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

[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...

[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.

[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.