the upper bound.

Your original statement was 'The cpu relative performance in games has been unchanged for many moons' --- apparently a new moon has risen and you ignored that fact in your post.

Perhaps DX10 games will come out to stretch the GPU, perhaps not... and perhaps, the physics, AI, and other code is also expanded to the point where the AMD platform continues to bottleneck (K8 that is).

Also, who would buy a G80 and pair it with even the fastest AMD chip today???? That would be stupid. The fastest AMD chip today will throttle over 1/2 your current games at the best resolutions, apparently to you that is not a problem.


Yes, games are cpu bound b/c as gpu's increase in power so do game reqs. PPL start running higher settings b/c they can, and thus put the strain back on the gpu. Been that way as far back as I can remember.

You are simply not understanding what I am saying. Common knowledge: If you want to test a cpu, you run the games on low enough settings to make the gpu wait for the cpu to send info. If you want to test the gpu you crank res and settings up to put the strain on the gpu. "Low settings" used to be 640x480 w/ all turned off. Then it was 800x600. With current powerhouse gpu's that is not the case anymore. A gpu really does not get hit hard until above 1024, and now with the 8800 you need to go above 1280.

I have a 1900xt and I surely don't game at 1024, or even 1280 when it can be avoided. If you are running an 8800 at those settings you could have done just as well with a lesser card. Those tests you put up back that up.

I am done here as you are just not smoking what I am rolling. Go on with your beliefs, as I have apparently failed to convince you otherwise.
November 14, 2006 2:49:58 PM

Quote:
Look at oblivion, same FPS at 1024x768 as at 1600x1200,
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1672_10.ht...
Look at oblivion with 16x FSAA
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1672_11.ht...
Wow, same FPS even at 1280x1024
Wow, losing only 8 or so frames at 1600x1200, only at 1920x1200 do we see a signficant dip.
This is CPU throttling at it's finest, one of the most heavily GPU intensive games throttling at the CPU -- go figure.


Stop for a second and read what I am saying. You are putting numbers up that have noAA, noAF. I am saying that AT 1600X1200+ WITH ALL CANDY (effects) TURNED ON!


Go relearn english.
November 14, 2006 2:51:50 PM

Quote:
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 :p 

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_cha...



BooHooHoo.

The 4200+ has been shown to be slightly slower than E6300 at slightly less and the 3800+ has been shown to not be far behind and costs less.

Linkage!

Newegg has the retail prices of all chips:

AMD

3800+ $175
4200+ $182
4600+ $266
5000+ $335


Intel

E6300 $183
E6400 $222
E6600 $312
E6700 $519


AMD budget mobo

$76.99 SLI


Intel budget mobo

$169 SLI


That means that a low cost AMD system (mobo/chip) is

$175 + $76 = $251

and Intel is

$183 + $169 = $352

All other costs are the same. You save $100 minimum. If you get a better Intel SLI/XFire board, it will be as much as $250.

$250 for AMD mobos will get you the Asus CrossHair, one of the best boards out. I guess once 680i ramps up Intel will have a better mobo price but right now AMD owns the price/perf at the low end.

BooHooHoo

Sorry but I couldn't help it. This is ridiculous.
November 14, 2006 2:58:55 PM

But they have ommitted the E6300 for about 4-5 weeks now. We know they can run the benchmarks any time they want. They have a E6400 in hand, just drop the multiplier by one. The continuing absence can only be deliberate....

To the series of THG articles:
If you want to support AMD for loyalty's sake, fine. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't lie and make up false data to pretend that there is a price/performance justification to your stance. Just tell the truth.

And yes, when you draw a conclusion from data that you know is sorely incomplete, that is a lie. Consumers are potentially misled by the article and trusting the good reputation of THG.
November 14, 2006 3:04:52 PM

I said 1600 is where it starts to come off of being cpu bound, and that is true. It is showing lower perf. than at 1280, thus it is gpu doing more work. duh.

go away dillrod, climb on someone elses back.
November 14, 2006 3:05:35 PM

Quote:
I said 1600 is where it starts to come off of being cpu bound, and that is true. It is showing lower perf. than at 1280, thus it is gpu doing more work.


And this is for Oblivion, the MOST GRAPHICALLY DEMANDING GAME out. The norm is for the CPU to be bound, with a 8800GTX, at 1600x1200 16xAA 16xHQ AF, for most games.

You know you're wrong, so sod off. Stop sucking your dad's c0ck.
November 14, 2006 3:12:42 PM

Quote:
You know you're wrong, so sod off. Stop sucking your dad's c0ck.


I think you need to chill, nothing has been said here that requires that kind of profanity. Calm down dude.

Logic works in the way that if you tell me I am wrong and I prove it with facts that I am not you don't just resort to name calling and not counter w/ proof. That only shows that you are wrong and a troll. (or a fanboi, or both) The profanity only confirms that.

Like I said, go away.
November 14, 2006 3:21:32 PM

regardless of the emotional stability of the fanbois on here, there is a point that you can get an sli intel mobo for "near" the price of the amd board. (not the "el-cheapo" boards that are not full sli that others have posted)

but you are right in that there are more choices on the low-end amd boards than low-end core2. (some of those ultra-low end boards are just not worth trying as you are not going to get the best perf. out of that core2 with them) Doesn't matter though, no-one is listening. ;) 
November 14, 2006 3:24:48 PM

Oh, the irony.
November 14, 2006 3:26:47 PM

Lasrt I checked, the P965 has crossfire support.



Thread off topic. Lock thread.
November 14, 2006 3:32:32 PM

Quote:
Oh, the irony.



zzzzzing!

ya, you got me there. :roll: go. away. troll.
November 14, 2006 3:35:16 PM

Quote:
duh.

go away dillrod, climb on someone elses back.

I think you need to chill, nothing has been said here that requires that kind of profanity. Calm down dude.

Logic works in the way that if you tell me I am wrong and I prove it with facts that I am not you don't just resort to name calling and not counter w/ proof. That only shows that you are wrong and a troll. (or a fanboi, or both) The profanity only confirms that.

Like I said, go away.

:roll: Troll.

Quote:
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.

Ever looked at 8800GTX SLI? Thought not, who'd EVER need it?
If you have enough money to get a G80 and FX-62 or X6800, you have enough money to get another G80.
November 14, 2006 4:02:12 PM

Quote:
Intel budget mobo

$169 SLI

You call that a budget mobo?

That's ridiculous.

Try again:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... ($59)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... ($74)
Pwn3d.



In your haste you chose a mobo that DOESN'T SUPPORT all Core2. 945 MAY support the E6300/E6400 but the mobos for 3800+ will work with FX62.

The ECS you chose is not true SLI because it is X16 and X4 not the usual x8 and x8.

PWNED!!!

Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end. I searched for similarly accessorized mobos, no tjust thefirst cheap one.
November 14, 2006 4:19:27 PM

Quote:
In your haste you chose a mobo that DOESN'T SUPPORT all Core2. 945 MAY support the E6300/E6400 but the mobos for 3800+ will work with FX62.

Before you spread LIES, check the specs. It supports Core2 Duo.

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWeb/Products/ProductsDetail.as...
In light blue letters around a box under the product name, you'll find:
"Supports Intel® Core™2 family processor"

Quote:

The ECS you chose is not true SLI because it is X16 and X4 not the usual x8 and x8.

This is relevant how? I think you're pulling another Vague Redefinition.

You quoted a 975X board as an "Intel budget mobo". That's an ENTHUSIAST board.
Regardless, under the requirement of getting a "Intel Budget Mobo," SLI isn't even relevant.

I could have picked a budget mobo without SLI for $45.

PWNED!!!

Face it, you're spreading FUD.
Quote:
Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end. I searched for similarly accessorized mobos, no tjust thefirst cheap one.

I never questioned the FACT that AMD has the price/performance advantage at the low end.

The "expensive Core2 Duo mobo" AMDroid trick has been pulled for too long, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.
November 14, 2006 4:22:55 PM

Quote:
regardless of the emotional stability of the fanbois on here, there is a point that you can get an sli intel mobo for "near" the price of the amd board. (not the "el-cheapo" boards that are not full sli that others have posted)

but you are right in that there are more choices on the low-end amd boards than low-end core2. (some of those ultra-low end boards are just not worth trying as you are not going to get the best perf. out of that core2 with them) Doesn't matter though, no-one is listening. ;) 


There are 3 SLI chipsets available for AMD rght now. nForce 4, nForce 570, nForce 590. The 570 SLI boards are MUCH cheaper than the comparable Intel SLI board and provide perf and features very close to 590 SLI. In fact the main difference is that 590 supports SLI memory and 570 deoesn't.

good inexpensive SLI for Intel will take until next year because companies have to make boards that support Core 2 6700 and PD. Since most of the chips Intel is seling now are not Core 2, there will be a glut of PD mobos ( most of which dont support E6600 - up). If they make boards that don't support PD, that means no upgrade path for PD owners.
November 14, 2006 4:29:03 PM

This, I agree with, that there are no good cheap Intel SLI boards. Crossfire, on the other hand, has widespread support in the 975X and P965 chipsets.

Regardless, nVidia really dropped the ball with the Intel nForce 570 .... er, I mean, nForce 4 boards.
November 14, 2006 4:44:23 PM

Quote:
In your haste you chose a mobo that DOESN'T SUPPORT all Core2. 945 MAY support the E6300/E6400 but the mobos for 3800+ will work with FX62.

Before you spread LIES, check the specs. It supports Core2 Duo.

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWeb/Products/ProductsDetail.as...
In light blue letters around a box under the product name, you'll find:
"Supports Intel® Core™2 family processor"

Quote:

The ECS you chose is not true SLI because it is X16 and X4 not the usual x8 and x8.

This is relevant how? I think you're pulling another Vague Redefinition.

You quoted a 975X board as an "Intel budget mobo". That's an ENTHUSIAST board.
Regardless, under the requirement of getting a "Intel Budget Mobo," SLI isn't even relevant.

I could have picked a budget mobo without SLI for $45.

PWNED!!!

Face it, you're spreading FUD.
Quote:
Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end. I searched for similarly accessorized mobos, no tjust thefirst cheap one.

I never questioned the FACT that AMD has the price/performance advantage at the low end.

The "expensive Core2 Duo mobo" AMDroid trick has been pulled for too long, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

There must be several 945 models then because one of the first things I noticed was that boards that support 6300/6400 may NOT support 6600/6700/6800.

Intel's own site doesn't show Core 2 support for 945P. Obviously, mobo makers are addign the extra strength VRM to the boards.

Ask people who know if 6600 - up needs a different voltage regulator.

Intel 945P

I was comparing similarly featured mobos, not chipsets.

Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end and in some instances higher up. The 5000+ is more than fast enough for anything and a similarly configured Dell system will show AMD MUCH cheaper than a 6700 and maybe the 6600.

Below 4600+ is no contest. AMD wins. Go to Dell and Hp and ABS and Monarch and configure systems.
November 14, 2006 5:00:31 PM

Quote:
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 :p 

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_cha...



BooHooHoo.

The 4200+ has been shown to be slightly slower than E6300 at slightly less and the 3800+ has been shown to not be far behind and costs less.

Linkage!

AMD

3800+ $175
4200+ $182
4600+ $266
5000+ $335



Newegg has the retail prices of all chips:
Intel

E6300 $183
E6400 $222
E6600 $312
E6700 $519


AMD budget mobo

$76.99 SLI


Intel budget mobo

$169 SLI


That means that a low cost AMD system (mobo/chip) is

$175 + $76 = $251

and Intel is

$183 + $169 = $352

All other costs are the same. You save $100 minimum. If you get a better Intel SLI/XFire board, it will be as much as $250.

$250 for AMD mobos will get you the Asus CrossHair, one of the best boards out. I guess once 680i ramps up Intel will have a better mobo price but right now AMD owns the price/perf at the low end.

BooHooHoo

Sorry but I couldn't help it. This is ridiculous.

SLI motherboards dont cost that much for intel! same as amd boards
November 14, 2006 5:07:21 PM

Quote:
Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end and in some instances higher up. The 5000+ is more than fast enough for anything and a similarly configured Dell system will show AMD MUCH cheaper than a 6700 and maybe the 6600.

Below 4600+ is no contest. AMD wins. Go to Dell and Hp and ABS and Monarch and configure systems.


I disagree. From an enthusiast's prespective, I would never touch Dell or HP shit, and thus the floor falls out from below your "and in some instances higher up" statement. Considering an E6400 is on par with a 5000+, you don't NEED a E6700 or E6600 to dominate the Athlon X2 series.

Face it, AMD now only wins in the low end.
November 14, 2006 5:50:02 PM

Quote:
BooHooHoo.

The 4200+ has been shown to be slightly slower than E6300 at slightly less and the 3800+ has been shown to not be far behind and costs less.

Linkage!

Newegg has the retail prices of all chips:

AMD

3800+ $175
4200+ $182
4600+ $266
5000+ $335


Intel

E6300 $183
E6400 $222
E6600 $312
E6700 $519


AMD budget mobo

$76.99 SLI


Intel budget mobo

$169 SLI


That means that a low cost AMD system (mobo/chip) is

$175 + $76 = $251

and Intel is

$183 + $169 = $352

All other costs are the same. You save $100 minimum. If you get a better Intel SLI/XFire board, it will be as much as $250.

$250 for AMD mobos will get you the Asus CrossHair, one of the best boards out. I guess once 680i ramps up Intel will have a better mobo price but right now AMD owns the price/perf at the low end.

BooHooHoo

Sorry but I couldn't help it. This is ridiculous.


See evilr00t's post for an example of how you are wrong. I dont know why you are talking budget mobo's and the posting SLI boards anyway, SLI is not budget. Regardless, just like the Tomshardware reviewer and his silly correlation coefficient you had to step outside the scope of the conversation and bring motherboards into the argument to try to create value for AMD. The fact remains that the E6300 and the 4200+ are the same price while the E6300 processor is far superior.

Sure its only a little better at stock speeds but add in the fact that the E6300 can be easily overclocked by 1GHz+ on air (beating any AMD FX processor) and you would have to be ignorant or an extreemely loyal customer to buy AMD. 8)

If you can make the jump and say that SLI is a budget board then I can make the jump to assume that anyone messing with your SLI budget board is smart enough to click a few times in their BIOS and turn their E6300 into something AMD just might be able to compete with a year from now. :wink:
November 14, 2006 6:06:53 PM

Quote:

Face it AMD has the price perf advantage at the low end. I searched for similarly accessorized mobos, no tjust thefirst cheap one.

I never questioned the FACT that AMD has the price/performance advantage at the low end.

The "expensive Core2 Duo mobo" AMDroid trick has been pulled for too long, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

I sure as hell did! A $180 E6300 with a $70 mobo = $250... I call this low end.

AMD might have the ultra low end, the real bottom of the barrel. If you're picking up other peoples trash for a living then sure, AMD might make sense, though I would even still advise them to grab a used E6300.
November 14, 2006 8:10:49 PM

it seems to me that there is a bit of confusion about the 8800 series...... if you look at video cards overall. (previously) there was a trend. if you took two cards and put them together on the table. and tested them, (the only difference between the cards being pixel pipelines) the one with more would outperform the one with less. however, the one with less (consuming less power, and running cooler) could overclock like mad. examples being the, 7900GS compared to a 7900GT.

basically the same card in every respect but pixel pipelines. yet it you can get a GS to come close (or surpass) a GT in power with overclocking.

http://www.3davenue.com/1688.html
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
http://xtreview.com/review145.htm

almost all reviews show it overclocks like a bat out of hell, and that you can get almost any stock 7900GS to match a GT or even be on the heels of a 7950GT.

if you look at the reviews about the 8800GS vs the 8800GTX and overclocking. the same holds true.

now (bear with me) you will also note, that if you clock both the GS variants to their respective superior, they perform almost identically. or as much alike that you would never tell the difference between them by eye.

this is because nvidia (and likely ATI) have realized where gaming was going, and pixel pipelines are on their way out (as far as describing power), like fill rates, and memory bandwidth have all done. they no longer are the limiting factor in video card design. the 7600gt vs the x1800gto, the latter looks much more powerful on paper, but in reality is only a bit more powerful.

you can find examples of this everywhere. its just to make the point that certain elements have little bearing on the real performance of a video card, and that something new will likely become the next limiter. shading power in the mean time, doesn't seem to be it.

i am willing to bet that the reason that we aren't seeing those 250FPS on a 8800GTX in current games (even with core 2 duo). is simply because architecturally speaking. the 8800 series was made to START gaming at a res of 1600-1200 (even older video cards would perform worse at lower resolutions sometimes), they are massively parallel in processing power, and if you look at all those benchmarks all the FPS are in above 100'. i also "average" FPS is going to have to go as well, because Nvidia realized making a video card that can hit 200FPS was a poor way to design a video card (much like cranking the frequency of a processor and claiming its better, pentium 4 anyone?) and with the 8800's you will see that they have overall, that highest minimum framerates, and their average frame rates are much higher then the human eye can catch. but what is more important? insane framerates? or a video card that wont choke, but will keep the framerates steady even when its being pushed? or could it just be a self imposed limit on the framerate so that if you don't have to worry so much about a Z buffer? they have done this on counsols (and many games) for years.

i would contend that now, more so then ever we are CPU bound. and i agree that we cant really see the power of these cards until games really take advantage of multiple cores (even with the core 2 duo). but i think what we will see is that pixel pipelines will not be advertized as the primary scale of power. im sure we will think of something else. but even it todays titles like FEAR and Oblivion we have surpassed (easily) the amount of shading power they need.

if you just want to talk about raw power. http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-highperformance.html
no one (in their right mind) can say that video cards aren't insanely powerful. and in retrospect of the cores that ATI and Nvidea are putting out, it makes both AMD and Intel look bad. they both are looking to go "multiple core" to improve performance. when ATI and Nvidia have been making GPU's, that (if classified by CPU terms) dominate them in sheer power, and they have only one core.

we are are finding ever more ways to use GPU's, so much they they are coming close to general processors (audio encoding with 6800's, protein calculations with folding at home, AVIVO, physics calculations) i do like the core 2 duo. but i am not satisfied with any desktop processor atm. with IBM coming out with things like the Cell (which will stomp even core 2's into the ground, there is no debate about this) and video cards like the 8800 series, and however powerful the R600's are going to be. it makes one wonder whether both Intel and AMD have become complacent. being for the last 10 years they have had no real competition. AMD has always been able to beat intel in price performance (until now), intel has never had problems with having the large stock, and production capability that OEMS need. and both have remained in the market, not directly competing until now.

i do also agree that the author of the price performance article is biased to AMD. that chart should have the 6300 amended to it. as well as some P4's to dispel any lingering notions of the megahertz myth, or even that they are good deals. something about Pentium D 805's and gaming.........:roll: (just a note that this happens both ways) http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/12/your_diy_gaming_...
i almost gave up reading toms when i read that, it was so full of BS. the sad thing is apparently allot of people seem to think that its really a good idea.......

for the fanboys AMD or otherwise, not to flame, but you are idiot(s), the worst thing that can happen is for AMD to go out of business. that would leave just intel, and Microsoft has already shown us that monopolies only provide crappy products, and have the financial ability to bully you (the consumer) into a never ending upgrade cycle, extremely restrictive licensing terms, or anything else they want, as well as killing any chance for another competitor to enter the market and start producing a BETTER product.
that said, all you "fanboys" should pick up your collective pick axes and kill each other, and leave those of us that want the best product for our money to ourselves.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
there i already got my flamage out :wink:


ok i shall stop my thread jacking now :lol: 
!