I'm outdated. Need CPU info

[shambling]

The old standard of listing the ghz of a cpu seems to be outdated nowadays. So when I have a customer ask me, "What is the difference between this core 2 duo 6300 and this Athlon 64 x2 4800+?" I do not have the full range of info to offer them.


I know that they are both dual core. But the ghz is never listed on them anymore it seems. To make matters worse are the notebook cpu's that don't seem to follow any sort of naming convention when it comes to speeds.



Could someone describe, simply, how to compair cpu's nowadays? Is there some hidden code in their names that you can derive a general performance off of?

I can't go telling customers that a core 2 duo that lists at 1.86ghz is actually twice that fast, because its not. Should I just use retarded catch phrases like every other salesman, and just tell them its "blazingly fast" without any sort of info?

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

It so complicated nowadays. No longer can you do direct frequency comparisons. The best way is to look at benchmarks RELEVANT TO WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO.

Tom's Hardware CPU Charts - http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

For me I would input the processors I was interested in and then look at gaming benchmarks. Gaming is my primary performance concern. Most common users don't need to look at articifical benchmarks like memory bandwidth tests and the like.

 

[shambling]

Perhaps I should print a chart out and keep it in my pocket. hehe


That'll work handily though. I just though perhaps there was some sort of naming convention... somewhere. There used to be between AMD and Intel. P4 3ghz was somewhat equivalent to an AMD that said 3000+ in the name. Now its all kinds of screwy.

 

[turpit]

If you want a "number", for a given clockspeed (GHz) Intels Core 2 is on average about 20% faster than an equal (GHz) AMD AM2

The below chart is a clock for clock comparison of Core 2 Vs AMD X2. The information was taken from Anandtech benchmarks and presented by JumpingJack

In terms of cost, thats been variable with the price wars going on right now, but Core 2 gives a better price per unit of performance than AMD X2 right now

On this chart, the performance scale is left to right with right being better, the cost scale is bottom to top, top being higher.

For detailed info, read the article

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/29/price_performance_analysis_12_29_2006/index.html

I dont think you want to use words like 'latency', 'pre-fetcher', or 'L2 cache' with your customers, so the easiest explanation is this: Core 2 is a more advanced micro architecture (Uarch) which improves processing efficiency thus reducing the need for higher clockspeed (GHz) to attain higher performance. In short, Core 2 is just 20% more efficeint than AMD X2.

 

[m25]

Perhaps I should print a chart out and keep it in my pocket. hehe


That'll work handily though. I just though perhaps there was some sort of naming convention... somewhere. There used to be between AMD and Intel. P4 3ghz was somewhat equivalent to an AMD that said 3000+ in the name. Now its all kinds of screwy.

You've got to print a lot of them ;I keep the one with 3D render times but you've got all kinds of customers. So you need Gaming, multitasking, encoding, rendering etc

 

[shambling]

Where I live, it'll be mostly office apps, internet and gaming. No one in this town does rendering (except for me, and thats a hobby) lol

 

[m25]

Where I live, it'll be mostly office apps, internet and gaming. No one in this town does rendering (except for me, and thats a hobby) lol

Stick with it, it's a great hobby!
Going back to your business, I guess you'll basically need only three types of CPUs for your clients at this moment;
1-The full lineup pf Core2 CPUs (E6300, 6400, 6600, 6700 and XE6800) for your higher end gamers (also the best for rendering and other powerful stuff).
2-Something like the AM2 A64 3500+ and 3800+ for budget gamers.
3-AM2 Semprons 2800+ to 3200+ for office people.

These are the best price/performance in their fields.