Another perspective on CPU value

http://techreport.com/r.x/2010_2_19_...-sysprices.gif

"As you might have already seen, the value section of our grand Athlon II vs. Core i3 showdown article includes performance-per-dollar graphs based on whole system prices. We began including these numbers some time ago at the behest of a readers who rightfully feel that, if they need to buy a whole PC to begin with, then processor pricing is only part of the equation. For example, if processor A costs $200 and only performs 50% better than processor B, which is priced at $100, then the prospect of paying double for 50% extra performance may not seem that worthwhile. In a $900 system, however, paying an extra $100 for 50% of extra performance suddenly becomes far more enticing."

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/18502

I would also like to point out that the Asus M4A785-M is in no way a very cheap board, you can get the BIOSTAR A785G3 for $60 or if you want PCIe 16x + 4x you can get ASRock A785GXH/128M for $70 or for the same $90 as the Gigabyte GA-H55M-S2H you can get GIGABYTE GA-MA785G-UD3H which i feel is a superior board.

EDIT:- Forgot to say if you want a H55 mobo then i recommend this fro $95 its a steel i had a good experience with it rather than the stock Intel h55 and is very value for money and if you want a AMD 785g based mobo i recommend this or this

Interesting, so its a tie between Intel and Amd when it comes to performance per dollar for an antire system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeMaan

Interesting, so its a tie between Intel and Amd when it comes to performance per dollar for an antire system.

---

It can be, but it depends entirely on what CPUs you are in the market for. If you're looking between i7's and Phenom II's for instance, which is a pretty common decision these days, there's no tie.

i think the best way to do these kinds of tests is to show what performance you get for every 50$ increase for a total system. so if you had 500$ what would you do, then if you had 600$ what would you get. however due to each owner having specific requirements (like needing 6 sata ports, or optical out) the review shouldnt be as simple as finding the cheapest board for the socket, but going with a median board, like a middle of the road 790G.

there is never a perfect way to review this kind of data, who would put a 100$ cpu into a 300$ motherboard, or why does the small system need the 800W PSU. all these things make it tough to give strait simple answers. but im happy to see someone try.

This is a terrible comparison method. Let's say I'm buying a CPU-bound game title, and that CPU that delivers 50% less performance but costs $100 less can't do playable framerates, but the one that has 50% more performance at $100 can. Suddenly the more expensive one doesn't have a worse return on your investment, it has a much better one because it is the only one that meets your requirements. And heck, if we're assuming that nothing is actually CPU-bound, then we might as well all buy an ION-based system and leave it at that.

For us -people on XS- though, Intel CPUs present better value due to their higher (significantly so -at times) overclockability...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serra

This is a terrible comparison method. Let's say I'm buying a CPU-bound game title, and that CPU that delivers 50% less performance but costs $100 less can't do playable framerates, but the one that has 50% more performance at $100 can. Suddenly the more expensive one doesn't have a worse return on your investment, it has a much better one because it is the only one that meets your requirements. And heck, if we're assuming that nothing is actually CPU-bound, then we might as well all buy an ION-based system and leave it at that.

---

Which CPU bound game are we talking about? No games (except probably some RTS's) are CPU bound at unplayable framerates. When a game is CPU bound it's usually in the hundreds FPS department.

is that cpu cost or platform costs?
did they take into account running costs ie power consumption?
and perf/cost=! king... perf per cost for entry level cards is awesome but you cant actually play any games on them...

still, interesting approach...
i liked xbitlabs approach from a few years back offering price perf graphs for different cpus... that was awesome... :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Which CPU bound game are we talking about? No games (except probably some RTS's) are CPU bound at unplayable framerates. When a game is CPU bound it's usually in the hundreds FPS department.

---

Exactly! You can count those kind of games on the fingers of one hand - in essence a non existent market. Modern games and future ones are heavily shader-bound,you'll need a monster of graphics card to be able to enjoy as devs intended it in the first place. Any modern QC chip with decent amount of RAM and a good GFX card will be a fine gaming PC.

The article does not have overclocking and unlocking accounted, so it does not actually show anything to us, XS users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

is that cpu cost or platform costs?
did they take into account running costs ie power consumption?
and perf/cost=! king... perf per cost for entry level cards is awesome but you cant actually play any games on them...

still, interesting approach...
i liked xbitlabs approach from a few years back offering price perf graphs for different cpus... that was awesome... :toast:

---

Yes, they did. Did you follow the link?

http://techreport.com/r.x/2010_2_19_...-sysprices.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevethegreat

For some people, Intel CPUs present better value...

---

Fixed. Whether you get 2Ghz or 1Ghz out of a chip if you maxed it out thats Xtreme. You got as much performance out of it as you can. Doesn't matter if you can crank out more on an intel chip. I have yet to see any blow me away in the real world. I'll take a $175 chip over a $300+ one that can do the same thing.

I think the big value in AMD is the upgrade path for their sockets. If you have an AM2+ or AM3 socket you have options up through Thuban. Orochi (desktop Bulldozer) will be on the AM3(+) socket too so overall system value is pretty darn high. Intel simply brings great performance right out of the box at all levels; though with questionable socket upgrade paths. Luckily Intel already has a wide selection on socket 1156 and Six-cores coming for 1366 (albeit in the same CPU generation).

useless graph... its only good if you plan on buying 100 of these systems and leaving at stock clocks... a 965 system thats built to oc to 4GHz is going to cost about the same as one for a i7-920 and the i7 will pwn it... this graph is epic fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadconeTuning

useless graph... its only good if you plan on buying 100 of these systems and leaving at stock clocks... a 965 system thats built to oc to 4GHz is going to cost about the same as one for a i7-920 and the i7 will pwn it... this graph is epic fail.

---

It's not epic fail. It just doesn't include the overclocking potential.

Of course the graph would be different when you would actually get to overclock the processors.

For a crowd who do not overclock this is a good comparison but then again even at stock different phases should have been used such as gameing, media, etc and then a value for money chart could be made.

The overall value for money chart is not bad i knew the i5 750 was pretty strong in value for money but the hardware they used for AMD system was not in the cheap zone at all. the BIOSTAR A785G3 which is for $60 is a excellent low end board and for value for money ASRock A785GXH/128M rocks at $70 and can take on most H55/P55 mobo's.

The components need to be better picked and so does the categories, after some refinement i am sure that the article will be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roadconetuning

a 965 system thats built to oc to 4ghz is going to cost about the same as one for a i7-920 and the i7 will pwn it... This graph is epic fail.

---

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

I think the big value in AMD is the upgrade path for their sockets.

---

That's a very good point. AM2+ lasted for ages, so will AM3 since it should support Bulldozer... But these things are pretty hard to account into numerical values and graphics of a single article I'm afraid. Just another thing to consider. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadconeTuning

useless graph... its only good if you plan on buying 100 of these systems and leaving at stock clocks... a 965 system thats built to oc to 4GHz is going to cost about the same as one for a i7-920 and the i7 will pwn it... this graph is epic fail.

---

this = :rofl:

a phenom II system built to get to 4ghz is going to cost you at least 150€ less than the i7 system :shakes: (around 500€ for the i7 with the cheapes ram + board available and 320 for the PHII with the cheapest proper Crossfire capable board)

and at 4ghz almost every single game out there is getting GPU bound and you will see zero difference at all between the PHII and the i7 in games

i dont; base this on any review out there; i base it on my own experience as i had an i7 sys @ 4.2ghz and my PHII rig @ 4.0 ghz and had no difference at all in every single game i own (+-10 fps above 100 fps @1920x1200 with hd 4870 crossfire and no difference at all below 100 fps :rolleyes:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serra

This is a terrible comparison method. Let's say I'm buying a CPU-bound game title, and that CPU that delivers 50% less performance but costs $100 less can't do playable framerates, but the one that has 50% more performance at $100 can. Suddenly the more expensive one doesn't have a worse return on your investment, it has a much better one because it is the only one that meets your requirements. And heck, if we're assuming that nothing is actually CPU-bound, then we might as well all buy an ION-based system and leave it at that.

---

Agreed. The calculation method is inherently flawed.

It's an old cliche but true, your computer is only as fast as the slowest component. Buying a faster CPU while neglecting the rest of the system just doesn't work in reality.

I did the math a while ago when considering buying a new PC and I got that the AMD Athlon II X4 620 has the biggest bang for the buck. Here are some examples: (Newegg price / (GIPS + GFLOPS))

AMD Athlon II X4 620 : $95.99 / 64.7 = 1.4836
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition : $159.99 / 80.3 = 1.9924
Core I5 - 750 : $194.99 / 96.4 = 2.0227

Funny they chose the 965 over 955. Is 200mhz that big of a deal for the price premium?

An average of OCs per chip would yield a more relevant comparison.

As well, it's difficult to compare mobo's concerning AM3 chips. I'm running a 945 on an sb600 AM2+ board. Basically, I recycled everything, updated my bios and threw on an AM3 chip. Considering I nearly got to 3.8ghz stable w/ a 945, isn't that a better example of price vs performance? My point is, there's no way to account for what I did, so why compare apples to donkeys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Exactly! You can count those kind of games on the fingers of one hand - in essence a non existent market. Modern games and future ones are heavily shader-bound,you'll need a monster of graphics card to be able to enjoy as devs intended it in the first place. Any modern QC chip with decent amount of RAM and a good GFX card will be a fine gaming PC.

---

It was an example scenario I used to demonstrate the basic concept: if your CPU can't do what it needs to in a certain amount of time, you're not losing in the price:performance arena if you buy the version that charges an extra $1000 for the extra 50MHz you may need... the bottom line is that the more expensive one can provide you the experience that the other one cannot. When the cheaper alternative cannot do something it's cost/performance is infinite because it's dividing by zero.

Despite the idea that no games are CPU bound these days I've seen Atom systems that can't play many games even with wicked GPU's... so at some point a CPU is required. "But all you need is _____" you'll say, but that takes me back to my first point about why this whole comparison is ridiculous. If you NEED a certain level of performance, you can only compare price:performance within those performance specs, not across the board like this as they seem to think.