Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Intel Hardware

Intel Quad-Core Price and Performance Showdown 115

ThinSkin writes "The folks over at ExtremeTech have had enough time on their hands to benchmark Intel's entire quad-core lineup to determine which has the best performance for the dollar. While prices range from $183 to $1399, the real bargain is with Intel's latest Core i7 architecture which outpaced many other more expensive processors. For comparison's sake, Intel's fastest dual-core CPU was thrown into the mix and was, at times, not even competitive, which suggests that we're beginning to see more and more multi-threaded applications take advantage of four cores."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Quad-Core Price and Performance Showdown

Comments Filter:
  • by DrDitto ( 962751 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2008 @10:22AM (#26132851)
    The analysis is flawed in my opinion since it doesn't consider overall system cost. I just built a machine yesterday for use as my desktop. The Core i7 mainboards and DDR3 memory really push up the price right now. I considered the following configurations:
    • Quad-core Q6600 65nm 2.4GHz ($183), Gigabyte LGA775 mainboard ($105), 4GB DDR2 memory ($41): Total $336
    • Dual-core E8400 45nm 3GHz ($165), Gigabyte LGA775 mainboard ($105), 4GB DDR2 memory ($41): Total: $311
    • Quad-core Nehalem Core i7 920 ($299), Gigabyte LGA1336 mainboard ($245), 4GB DDR3 memory ($125): $659

      At 2x the price, Core i7 was not a consideration for me at this time.

      The choice between the E8400 and the Q6600 was a tough one. I could have gone either way. Quad-core is great for threaded applications like media encoding. But the E8400 outperforms the Q6600 for the majority of what I do (including Photoshop CS3). I am not convinced that threading will be widespread enough during my 3-year upgrade cycle. A common argument on the forums is that the Q6600 can be overclocked to 3GHz such that single-threaded is the same as the E8400. While I do not overclock, the E8400 supposedly can easily get to 4GHz on air.
  • I'd like to see how the systems (CPU/RAM/MB etc) perform with a 64 bit OS with a simulated workload. How about:
    • FreeBSD 7 (AMD64)
    • MySQL 5.1.30
    • Apache 2.2 (worker MPM)
    • PHP 5.2.8 (or HTML::Mason)

    What is the responsiveness of the system under load? Openssl speed? bonnie++?

  • Re:Whoopee (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16, 2008 @11:36AM (#26133681)

    Nobody in their right mind should get an i7. A 30% performance-per-clock increase over the Core 2 series is not worth doubling the cost of the CPU and motherboard. DDR3 is also more expensive than DDR2. On top of that, Intel are getting into the power-sucking height of the Pentium 4s again; the Core i7s have a TDP of 130 watts. For any desktop use - including highest-end game machines - anything another other than a Core 2 Duo is just a waste of money.

  • Re:RAM Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lytles ( 24756 ) on Tuesday December 16, 2008 @02:49PM (#26136465) Homepage

    i've got:
        amd 64 x2 at 25W (BE-2350)
        690G motherboard with onboard graphics (ASUS M2A-VM HDMI)
        $165 total in dec 2007

    and it runs fanless fine (tho i do have the fan hooked up idling and thermally controlled most of the time). doesn't look like they're still selling the BE-2350, and not sure if there's a current equivalent or if you can accomplish the same thing by underclocking.

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"