100 Processors (50 AMD & 50 Intel) compared on matbe.com

[Pt1t]

Before Nehalem launch date , our Belgian / French website compared no more than 100 cpu's



100 Processors Compared



50 AMD cpu's socket AM2 VS 50 Intel cpu's socket 775.





It's french review but you can read it here : 100 Processors Compared


If you cant read french, graphics are still easy to understand !

[gOJDO]

Well done guys!
for the time wasted testing so much CPUS!
Keep up the good work and update these charts with the upcoming Nehalem and Deneb CPUs.

Although the benchmark tests are not so detailed, the article is very useful for comparing various CPUs released in the past few years.

[savantu]

Total ownage , that's how it can be summed up.What is interesting is that Netburst era P4s perform better than equivalent rated A64s as SW has become multithreaded , both in apps and games.The old dogs learned a few new tricks , or should we say , can finally use some of its tricks.

[Papu]

Really puts it in perspective , a couple of years ago P4 was standard , nowadays its beaten 3x by the qx9770
wonder if in another few years well have that kind of increase or more.

[Nedjo]

bah, another roundup in sea of similar test, but with 100 processors!

I want to see something different, from another perspective!

Here's a really good example:


http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...42&pageid=3301


those guys have "simulated" average Joe usability scenario that includes IE opened with bunch of tabs, and Norton AV running in the background. Then they've fired up standard battery of benchmarks to see which CPU will provide better user experience!

I don't understand why more revievers don't adopt similar aproach... I mean what's good of multicore CPUs if not providing better multithreaded/multitaking usage experience?!

Imagine if those auto reviewers only would test cars by connecting engine on dinamometer, and measuring highest horsepower by taping the gas pedal?

[R101]

Total ownage , that's how it can be summed up.What is interesting is that Netburst era P4s perform better than equivalent rated A64s as SW has become multithreaded , both in apps and games.The old dogs learned a few new tricks , or should we say , can finally use some of its tricks.

Back then I think you could see this difference only in Doom3.

[Trouffman]

IMPRESSIVE ! Great work !!

[Olivon]

Great Work from M@tBe !

Congrats

[alfaunits]

Because noone will use their computer in the exact same way, surely not an average Joe the Plumber, so Mbe's test holds more ground on usefulness.

Here's a really good example:
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...42&pageid=3301

I don't understand why more revievers don't adopt similar aproach... I mean what's good of multicore CPUs if not providing better multithreaded/multitaking usage experience?!

[Slovnaft]

wow, that was a LOT of benches on a lot of chips.
and that thing about amd's most expensive quad core being slower than intel's cheapest? very interesting that it's totally true.
but man, after spending that much time benching i would've taken the pleasure of smashing a few of those procs...

[AndrewZorn]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see it isn't a Tom's Hardware chart, but they actually retested them, had standards, etc... actually useful.

[Shintai]

Very nice list. Not the usual "reuse" of old test with changed things.

[gOJDO]

bah, another roundup in sea of similar test, but with 100 processors!

Yes! That's why the article is very useful. Imagine how many hours per person are wasted for collecting all the data. At least you can give a credit to those guys.

I want to see something different, from another perspective!

If you want something different then do it yourself.

[duploxxx]

wow, that was a LOT of benches on a lot of chips.
and that thing about amd's most expensive quad core being slower than intel's cheapest? very interesting that it's totally true.

amd's most expensive quad has more or less equal price to intel's cheapest....


for the differences between dual and quad core that can only mean that the ratio between single and multithreaded benchmarks was not in line with eachother.

not to mention the fact that you run more then 1 app at the same time but that's a discussion going on for a while already.

[STaRGaZeR]

that can only mean that the ratio between single and multithreaded benchmarks was not in line with eachother.

Single or multithreaded apps affect both quads. And this is not servers. With more multithreaded apps the gap would have been even larger.

not to mention the fact that you run more then 1 app at the same time but that's adiscussion going on for a while already.

Let me guess, slower but smoother?

[duploxxx]

Single or multithreaded apps affect both quads. And this is not servers. With more multithreaded apps the gap would have been even larger.



Let me guess, slower but smoother?

i read his post the wrong way, corrected

i was actually referring to the fact that a e7400/e8200 gets a higher total score then certain quad cores.

[Revv23]

wow this is quite a feat!

That must have been so boring!

[Sheik]

Wow, thats impressive!

[savantu]

i read his post the wrong way, corrected

i was actually referring to the fact that a e7400/e8200 gets a higher total score then certain quad cores.

I'm pretty sure that in most desktop scenarios an E8200 will perform better than a tricore for example.

[Xope_Poquar]

100 processors in 21 tests. That's 2100 benches. Ugggggh.

Great roundup! The only thing more I would have asked for is a final graph comparing average performance versus current price.

[Kingcarcas]

This is the test i've been waiting for

[NightCrawler™]

One of the best charts I've seen in a very long time....

/me tips hat...

[azraeel101]

I only cared about gaming benches in those tests, but when I saw 640*480 "low details" I closed the tab and didn't read the rest of the review. For me at least, it's absolutely useless.

[Mad1723]

Really.... amazing.... work! And if you can read french, the article is really interesting too

[savantu]

I only cared about gaming benches in those tests, but when I saw 640*480 "low details" I closed the tab and didn't read the rest of the review. For me at least, it's absolutely useless.

Huh ? Both Word in Conflict and FEAR are tested at low/high details.And guess what , it proves that low detail testing is every bit as relevant.It's about CPUs , not GPUs.