cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,268
- 11
- 81
Core 2 is basically dead, although what's already out should continue to drop in price up until Intel turns all their focus to Core i7/i5. It would be my best guess that you will be able to find C2Qs for under $150 sometime next year.
I never said it was the best price/performance
Although there does come a point where this figure becomes misleading. Especially as prices lower, if the difference between the price of two items is the same (like, $10), the percentage difference between those same two items will increase. Now, since he said he could barely squeeze a Core i7 into his budget, if we used the i7 920's price point as a reference, the price/performance between the E5200, E7400, and E8400 is more promising and I think it would favor the E7400. For example, the E7400 would cost 65% less than the 920 and offer 42% less performance in AT's FC2 benchmark. Meanwhile, the E8400 would cost 43% less and offer 33% less performance. And the E5200 would cost 74% less and offer 54% less performance. So from this standpoint, if I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the E7400 (I used the E6750 in AT's benchmark as a performance reference) offers the best price/performance and would jump ahead of the pack if it does indeed outperform the E6750.
Of course, if overclocking is taken into account these numbers are pretty meaningless. I would need to find benchmarks containing an E5x00, E7x00, and E8x00 all running at the same frequency to even begin to quantify the situation, as well as get a grasp on the most attainable overclocks for each of the chips.
I never said it was the best price/performance
Although there does come a point where this figure becomes misleading. Especially as prices lower, if the difference between the price of two items is the same (like, $10), the percentage difference between those same two items will increase. Now, since he said he could barely squeeze a Core i7 into his budget, if we used the i7 920's price point as a reference, the price/performance between the E5200, E7400, and E8400 is more promising and I think it would favor the E7400. For example, the E7400 would cost 65% less than the 920 and offer 42% less performance in AT's FC2 benchmark. Meanwhile, the E8400 would cost 43% less and offer 33% less performance. And the E5200 would cost 74% less and offer 54% less performance. So from this standpoint, if I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the E7400 (I used the E6750 in AT's benchmark as a performance reference) offers the best price/performance and would jump ahead of the pack if it does indeed outperform the E6750.Of course, if overclocking is taken into account these numbers are pretty meaningless. I would need to find benchmarks containing an E5x00, E7x00, and E8x00 all running at the same frequency to even begin to quantify the situation, as well as get a grasp on the most attainable overclocks for each of the chips.
Facebook
Twitter