The best benchmark ever....

Like most of you I have just read 'the die has been cast' article, and to be honest, even though I would call myself an 'AMD man', I cannot help but be impressed by Intel's latest offering. But by the end I felt that surely it would be at least helpful to include a performance/price ratio. I know there are problems with this (e.g. what price?, which benchmark to measure performance?), but I still think that these problems can be resolved (e.g. current price AMD/Intel sell for, and the most average benchmark or the best 'real world' benchmark).

I am not writing this because I want to see AMD beat Intel in some way, for all I know one of Intels chips might give best bang for buck. I am writing this because I always buy best bang for buck (like a lot of people), regardless of whether it is Intel or AMD.

Your criticisms/thoughts/ideas/improvements would be appreciated.

I need a 1.5 Ghz Athlon + 512mb ddr ram to write emails......honestly
6 answers Last reply
More about benchmark ever
  1. Yeah, that's true. We always talk about top CPU, but at least in my case, WHEN I buy something (CPU and any other component included) I look for good price/performance ratio. I don't want to spend my money in something that is "the best today" and "just ok" after 3 months.

    But also upgradability is important from my point of view. Have you ever bought a P4 before when you know they will change the socket? I think this is a clear example. But right now is AMD platform the one that will change in less than a year, so probably P4 is the best option (like 1.6A and then overclock as much as you want).

    DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
  2. Thats right, but it may be difficult to benchmark upgradability!, it is important to remember that a performance/price ratio would be complimentary to the normal benchmarks, it would certainly not replace them.

    I need a 1.5 Ghz Athlon + 512mb ddr ram to write emails......honestly
  3. I agree, price/performance would be nice. But to do that, you'd also have to (IMO) talk about price/performance with OCing included. Then you possibly get into legal issues by condoning OCing.
    Upgradeability is also nice, but it's too tough to see the future. Nobody knew that my KT7a-RAID wouldn't support the XP until around release.

    Basically what I'm saying is, where do you draw the line? There are a lot of instances where if you discuss one thing, you have to discuss another. It's tough to determine the best limits.

    <font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
  4. is there a way to persuade THG to include a performance/price ratio in the next round of benchmarks?

    I need a 1.5 Ghz Athlon + 512mb ddr ram to write emails......honestly
  5. Frequent price cuts ( or raises) by both companies changes the picture a lot. Whats a good bargain today may not be a couple of months from now.
    Considering overclocking as ANY part of the equation is difficult. We all know that silicon varies from chip-to-chip. Clearly, low-end northwoods O/C well. But it varies too much to make a reliable recommendation.
    Second, whats a good value depends heavily on what you do with your PC. Video and music editors need a better system than gamers ( if they dont want to take all day to edit). And "average" users max out around a gig. So value varies with intended use.
    Its not a bad idea to rate value, but its a very slippery number.

    Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
  6. They did that once IIRC.
    Although it was more confusing than it sounded. In the end the AXP1500+ was back then the best value, and the P4 1.4GHZ (yes 1.4GHZ) was the bang for the buck too.

    Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol:
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Benchmark Intel AMD Product