Here I leave these 2 tables of processors ordered from highest to lowest power, may in some cases (especially AMD) the order does not conform exactly to the actual performance, but serious complicated because there would be more appropriate to test each one in a very similar hardware and others ... but I have an idea that meets the general expectations.
As you'll see in the tables the issue of MHz or GHz as important today once relegated to the background not so important, so to see if a processor is more or less powerful it is best to be clear that line belongs and that other models are in that range.
Explain that the core issue of name is due to improvements or differences with other models, improvements to the type of technology under microns or less consumption of W, likewise some cores are better finished and easier to make a higher overclock. The name of the kernel is the code name for a generation of processors, the name under which internally treat AMD or Intel, is for users of the street demanding to know exactly "all" the electrical specifications of a processor concrete.
*=> means that we can find several models of core: Newcastle, Clawhummer, Winchester, Venice, San Diego and Toledo
* 1 => Manchester or Toledo
* 2 => San Diego Clawhummer or
Once observed
tables should not jump to conclusions such as saying that Intel are better because they generally have more cache or more memorable MHz, the main things is how a processor is designed and the overall performance it gives. I do not go into the Intel-AMD eternal war, try to view this topic neutrality is best exploited as one of her and see objectively. Speaking
power and ranges of processors today, I have come to these conclusions:
In the low-end Athlon 64 is the most powerful processor for less price, mid-range price / performance are the Athlon X2's that are going to be better , and power are the Core 2 Duo winners today, which is easier to make a good choice of processor for each case.
time ago this was more complicated because Intel and AMD processors, in general the whole range of them, were quite even. It must be said that some processors high-end Athlon X2 processors exceed power Core 2 Duo low-end but for this I think the right thing is to select the most powerful processor can about money we want to spend that after all is what will determine which processor we acquire.
After days and days of sailing aimlessly through the internet and read many reviews both "experts" and users have come to the conclusion I said before, regarding the recommended processor low-end, medium and high. What is quite sad from my point of view is to see how often call Intel and AMD fanboys are "insulting" including defending "his mark", which is absurd because I think we should have a little more open mind and if Intel today is that you have more powerful processors before AMD was the departure of its Athon64 and tomorrow no one knows ... is preferable each time selecting the most powerful within the capabilities of each other regardless of the brand that makes.
This other table the price I got PC-BOX after looking at the prices of many other web stores and these have seen a fairly complete table is only something close to that you see as you choose according to the NEED IT budget that (some processors that are already outdated in the market will see that not go because the price is higher than other more powerful today, such is the case of the E6300 and E6600 have been replaced by the 6550 and 6750 price / quality / power)
0 comments:
Post a Comment