• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting way to express relative CPU performance

F

Flipped Gazelle

Diamond Member
Here.

Basically, they charted based on a singular standard - in this case, a Q6600. Very easy to grasp.

I didn't scrutinize it much - I'm stuck on the couch with the flu and feeling like cr@p - so if this seems useless to you, I'm sorry. Just struck by the novelty, I guess.
 
Good method for comparison, actually opens up a nice means for looking at performance/cost. Just divide that percentage by the cost of each chip and the highest result wins.

The C2D chips still appear to offer the best ratio, in the software tested here (e8200 & e8400). A major reason is that most of the software used for this testing is not multi-threaded enough to take advantage of triple/quad core processors. If you look there's very little difference between triple/quad core chips of the same architecture and the e8200 manages to sit within 5% of the faster clocked PhII 920 (5% faster, go figure).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top