3 ms·
I'm disappointed that the article leads with Intel's performance lead. I've always found it to be meaningless. Their best CPU is over $2500. Their best i7 is ov
by ewzimm 12y ago
I'm disappointed that the article leads with Intel's performance lead. I've always found it to be meaningless. Their best CPU is over $2500. Their best i7 is over $1000. I use an AMD A4-3300. It's fast enough for my needs and $20. On the other hand, I also have a Bay Trail Atom tablet, and it has fantastic performance for its power usage. The article talks about what a failure Atom has been. I think part of the blame is tech journalism promoting the fastest silicon. It appeals to some psychological desire, but it doesn't make much practical sense. Battery life on mobile and value on the desktop is all I really care about. Why is it such an embarrassment for both AMD's desktop division and Intel's mobile division to be the most efficient?
- moystard 12y agoThe gaming community is globally aware that investing in an expensive CPU is not the best choice. Gaming performance will depend mostly on the GPU, and most gamers go for an AMD configuration for that specific reason. Regarding the mobile usage, I think Intel has a clear advantage as their CPUs are more powerful and more efficient.
- runeks 12y agoAgreed. When I design a new PC, I don't look for the highest performance system, I look for performance per dollar. This chart is very useful: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html When designing a new PC about a year ago, I went with an eight-core AMD FX-8320. Which was significantly cheaper than an equally fast Intel i5 or i7 CPU (although the per-thread performance is only half of a 4-core i5/i7 with the same Passmark score).