26 Desktop Processors Compared 192
theraindog writes "The number of different CPU models available from AMD and Intel is daunting to say the least. The Tech Report's latest CPU review makes some sense of the landscape, exploring the performance and power consumption characteristics of more than two dozen desktop processors between the $999 Core i7-975 and more affordable sub-$100 chips. The article also highlights the value proposition offered by each CPU on its own and as a part of the total cost of a system. The resulting scatter plots nicely illustrate which CPUs deliver the best performance per dollar."
Only Intel compatible .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am fed up with all these people who think that all the world is Intel compatible -- when there are better CPUs out there.
A better solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the cheapest CPU that can playback 780P flash well?
That is probably a good CPU for 99% of the population. Flash is a resource hog and is likely to be most intensive thing that most people use.
The next step up would be to list several games and see what is the cheapest CPU that can play them at say 60FPS at good settings with a $99 video card.
If your a video editor, hardcore PC gamer, transcode a lot of video, or run CAD get the fastest CPU you can afford.
So hard core types should buy I7s and pretty much everybody else should buy AMDs once you take into account ram and motherboard prices.
Also if you are planing on running virtual machines AMD are often a better choice. Intel doesn't support virtualization on a lot of their CPUs while I think AMD does on their AM2 and up CPUs.
Ancient CPUs (upgrade comparison) (Score:2, Interesting)
Do any of the CPU reviews use old CPUs? What I what to know is how much faster today's CPU is compared to my 3-6 year old CPU, but these hardware reviews typically have a low end much newer/faster than my current system. Practically, a 50% CPU edge is too marginal for me to upgrade, but if a new system was 3X faster than my current aging machine I would be tempted!
What I'm seeing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The performance scales sub-linearly with the price, and ends up almost flat at the extreme end. This means you need to examine the cost of SMP vs. a more powerful CPU. Two X2 6400+ chips in an SMP should give you about the same performance at the same cost as one i7-920, after you add in the extra for the upgraded chipsets and mobo.
More powerful low-end chips become more and more effective when SMPed versus their higher-end rivals. The other benefit of going SMP is that you have fewer cores sharing the same cache, therefore increase the number of distinct tasks you can perform in parallel effectively without cache-flooding.
Of course, you can't SMP forever - the largest SMP array you can make before the system slows down by more than the CPU increases performance is 16-way. Even before then, you lose linear scaling fairly early on. So you end up balancing the different CPUs against the different methods of arranging them to get the best performance for your money.
Re:Seems pretty clear: (Score:5, Interesting)
My AMDx2 3800+ is starting to show its age, but there is no way I am going to buy a high end part with Larrabee so close.
Re:A better solution. (Score:3, Interesting)
But, to answer your question, probably the new class of netbook like the Pegatron [engadget.com], which, interestingly enough is running a Freescale processor with an ARM based core. This little netbook also has flash based GPU acceleration (supposedly), is incredibly thin and sports I think 6 hours of battery life.
Re:Seems pretty clear: (Score:4, Interesting)
That's just the motherboard, let alone the processor or ram cost differences. Not to mention they are about to change the socket again rather soon, if I recall correctly (aka 1 year).
AMD changes sockets a lot more gradually, letting people actually, you know, upgrade.
Re:Seems pretty clear: (Score:4, Interesting)
WHen I can I buy the highest end I can and use it for 5 years.
I might upgrade a video card. After 5 years, it gets deprecated into the house hold pool.
I have 5 year old computers running games like team fortress 2 and wow just fine. Not the highest end graphic performance, but fine enough.
When I build my next box, It will have 16Gigs ram, minimum. Hopefully 32. This will probably stretch it's use out to 8 years.
Performance/$ vs. CPU chart (Score:1, Interesting)
What would be more interesting is a Performance/$ vs. CPU plot.
Re:Seems pretty clear: (Score:4, Interesting)
The most economically sound upgrade path for me has been sell after 6 months, getting 95% of purchase price back-my people like buying my 6 month old systems, and I like buildiing new ones!
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)