CPU Reviews comparison (R03)

I decided to compile the data from different review. Because, since a couple of weeks many people complain about the quality of CPU reviews at THG (myself included).

I compiled the data from 7 sites that have done DivX 5.1 and 5.11 video compression comparison. Here are the normalized data (reference A64 3400+) :

DivX 5.1/5.11 normalized performance :
107% - P4EE 3.2GHz
105% - P4C 3.2GHz
101% - FX-51
100% - A64 3400+
100% - P4C 3.0GHz
93% - A64 3200+
87% - XP 3200+

And here comes the funny stuff . I found that NordicHardware and ExtremeTech clearly favor AMD products both of these sites gave AMD first place in DivX encoding. On the other hand AnandTech results clearly over-rate Intel products.

DivX 5.1/5.11 normalized price/performance :
168% - XP 3200+
155% - P4C 3.0GHz
147% - A64 3200+
112% - P4C 3.2GHz
100% - A64 3400+
65% - FX-51
47% - P4EE 3.2GHz

When we add price, we get a completly different picture. All the HIGH-END CPU’s are overpriced for the advantage they will gives to buyer’s. Ironically, the XP 3200+ comes first, at a price 219$US. If Video Encoding it’s a priority I would recommend to buy P4C 3.0GHz (at 275$US it’s a good bargain for PowerVideoUser).

UT2003 normalized performance :
102% - FX-51
100% - A64 3400+
93% - A64 3200+
82% - P4EE 3.2GHz
82% - XP 3200+
79% - P4C 3.2GHz
77% - P4C 3.0GHz
74% - P4C 2.8GHz

UT2003 normalized price/performance :
159% - XP 3200+
150% - P4C 2.8GHz
147% - A64 3200+
119% - P4C 3.0GHz
100% - A64 3400+
84% - P4C 3.2GHz
65% - FX-51
36% - P4EE 3.2GHz

Here the only overpriced CPU’s are the P4EE and FX-51. And the XP 3200+ (219$US) wins in this category, closely followed by the P4C 2.8 GHz (210$US). Overall the A64 3200+ (270$US)is a great performer for the price. I would recommend it to PowerGamer.

TOP 3 REVIEWER’S :
1. Xbits Labs - XbitLabs is right on the target. The normalized results are almost identical to the XbitLabs results.
2. Hardware.fr (french site) / AnandTech - Their results are near the normalized results.
3. THG - Results are near normalized results but THG did not included Athlon FX and P4EE in their latest tests.

In the weird category comes HotHardware that gave the XP3200+ less than 1% difference in performance with the 3400+ and NordicHardware gave the same XP3200+ a difference of 24% in performance in the DivX compression test.


CONCLUSION

Based on these 2 bench, I can clearly say that FX-51 and P4EE are only marketing products. Because, it would be useless to buy those CPU unless you have too much money to spend. These products exists to « flash », like Ferrari’s, you don’t buy them only for speed, you buy them for « prestige ». But, in the CPU market, « prestige » don’t last long. So it’s worthless to spend money on these products.

And, depending on what you do with your PC, you can come with very different conclusion. It’s why in UT2003 the P4C 3.2GHz takes the last place, it’s price don’t justify it’s performance. And in video encoding the A64 3400+ get the same treatment.

I will try to add more benchmarks/CPU’s in my next revisions. I wish you appreciate this!

REVISIONS :
01 - Added results/comments about Hardware.fr.
02 - Added UT2003 results.
03 - Price/performance ratio added (2004/01/16)

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheRod on 01/16/04 02:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>