Analysis - Intel sandwiches AMD in performance charts
Last week, we received some reader feedback suggesting that we should separate the Intel processor data to better match price with performance among the distinct processor families. We decided to add such a chart to our analysis, but will keep the focus on distinguishing between all Intel and AMD processors. For a full-scale analysis, we believe that it is necessary to look at the big picture and show how all processors blend together.
Because Intel has a wider scale of available processors, we took a representative sample of processors that show the spread of some of the more recent Intel processors versus those of AMD. Of most interest is looking at the overall performance across all models that the company is still supporting.
However, since Intel has come out with more new processor models in the past couple years than AMD has, it is worth taking a look at one graph that shows the breakdown of Intel Pentium D processors versus the Core 2 Duo / Extreme processors to highlight the components that make up the overall analysis graph.
Click to enlarge
Almost exclusively because of the jump in the prices of AMD's FX processors, the correlation between price and performance this week dropped to 0.826, a 7% decrease from 27 October's 0.891 correlation coefficient. The slope of the curve also shot up 20% thanks to the FX-62, giving AMD less of an advantage at the low end and a more distinct price differential at the more expensive models. Intel, on the other hand, while only chiming it with a correlation of 0.334, did increase its value from last week (0.331), creating a small closing on the dramatic correlation difference we usually see in this graph.
Click to enlarge
Looking at the data without excluded overclocked processors and without the QX6700, we are seeing grew most favorable chart for AMD this week. Because the Extreme Edition processors from Intel have the most effect on its trend line, the $120 additional price attached to the FX-62 doesn't have such a dramatic effect on the comparative shape of the graph.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Taking out the overclocked processors also helps Intel's price/performance relationship, bringing its correlation coefficient up to 0.525, a minimal increase over the same figure from last week, causing a smaller gap in correlation between the two companies than was the case last week.
Click to enlarge
As we noted last week, adding in the QX6700 to the equation really helps to define Intel's overall correlation. This week, the relationship measure remained at 0.616, the same number it was last week. However, because of AMD's loss of correlation, it still brings the two closer together in terms of price/performance relationship.
Click to enlarge
When we take out the overclocked processors from Intel here, the performance gap at the $500 - $800 level once again is not as obvious, but it is clearly more significant than it was last week. On 27 October, the AMD trend line was nearly a reflection of itself across the Intel line. This week, on the upper side of the Intel line, AMD begins to curve away in a much more defined way. Also noticeable is just how far away the FX-62 point is from the overall trend line. It's more an outlier than we've ever really seen for AMD in the past month or so.
Click to enlarge
When we break up Intel's data between Pentium D/EE processors and Core 2 Duo/Extreme, the correlations among groups is significantly higher, with the Core 2 models ranking in at 0.921 and the Pentium D's reaching 0.797. Even though this gives a more detailed comparison, it does not tell us much about how Intel's prices compare to each other as a whole.
However, it does show us that AMD is sandwiched in between the entry-level Intel products and the high-end products, which is also seen in the overall charts because the split between low-end and mid- to high-end processors is where AMD's and Intel's trend lines intersect. Translation: Despite their overall low prices, the Pentium D 800/900 appears outdated and offers far less bang for the buck than AMD. If you are looking for an entry-level dual-core PC, stay with AMD. If you are able to spend more money more on a PC and are comparing higher-end Athlon 64 X2 processors with Core 2 Duos, you'll get more performance with an Intel processor.
Mark Raby is a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware, covering a wide range of topics, from video game reviews to detailed analyses of computer processors.