In the April 2010 issue of PC Authority magazine we've benchtested 50 CPUs, providing an in-depth guide to choosing the best processor. Based on the benchmark results, we came up with this graph showing where AMD and Intel chips sit in terms of price and performance.
The graph below gives an instant appraisal of a CPU's position compared to its peers: with the benchmark score along the X-axis and price up the Y-axis, those CPUs nearest to the bottom-right corner can be instantly seen to give the best bang-per-buck.
The most apparent trend is that AMD's CPUs beat Intel's for pure value. The Athlon II line (red) is a good distance beneath Intel's Core 2 parts, while the Phenom II line (yellow) is way below all but the best of the new Core i3 and i5 parts. Based on price alone, AMD's aggressive strategy is working.
Of course, that isn't the whole story: motherboard prices need to be factored in, as does the longevity you'll get from Intel's newer platforms. But it gives you an at-a-glance idea of the situation.
 |
| CPU Price vs Performance graph: click to enlarge |
The new 32nm Core i3 and i5 processors are the stars of Intel's range, with several running AMD close. It's their newness that gives them a slight price disadvantage, but that will gradually diminish as stocks rise and prices fall.
By contrast, the much-loved Core 2 Duo and Quad parts now sit far too high on the graph, an indication that Intel wants to phase them out. To the left of them, the ageing Pentium and Celeron lines just can't match the Athlons for power, yet they cost as much or more.
And then there are the usual laughable anomalies: we've deliberately excluded as many older Extreme Edition processors as we can - they're just too hard to find at retail - but the Core i7-975 Extreme keeps that flag smugly fluttering. The full graph would has to stretch upwards by a further $300 just to accommodate its excesses.
For reviews of each of the major CPU lines from AMD and Intel, and to see how each performed, see the April issue of PC Authority.