Phenom IIs, Core I7-920 Win Out In Value Analysis 214
An anonymous reader writes "We've all seen processor benchmarks, but how do today's enthusiast CPUs look when you account for performance per dollar? Using a smorgasbord of charts, scatter plots, and performance tests, The Tech Report attempted to single out the highest-value offerings out of 16 popular Intel and AMD processors. The results might surprise you: AMD's 45nm Phenom IIs (both triple- and quad-core) prove to be strikingly competitive with Intel's Core 2 Quads. And, on the high end, Intel's $266 Core i7-920 turns out to be a compelling step up despite the higher costs of Core i7 platforms in general."
Suprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dollars are meaningless? And this is rated +5 Insightful? I knew the economy was bad, but I didn't knew it was THAT bad! (That or /. is some kind of billionaire's club.)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should be running a Power5. Actually most people don't need the fastest CPU. If you do then get the top of the line I7 or a two socket workstation motherboard.
Re:Price is all-important (Score:5, Insightful)
Buying a faster chip is a lot cheaper and faster than rewriting something to be multithreaded.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But buying a faster multi-core (as in, 3 or more cores) chip isn't going to do you any good if your application only runs on one or two threads.
Re:Price is all-important (Score:5, Insightful)
But buying a faster multi-core (as in, 3 or more cores) chip isn't going to do you any good if your application only runs on one or two threads.
Very true if your system only runs that single application. However, everyone I know runs multiple applications just by booting their OS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is even more the case if you virtualise an operating system.
Re:Price is all-important (Score:5, Informative)
However, everyone I know runs multiple applications just by booting their OS.
But not everybody knows what their system is doing. I do: I always keep a CPU load chart in my KDE taskbar, and for interactive usage I probably use one core less than 3% of the time, and both cores about 0.1% of the time.
If I am transcoding a video, then one core gets pegged. However, I would never notice load on the processor on even with a single-core CPU if I just ran the transcode under "nice". It might take 3% longer to run because it waits for the interactive stuff, but that's insignificant.
But I don't run transcoding on my workstation anyway. Why? Because all the I/O continuosly flushes out my disk buffers for other processes. That makes my interactive apps seem slower than crap anyway because they have to hit the disk every time some of their data or program image gets flushed out. My dual cores do nothing to address that issue. I run transcode jobs on a server box where they won't bug anybody.
The only place dual core would really help most people with typical single-threaded apps is if they run at least two copies of programs heavy on number crunching but light on I/O and memory bandwidth, like $FavoriteCause@Home. Other than that, people will have to wait for multithreaded user apps to get much real-world benefit out of multicore CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
The only place dual core would really help most people with typical single-threaded apps is if they run at least two copies of programs heavy on number crunching but light on I/O and memory bandwidth
Not true, one core runs at 100% for the app you're trying to run, the other runs at about 90% with crapware, virus scanners, limewire or whatever crap the kiddies are installing on their PC's these days. As far as your average user goes, they probably will see a doubling of performance...
Re: (Score:2)
Buying a faster chip is a lot cheaper and faster than rewriting something to be multithreaded.
Mostly true, but if the OS is multithreaded, and anything beyond WindowsME is, you can run multiple separate non-multithreaded apps on a single machine and get better performance from each of them.
I say "MOSTLY" true because there are situations where it is better to go ahead and rewrite the application, especially if you are running several thousand copies of it on multiple machines. When it comes time to upgrade your systems, it will be cheaper to upgrade to 500 multicore processors than 1000-2000 single
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is another barrier that we will eventually hit. The current process schedulers in use on modern operating systems have a problem. Attempting to use more than roughly 38 logical processors will result in the additional processors either waiting to run the process scheduler, waiting for a memory access, or waiting for I/O. Currently this is sidestepped on mainframes using virtualization and low latency I/O. I have a hard time seeing how virtualization or lower latency I/O could be adapted for use in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Attempting to use more than roughly 38 logical processors will result in the additional processors either waiting to run the process scheduler, waiting for a memory access, or waiting for I/O.
[Citation needed]
SGI sold systems with 128, 256, 512 and even 1024 processors running a single Linux image.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
multithreading is not that difficult, and there are ways to multithread an app without rewriting. Granted it's hackish, but then so is almost all of software.
Re: (Score:2)
There's obviously a trade-off. For some problems, buying a faster chip is MUCH lower-return than rewriting something to be multithreaded, and you must weight that with the cost of rewriting.
Buying a faster chip gets you on average about 10% speedup. But if your application gets, say, a 200-300% speedup on a quad-core processor (from being multithreaded and having nearly-linear scaling behavior as you add cores), it might be worth the investment. Depends what you're doing - how much parallelism is inheren
Re: (Score:2)
Rendering ???
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
She cares because the Intel chips run cooler, and therefore the box will be quieter.
Re:Suprise? (Score:4, Informative)
2001 called, they want their AMD Thunderbird 1.4GHz back.
Sorry, but Intel has taken the lead in the hottest CPU, 150W for the QX9775, versus 125W for the Phenom II 940.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why you should stick to Core 2 Duos, which run at 65W, and are performance competitive with the latest AMD chips in 99% of use cases (quad core only has real value to "power" users that do things like transcoding, ray tracing, run multiple VMs, or run server apps).
The i7 performance advantages just don't seem to be worth the doubling (or more) of TDP. The Phenom IIs don't fare much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The E6850 rocks. All around, it has never been bettered. They should have kept making the 57 Chevy BelAir, and they should have kept making the E6850.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, those features not sued today will be used a lot more in the next 18 months, or so. Since I build computers to get 5 years of gaming out of them, the top end is a better deal for me.
That plan has always worked well for me.
I'll be building my next computer just before Star Craft II comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
The 45nm Core2 processors are even cooler - they have a TDP of 45w, and the average processor uses much less [xbitlabs.com].
Please note: the measurements above are of processor power consumption only, not total system consumption. As you might expect, only the top-end 45nm Core2 procesors consume anywhere near their 45w TDP, just as only the top-end 65nm Core2 processors consume near 65w.
As for the i7, it only performs well in perfectly-multithreaded benchmarks that are completely I/O-limited (like the aggressive multi-p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, purchasing an i7 now as opposed to a Core 2 Quad makes a great deal more sense as long as you're the sort of person who upgrades their computers themselves. If you don't ever swap a CPU, if you don't care about memory latency, or a whole mess of other things, then, really it doesn't matter what you buy. Buy a Phenom II rig, they're certainly Good Enough(tm) for whatever you want to do.
On the other hand, if you want to be able to upgrade your computer and you do want that extra performance over t
Re: (Score:2)
knee jerk much?
I apologize for not using the proper punctuation. lets try this:
She cares because the Intel chips run cooler, and therefore the box will be quieter~
That said, I notice you chose the QX9775 when this is about the i7.
If you want to play that game, then AMD is crap because there Phenom II 940 runs way hotter then Intels 286.
And just for clarification, other factors go into how how a chip gets beside Wattage. .
Package design, heat sink, fan, placement of the bridge, etc . .
And from what I can tel
Re: (Score:2)
Not always Back in 2006 Intel Core 2 Duo chip actually beat AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, who doesn't know that AMD is higher performance per dollar.
What he says.
Seriously: surprise? Even a moron with learning disabilities living under a rock in a country without Internet access knows that Phenoms offer the most performance per buck.
Re:Suprise? (Score:5, Informative)
Phenom II's is a singular possesive.
Phenom IIs's is a misspelled plural possesive.
Phenom IIs' is a properly spelled plural possesive.
Phenom II is a singular.
Phenom IIs is a plural.
Re:Suprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Suprise? (Score:4, Informative)
Phenom IIs is a plural.
Yes, yes, we all know that from grade school. But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs"
Is the plural Phenum IIss? And even if I write Phenom IIss, most of the readers will immediately wonder if AMD has released a "Phenom IIss"...
The reason the apostrophe is inappropriately used is because it works. When people see Phenom II's, they pronounce it correctly -and- the ambiguity is removed as to whether the "s" is part of the name. The fact that its grammatically/semantically incorrect is an acceptable (to most people) tradeoff.
Language changes, even grammar, and 's appened to product names and abbreviations is becoming understood to mean the plural of a 'non-word'.
Re:Suprise? (Score:4, Funny)
Phenom IIs is a plural.
Yes, yes, we all know that from grade school. But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs"
The reason the apostrophe is inappropriately used is because it works. When people see Phenom II's, they pronounce it correctly -and- the ambiguity is removed as to whether the "s" is part of the name.
That is, until AMD releases the "Phenom II's"
Re:Suprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Damn.
We need an escape character for natural languages!
Re: (Score:2)
At which point the market execs should be drug out of there 2 martini lunch and flogged.
Re: (Score:2)
But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs" Is the plural Phenum IIss?
No. It's Phenom IIses [wikipedia.org].
Language changes, even grammar, and 's appened to product names and abbreviations is becoming understood to mean the plural of a 'non-word'.
However, it's still considered a sign of illiteracy among educated people.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with qute marks?
"Phenom II"s seems to work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Phenom II's is a singular possesive. Phenom IIs's is a misspelled plural possesive. Phenom IIs' is a properly spelled plural possesive. Phenom II is a singular. Phenom IIs is a plural.
You are wrong. II's is proper spelling as per the rules of English grammar.
An apostrophe is used to form a plural for abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols where adding just s rather than 's may leave things ambiguous or inelegant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals
One question (Score:5, Funny)
which one is more more secure? [slashdot.org]
Mistake in TFS (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA says that the Core i7-920 is $284; the chip below it (The Core 2 Quad Q9550) is $266. It's still up there on the performance/price scale, though.
Re: (Score:2)
not too bad (Score:2)
I saw an i7 motherboard/cpu combo for $534. The prices does seem to be coming down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ddr3 + x58 board kills any deal on a 920 until there are mobos in the 150$ price range and ddr3 in the 100-150$ for 6gig.
6GB DDR3-1066 @ $81 [newegg.com]
6GB DDR3-1333 @ $94 (on sale for $85) [newegg.com]
6GB DDR3-1600 @ $100 (on sale for $90; needs 1.65v instead of 1.5v) [newegg.com]
But it looks like i7 mobos currently start at $200 ($190 cheapest on sale), so maybe you're half right.
Bottom LIne (Score:5, Insightful)
Its about your investment.. For me Phenom II was a no brainer because of AM2+ compatibility. Once newegg put those suckers at 200 bucks i jumped. Its like i have an entire new PC and that was upgrading from the 9600 quad core.
Oddly enough i didn't have complaints about the performance of the 9600.. i just figured encoding times and processing times would be reduced enough that it would accelerate my work and well, for 200 bucks its done so and more so than i expected.
i7 is a nice platform but i'm penny pinching right now and looking for better ROI vs bragging rights.
Re:Bottom LIne (Score:5, Insightful)
>i7 is a nice platform but i'm penny pinching right now and looking for better ROI vs bragging rights.
I wonder if penny-pinching will be more common with the economic downturn. If AMD can price itself lower then ROI will be very tempting, even if the Intel product is faster.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's stop making reviews for gamers (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently had to make the tough choice of a Phenom 2 vs Intel Core Quad. I went with the Intel because I somehow came to the conclusion that they run cooler.
You see, I'm building a recording PC, so I want to have as few fans as possible. I plan on having a huge heatsink with NO fan. Most reviews, if they focus on heat, focus on the overclocking aspect.
If wattage correlates to heat like I think it does, I may have been better off with a Phenom 2. But, then again, the wattage test was only run during one task in this review. I read another review where it was different.
There just aren't enough review sites out there for... ahem... "grown ups". Maybe I should start one that takes a look at performance with DAWs like REAPER.
In the end, I don't care about best performance per dollar, or wattage per dollar. I care about performance per degree of heat, because heat = noise. Performance of modern CPUs is good enough these days.
Oh well, that's my rant of the day.
Re:Let's stop making reviews for gamers (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't google enough.
These guys [silentpcreview.com] are really anal when it comes to finding quiet parts. Following their advice, I now actually have an overclocked PC, that I can't hear if it's on or off.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? I visit that site every day. While they're great, they don't really have as large of a hardware selection as most review sites. Also, they're still (as you've demonstrated) somewhat geared toward the gamer/overclocker/max performance crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? I visit that site every day. While they're great, they don't really have as large of a hardware selection as most review sites. Also, they're still (as you've demonstrated) somewhat geared toward the gamer/overclocker/max performance crowd.
I don't think you have ever visited that site.
It's geared so much towards silent/quiet computing that they have their own anechoic chamber and a special system for testing fan airflow. They even test hard drives for vibration (subjectively, but still).
"Most review sites" give absolutely no indication of hardware noise, and if they do, it's almost entirely worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, friendly troll!
Yes, all of those metrics are great. But where are their reviews/comparisons of the current line up of CPUs? You know... relating to how this whole topic started.
There's lots of nice information on PSUs, fans, cases. That stuff's infinitely helpful, and for that I am indebted to silentpcreview.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't measure performance, only power consumption and noise. Naturally, a CPU won't produce noise, but a fan will :)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at their latest CPU review article. It only compares the top tier processors. Their "CPUs and Motherboards" page is all... motherboards.
I'm afraid that they just don't receive enough funds/free stuff from manufacturers to do a thorough job.
Everyone on the forums is making a HTPC or a gaming rig. I don't have the patience or time to grep through all of that and abstract the necessary data.
Yeah, I'm being picky. So? Like I said, this was my rant for the day!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What real difference do you get from over clocking.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against overclocking, and did it back when perfomance gains was going from Doom as a slide show to a smooth running game.
I also understand overclocking for the sake of overclocking. But is getting 15% increase in MHz really noticeable without testing?
And does it still ahve the same direct relationships now that a lot of work is being removed from the CPU, and the CPU's are tasking across several cores?
Re: (Score:2)
I also understand overclocking for the sake of overclocking. But is getting 15% increase in MHz really noticeable without testing?
Try closer to 50%. You have to pick the right model of cpu to get that kind of increase, but it is always the case that the best overclocking chips are in the cheap section. So it isn't like you have to pay for the privilege if you do it right.
And yes it can be very noticeable, depending on what you are doing. For example, it can mean the difference between smooth video playback of HD video and a herky jerky mess of dropouts.
Re: (Score:2)
I took my i7 920 from 2.66GHz to 3.32GHz by upping my base clock from 133MHz to 166Mhz. This changes the QPI bus accordingly, making system transactions much faster as well. It cost me nothing over the original system cost to do this, and I didn't have to change voltages to make it work.
This makes all single core bound tasks (which are frequent) substantially faster, and I spend far less money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't even know about Atom processors. I just did a quick search and it seems like they're for an entirely different market segment. Although, I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever build a HTPC.
I was specifically looking for a quad core processor with this project, since I need to process effects on multiple audio streams at a time. The actual speed of those cores isn't too important to me as long as they're better than a Pentium 4. I also need relatively quick memory and the bus bandwidth/speed to
Re: (Score:2)
You could also look into CUDA/OpenCL using one or more graphics cards.
Re: (Score:2)
The last AMD system I built is quieter and uses about an order of magnitude less power than my PS3 (~30W idle; about the same as a friend's Atom board manages).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious what you think of the Atom processors
The Atom is an efficiency crap fest. It's garbage. I'd rather have an Arm chip any day. Let's get away from this absurd undead i386 architecture garbage. Linux runs on any architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "Recording PC"?
I'm not sure what you mean by quiet but if you need the least noise possible, look at the Atom architecture from Intel.
If its Beefy enough then you could probably build a PC without a FAN (they use Atoms in most of the popular Netbooks which don't have fans, just some thermal material to passively cool the chips).
Combine that with an SSD if you can afford one (again, depends on what you mean by "Recording PC"), OR some of the Western Digital "Green" drives (their 5400 RPM
Re: (Score:2)
While a real recording studio may not care so much about the noise (since they would just move the PC to another room), hobbyists have things a little difference.
Anyway, my NewEgg shipment is already being delivered as we speak, so most of this discussion is moot. You can see more about the actual specifications I was looking for here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1168821&cid=27269123 [slashdot.org]
The point of my main post is... review sites are always geared toward getting the most performance regardless of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The Atom is GARBAGE. Use an Arm chip.
Re: (Score:2)
Noise shouldn't be an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Er... in case you had doubts, wattage correlates with heat 100%. When energy enters a computer case, it can only leave as heat, except possibly for the small amount of airborne kinetic energy impelled away by the fans, which is anyway very small.
If you are talking about temperature, you obviously have to consider both heat input (=wattage) and dissipation capacity. In your particular case, in which you want to minimise fan usage, low wattage is very a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on power drain. Intel has continually shot themselves in the balls since the early Conroe era. The last good thing they did was adopt the superb development work that came from their Israel team. The T2500, T7200, and E6850 rocked; it's all been downhill since then. We're repeating the Pentium 4 gag-fest debacle, churning out space heaters that do a little computing on the side. They laid a giant shit egg with their 45nm process.
Re: (Score:2)
A solution is to put a fan in a different room that circulates cool air into a 'closet' you put your computer in so is is silent during recording.
Or put your computer in a different room, and then just remote into it from a less powerful computer in the studio.
Or lease a computer housed in a different building and just remote into there.
Re: (Score:2)
Though ROI and convenience weighed heavily, for me, there is one more bit of philosophy that affected my decision:
If Intel and AMD were to offer me equal and balanced options, I would purchase AMD, so that next time I go looking for a CPU, I still have the choice.
This is a TERRIBLE comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a TERRIBLE comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
In the cluster I run, I've been quickly swapping out old xeons for new Core i7's. With just the 4 920's I have running, I've been able to remove 20 old xeons, all while improving the overall performance of the cluster.
Price / Performance also helps you judge how fast the computer will be antiquated. If you now need only 500 gflops, and this computers offers 1000, you know that it should sustain you into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his general point is that most of us are only able to use one primary computer at a time, you can have supporting ones like file server etc. but we humans don't scale well. So if I got 1000$ to spend and the choice is between Intel at 1000$ and AMD at 500$ then my only real options are to buy the Intel or buy AMD and pocket the 500$. Buying two AMD machiens might net me more gigaflops than the Intel but I don't have four arms and 30fps on each screen is not the same as 60fps. I know that I'm quite a
Up front costs are a fraction of total costs (Score:5, Informative)
Until electricity is free, comparing CPUs based on up-front cost of the CPUs alone ignores a major part of the expense of owning and operating computers, particularly if you're running servers.
But that's okay, Slashdot. I understand that you live in your parents' basement and you don't pay for electricity anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. A piece of crap Intel or AMD system running at 200 watts 24x7 uses 1750kwh per year, which at 20 cents per kwh comes to $350 per year. If it lasts 5 years, you're looking at a total power bill of $1750.
We need new blood. This garbage is pathetic. It's producing 99.9% heat and 0.01% computing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...running at 200 watts 24x7...
Unless your running SETI or some other setup then it's doubtful that your CPU is pegged at 200W 24x7. But lets for the sake of argument say that for whatever reason that some setup has it's CPU pegged at max/near-max all the time. What then is the value of the productivity?
Now that's a huge question and something I'm not even going to being to answer but just wanted to point out that putting out a lot of big numbers without context is pretty silly.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD price : performance linear (Score:5, Insightful)
What stood out to me is that AMD seems to have a fairly consistent price:performance ratio. Is this policy?
Most of their offerings fall pretty close to a line (not quite a zero crossing, but close). If this holds true for all their current and future offerings, you don't have to have test metrics for every processor. You can use price as a reasonable estimate of performance. i.e. Double the price gets you twice the performance.
Intel on the other hand, you can't trust price to indicate performance. A lot more research is involved. OR else you have to assume there's a high likelihood that the AMD offering for the same price will be better.
Re:AMD price : performance linear (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because Intel dominates the high end. AMD can't sell a processor with a premium pricetag because its performance would compete with Intel's midrange which is priced pretty reasonably.
AMD is the loveable underdog, but don't forget how expensive their X2s were when they were dominant. AMD isn't cheap because they're doing us a favor, they're cheap because they have to be.
Re:AMD price : performance linear (Score:4, Interesting)
AMD is the loveable underdog, but don't forget how expensive their X2s were when they were dominant. AMD isn't cheap because they're doing us a favor, they're cheap because they have to be.
That's a thing that people don't seem to get - prices are what they must be in the market. The question is, can you skim off enough to keep designing new chips and developing your foundries? Already they've failed at the latter and is trying a huge bet trying to make a foundry company spin-off. No matter how badly they're really doing, in the "here and now" they'll be competitive right up until they file for chapter 11.
Re:AMD price : performance linear (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Something that stood out to me (from that scatter graph) is:
* If you don't want to spend more than $100 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $150 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $200 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $250 on a CPU, AMD wins.
* If you don't want to spend more than $300 on a CPU, Intel's (cheapest) i7 wins by far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now run your comparisons based on 64 bit code instead of 32 bit. Intel shits the bed running in 64 bit mode.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Intel shits the bed running in 64 bit mode.
Is that a good thing?
Best performance per dollar ... (Score:2)
Re:Best performance per dollar ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But but but but ....
Any number divided by itself = 1
THEREFORE 0/0 = 1
See, maths is easy!
Re: (Score:3)
But but but but ....
Zero divided by any number = 0
THEREFORE 0/0 = 0
See, maths is contradictory!
( Those mods that didn't #DE or #Z already will now #MF )
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has all the answers!!!!
"Nullity, a pseudo-mathematical concept proposed by James Anderson, defined as the value 0/0 and represented by the character Φ"
Aha! (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot's seemingly-ridiculous problems with non-ASCII characters are simply a safeguard against displaying the nullity character, which would cause the universe to implode.
Missing the best value for the buck, AMD Kuma 7750 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because at stock clocks (what they have to run for this test), the 7750 runs a lot slower than the 6400+, while probably using the same amount of power.
Other than that it's a darn good chip.
Re: (Score:2)
With that in mind, I'd imagine the 7750 would have been solidly beaten the 6400+ CPU in
Re: (Score:2)
Just about threading (Score:5, Interesting)
AMD vs Intel in "floating point" operations (Score:2)
..like audio software and soft synths.
Ableton Live will support multiple chips/cores, so I want something that will really make short work of those VSTs that are currently beating my CPU like a redheaded stepchild.
Any ideas?
Re: (Score:2)
i7
Re: (Score:2)
AMD mops the floor with Intel for floating point.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They're just using that chart as an example to illustrate their ranking system. You see the little next page button at the bottom of the page?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I noticed they benchmark about 25 different programs or so, if you had read past the first page.
Sheesh, why don't people ever just skip all the shit and go to the conclusion page?