View Full Version : Interesting CPU comparisons
TheGreatSatan
10-21-2010, 04:51 PM
I thought this site was interesting.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
Especially how the CPU's stack up against eachother and what they cost. It's pathetic how low down the chart the AMD Hex 1090T is.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
It's pathetic how low down the chart the AMD Hex 1090T is.
Which chart? I'm not seeing it having a pathetic showing on either.
The CPU Mark chart is sorted by performance, and it's actually quite price-competitive, imo. It's a $260 CPU beating out $1,000+ Xeons. Yes, of course there are going to be chips that outperform it, but it runs with $300-$1,600 CPUs, and in my book that's pretty admirable.
The Price Performance chart, I can't see any discernible consistent sorting method.
EDIT:
It is nice to have some concrete numbers though, and they prove what we've been saying for the last few years; Intel has the performance edge if you're willing to pay through the nose, but AMD has the cost/performance edge across the board.
OvRiDe
10-21-2010, 06:32 PM
There can't be a Ferrari unless there is a Ford.
Great chart, makes scouting new CPU's very convenient.
Nice find!:up:
TheGreatSatan
10-21-2010, 07:12 PM
Here's (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X6+1090T) the 1090T
Yeah, I know, I just don't see how that's a pathetic score.
TheGreatSatan
10-21-2010, 08:03 PM
It's a six core and it's that low. I just thought that a six core CPU would do a lot better than the quads. BTW, my next build will be an AMD Hexacore
Oneslowz28
10-21-2010, 08:16 PM
There can't be a Ferrari unless there is a Ford.
Great chart, makes scouting new CPU's very convenient.
Nice find!:up:
If by Ford you mean GT 500 (not the crapstang either)
So where does that leave VIA? I guess they could be Toyota or Honda, the little guys who want to perform like the big boys.
dr.walrus
10-21-2010, 09:12 PM
Yeah, I know, I just don't see how that's a pathetic score.
Exactly. It's very cheap compared to the competition, and it's frankly architecturally very different.
TheGreatSatan
10-21-2010, 10:09 PM
Six Core should be equal to another Six core, not quads. It's like, what's the point in AMD making a six core if it doesn't stack up? And they could make an Intel rival for around the same price range, but they don't have anything better than the 1090T
mDust
10-21-2010, 11:36 PM
Six Core should be equal to another Six core, not quads. It's like, what's the point in AMD making a six core if it doesn't stack up? And they could make an Intel rival for around the same price range, but they don't have anything better than the 1090T
I see what you're saying about flagship vs flagship. However, I don't think AMD is really concerned with outperforming Intel when they can offer great performance for 1/3 the price.
On a different note, I find it hard to believe that the GTX 470 and HD 5870 both outperformed an HD 5970. The GTX 480, I can see...but by that much?
Trace
10-21-2010, 11:50 PM
Remember Hyperthreading. I believe most(all) of those Intel chips up there have hyperthreading which yields a great increase in some scenarios. I don't know what those benchmarks consist of, however, this could explain that.
I see what you're saying about flagship vs flagship. However, I don't think AMD is really concerned with outperforming Intel when they can offer great performance for 1/3 the price.
/\This. When it's a $1,000 'flagship' CPU vs a $260 'flagship' CPU, I don't expect them to perform the same. AMD has their niche, and I would bet that in the long run it's a more profitable niche.
OvRiDe
10-22-2010, 01:38 AM
AMD has their niche, and I would bet that in the long run it's a more profitable niche.
You do realize that AMD was founded in 1969 over 40 years ago right? Intel was founded a year earlier. They have been in it for a pretty long run already! Also last quarter they posted a 118 million dollar loss where as Intel posted a 3 billion dollar profit. Sure 118 million isn't that big of a number when you look at their total revenue for the quarter was 1.62 billion, but then if you look at Intel, their total revenue for last quarter was 11 billion. So if AMD is going to be more profitable in the long run, its looking like its going to be a very very very long run.
I was speaking solely on the current strategies of the two companies towards the CPU market. Both companies do a heck of a lot more than make CPUs, both companies have been around for a long time, both companies have changed their strategies over time, often drastically, and both companies have had their good years and their bad years. For example; yes, Intel posted a tidy profit this past quarter and AMD a loss, but for 2009 it was the other way around (AMD up 293 million, Intel down 4.369 billion). Things change, trends come and go. My point was that, imo, the 'best performance for the money' take is a better long-term strategy than 'best performance, damn the cost'.
OvRiDe
10-22-2010, 04:56 AM
I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but according to the companies annual reports for 2009.
Intel had a Gross revenue of 35.1 billion dollars with a Net income of 4.4 billion, where AMD had a Gross revenue of 5.403 billion dollars with an net income of 340 million dollars.
For the year ended Dec. 26, 2009, AMD reported revenue of $5.403 billion. Fiscal 2009 net income attributable to AMD common stockholders was $304 million.
http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1377777
We reported 2009 revenue of $35.1 billion, operating income of $5.7 billion, net income of $4.4 billion, and earnings per share of 77 cents.
http://www.intc.com/intelAR2009/introduction/ceo/index.html
I do prefer Intel's performance, but I don't necessarily discount AMD's either. I agree that AMD's price is very good for the performance it delivers.
I guess my question is.. if the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T and the Intel i7-970 where priced exactly the same.. (Both are 6 core 3.2 Ghz) Which one would you buy?
blueonblack
10-22-2010, 05:23 AM
I guess my question is.. if the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T and the Intel i7-970 where priced exactly the same.. (Both are 6 core 3.2 Ghz) Which one would you buy?
I would still buy the AMD, for reasons best left between myself and my therapist. :)
Doh! Sorry, I read the 'down from last year' arrow to mean that was negative. :facepalm: In that case, our numbers are about the same (I just got mine off wikipedia). Intel does have a net worth more than 5x AMD's though, so it stands to reason that they would have a lot higher profit.
As for your question...hmm, idk. If they were priced the same, I would probably go with the i7, but it never will be the same. As it stands now, I could build an entire system with a nice GPU and a 1090T for the same price as an i7. And since I probably wouldn't even use all of the power available from the 1090T, there's no reason for me to consider the i7.
dr.walrus
10-22-2010, 05:21 PM
Six Core should be equal to another Six core
That's like comparing cars and saying one V8 engine should have the same performance of any other V8 engine!
TheGreatSatan
10-22-2010, 10:08 PM
It's cool that AMD has a Hexacore for $300, but they should have another for $600 and an awesome one for a Grand too
That's what the 12-core Opterons are for. ;)
TheGreatSatan
10-23-2010, 12:37 AM
Even if it had 90 cores, no Opteron would ever grace my system
dr.walrus
10-24-2010, 11:08 AM
It's cool that AMD has a Hexacore for $300, but they should have another for $600 and an awesome one for a Grand too
This is why I'm waiting for the Bulldozers
TheGreatSatan
10-25-2010, 10:24 PM
Like I said, my next system build will be an AMD. I have two PC's in my office and like having different brand CPU's for each. Years ago I built my AMD 6000+ system and then two years later came my R2-M5 Quad. My AMD is getting close to upgrade time and I will buy an AMD to replace it. Whatever the best AMD is at that time will be the winner for me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.