Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

a64 price cuts

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 26, 2004 3:49:16 PM

with the A64 price cuts, which processor has the best price/performance ratio in your opinion?

More about : a64 price cuts

July 26, 2004 7:03:30 PM

The lower end ones will give you the most for your money. It's gonna depend on where you buy it but the 2800 or 3000 will be a good value. You can graph them and see which one has the steepest slope. The one at the end of the steepest slope will generally be the best buy.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
July 26, 2004 7:12:42 PM

You are right <b>dhlucke</b>. 99% of the time the slowest CPU (aside Celeron) have the best price/performance ratio. If this would not be tha cae, no one would buy the lowest speed CPU. :smile:

--
Asus A7N8X / <font color=green><b>AMD Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green> (tbred @ 167x12)
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Built by ATI Radeon 8500LE 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290
Related resources
July 26, 2004 10:47:23 PM

I completely disagree with the previous two responders. They seem to be thinking about price only. Just because something's cheap and fast doesn't mean there's not a faster, more expensive model that's a better value. If things were so cut and dry as TheRod says then why would we have benchmarks? The cheapest CPU might be nice, but not if it'll be useless for gaming overnight.

I suggest you not go with anyone's opinion and use what Tom's Hardware (and other sites) have given you. Go look at the latest CPU reviews and see how all of the latest models worth anything stack up to each other in the applications you plan on using them in. Then go get prices for the CPUs that are the most attractive to you and compare and contrast increases in speed to increases in $$.

You'll find a sweet spot that's the best value.
July 26, 2004 11:43:20 PM

We're talking about A64's here. There are NONE that will be outdated overnight. If he wants the best price/performance ratio then this is just a math problem.

</font color=red><i><font color=red>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS </font color=blue><font color=red>AMERICA
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 11:43:26 PM

2 years ago I got a P4 platform with a 2.4B because it was used and cheap. At the time, the fastest CPU was the 3.06B. Did anyone need a 3.06B for gaming back then? No. Would a 2.4B still be good for gaming? Yes.

The best deals for PERFORMANCE users are often in the MIDDLE of the pack. The 2.8C and A64 3000+ are great for games and will remain so for a while to come. For overclockers these become an even better deal, but even without that they have a better price/performance ratio than faster processors of the same core type.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 26, 2004 11:53:58 PM

Dhlucke - Sorry, I wasn't referring to the A64 when I made the outdated comment. It was more a general reference in response to the 99% claim. Which was taking in all CPUs.

You are right though in your answer to the guy. I got a bit absorbed in my response to that 99% comment that was made and lost track that the guy was only referring to A64 chips!! DOH!

Yes with the A64 chips, the cheapest will do since the differences in FPS are marginal at best and the price differences are pretty significant.
!