Comparison between e5700 and Q9650

[ffleader1]

Just a bit curious
Should a q9650 be 100% faster than an e5700?
Game-debate says Q9650s is 54% faster than e5700
I cannot understand because they have:
-Same clock speed 3.0 Ghz
-Q9650 has 4 cores & threads while e5700 has 2
-12 MB cache and 2 MB cache
-Q9650 runs at 1333 FSB

 

[rolli59]

Here is a different comparison http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=94
Not all software can use the extra tech on the Q9650 so depending on test the outcome fluctuates.

 

[ffleader1]

Here is a different comparison http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=94
Not all software can use the extra tech on the Q9650 so depending on test the outcome fluctuates.

Ok, theoretically Q9650 is 100% faster than e5700. However, in reality, the Q9650 is 50% faster than e5700. But that must mean the Q9650 doesn't run as fast as it's supposed to. So what will the other 50% be used for?

 

[rolli59]

It depends on workload, if you can run all 4 cores compared to 2 then it is theoretically 100% faster. If it is running a single threaded application (many such) then the performance gap is much closer since both CPU's handle it with a single core at the same speed.

 

[ffleader1]

It depends on workload, if you can run all 4 cores compared to 2 then it is theoretically 100% faster. If it is running a single threaded application (many such) then the performance gap is much closer since both CPU's handle it with a single core at the same speed.

So in today games, can they run at all 4 cores? And other today applications, such as Sony Vegas, Adobe After Effect,... (Video editing software)?

 

[rolli59]

Games, very few support more cores but expect more. Editing software usually supports more cores so there a quad is much better.

 

[ffleader1]

Games, very few support more cores but expect more. Editing software usually supports more cores so there a quad is much better.

Thank you for answering all of my questions
Have a nice day

 

[ffleader1]

Best answer selected by ffleader1.