 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47bd929b$1@news.povray.org...
> [What I was *expecting* to see was one curve for Intel, and another one
> way to the right for AMD. But that doesn't appear to be the case...]
AMD's stuff isn't as good as it used to be. From what I've heard, they're
having some issues with their quad cores.
My next CPU will be an intel, for the first time since the P3.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> AMD's stuff isn't as good as it used to be. From what I've heard, they're
> having some issues with their quad cores.
> My next CPU will be an intel, for the first time since the P3.
What I heard is this:
1. AMD currently don't have anything that can match the speed of Intel.
2. In order to prevent certain financial demise, AMD are *slashing* the
prices of all their products.
3. As a result, many AMD chips are extremely cheap while not actually
being all that slow - in other words, you get a lot for your money.
I was expecting to see one price/performance curve for Intel, and
another one further to the right for AMD (but not going up as high).
However, if anything, the data I have indicates that in
price/performance terms, they're both roughly equal at the moment...
I've also been hearing negative things about their 4-core Phenom chips.
Apparently they were meant to be AMD's reply to Intel, but when the
benchmarks were done, it was found that actually AMD is still lagging
miles behind (despite optimistic marketing by AMD). I also hear there
are QC issues with Phenom that they're still trying to sort out. Hmm.
If I had the money, I'd probably go with Intel too. But AMD is
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47bdd088@news.povray.org...
> If I had the money, I'd probably go with Intel too. But AMD is
Sure it's cheaper, but you could end up needing to upgrade sooner.
I got a fairly nice bonus this year, so I'm buying high-end. Going for the
Intel quad 2.66. Retails here for about R4500
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>> If I had the money, I'd probably go with Intel too. But AMD is
>
> Sure it's cheaper, but you could end up needing to upgrade sooner.
Well, when I think about upgrades, I think "is this faster than what I
have now?" If it's "lots" faster, it's worth it [depending on price,
obviously]. If it isn't, don't bother...
> I got a fairly nice bonus this year, so I'm buying high-end. Going for the
> Intel quad 2.66. Retails here for about R4500
Nice.
I've vaugely debating a Mac of some kind. [Which will obviously contain
some kind of Intel chip.] But who knows?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hmm. PassMark scores from one website, price information from another...
> Is there any way I could automate the data gathering and graphing
> process? :-D
Well, I've thrown something together that allows me to copy & paste a
lump of HTML from
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
and gives me a nice clean CSV file. Now, what to do about the price list...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As you can see, there is *definitely* something in it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cpu-chart2.png' (52 KB)
Preview of image 'cpu-chart2.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so as you probably worked out, green = good, pink = bad.
(Unbelievably, Excel appears to lack the ability to draw light red.)
The three points on the right of the chart are all Intel Core 2
[Extreme] Quad CPUs. That amonolous-looking middle point might actually
be incorrect. [It's the PassMark rating for an "Intel Core2 Extreme
Q6800 @ 2.98 GHz" together with the ebuyer price for an "Intel Core 2
Extreme Quad QX68002.98 GHz". I'm not 100% sure those are the same product.]
That particularly interesting-looking point at 2,701 is an Intel Core 2
on the whole chart. (The next CPU is over twice the price yet only 15%
faster...)
The two points between 2,000 and 2,500 are both AMD Phenom quad-core
CPUs. (The Phenom 9600 and Phenom 9500, respectively.) The 9500 appears
to be especially good value.
Alternatively, that point at 1,751 appears to be especially *bad* value.
That other interesting point at almost exactly 1,500 is an Intel Core 2
processors of roughly the same price. (Notably the AMD Athlon64 X2 6400+
analyse. Suffice it to say that at these prices, tiny price hikes yield
PassMarks).
Not the twin exponential curves I was expecting. But then, there's still
only about 2-dozen data points here. It turns out ebuyer don't really
have that big a range of CPUs on offer. (E.g., I have a huge stack of
PassMark scores for CPUs that I can't find a price for. They simply
aren't on sale at ebuyer!)
PS. I think the dot at the top of the 1,000 line might be in error too.
The PassMark score is for an "Intel Core2 6320 @ 1.86 GHz", but the
price is for an "Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 @ 1.86 GHz"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:32:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> OK, so as you probably worked out, green = good, pink = bad.
> (Unbelievably, Excel appears to lack the ability to draw light red.)
I thought light red was pink?
> The three points on the right of the chart are all Intel Core 2
> [Extreme] Quad CPUs. That amonolous-looking middle point might actuall
y
> be incorrect. [It's the PassMark rating for an "Intel Core2 Extreme
> Q6800 @ 2.98 GHz" together with the ebuyer price for an "Intel Core 2
> Extreme Quad QX68002.98 GHz". I'm not 100% sure those are the same
> product.]
Either that one or the 4000+ passmark looks anomalous. What does the
trendline look like?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:32:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
>
>> OK, so as you probably worked out, green = good, pink = bad.
>> (Unbelievably, Excel appears to lack the ability to draw light red.)
>
> I thought light red was pink?
I used to think that too. Now I realise that "pink" is actually light
purple. (I.e., it's like light red, but with more blue in it...)
>> The three points on the right of the chart are all Intel Core 2
>> [Extreme] Quad CPUs. That amonolous-looking middle point might
>> actually be incorrect. [It's the PassMark rating for an "Intel Core2
>> Extreme Q6800 @ 2.98 GHz" together with the ebuyer price for an "Intel
>> Core 2 Extreme Quad QX68002.98 GHz". I'm not 100% sure those are the
>> same product.]
>
> Either that one or the 4000+ passmark looks anomalous.
Either the QX6800 is really over-priced, or the X9650 is really cheap...
> What does the trendline look like?
Uh... good luck with that. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:40:03 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:32:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> OK, so as you probably worked out, green = good, pink = bad.
>>> (Unbelievably, Excel appears to lack the ability to draw light red.)
>> I thought light red was pink?
>
> I used to think that too. Now I realise that "pink" is actually light
> purple. (I.e., it's like light red, but with more blue in it...)
No that would be the colour known as 'light purple' pink is red with equal
amounts of blue and green, purple is blue with more red then green. At
least that's how I bloody well mix it.
>>> The three points on the right of the chart are all Intel Core 2
>>> [Extreme] Quad CPUs. That amonolous-looking middle point might
>>> actually be incorrect. [It's the PassMark rating for an "Intel Core2
>>> Extreme Q6800 @ 2.98 GHz" together with the ebuyer price for an "Intel
>>> Core 2 Extreme Quad QX68002.98 GHz". I'm not 100% sure those are the
>>> same product.]
>> Either that one or the 4000+ passmark looks anomalous.
>
>
> Either the QX6800 is really over-priced, or the X9650 is really cheap...
>
>> What does the trendline look like?
>
> Uh... good luck with that. ;-)
You're using Excel. Pick the points, right-click and add a trendline, with
that data try an exponentional or moving average.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
