Analysis--Core i7 16% Faster Than Core 2
Clocked at 3.20 GHz, the Core i7 Extreme is currently Intel’s fastest processor: in our benchmark suite, this new performance heavyweight is an incredible 65% faster on average than AMD’s flagship model. It also pulls ahead of its own predecessor, the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, by 16%.
Analysis: Core i7 965 Extreme vs. Phenom X4 9950 BE vs. Core 2 Extreme QX9770
|Benchmark||Phenom X4 9950 Black 2.6 GHz||Core 2 Extreme QX9770 3.20 GHz|
|Crysis||33.7% slower||12.1% slower|
|Unreal Tournament 3||30.9% slower||2.6% slower|
|World in Conflict||52.8% slower||28.0% slower|
|Supreme Commander||12.6% slower||3.8% slower|
|AVG Anti-Virus 8||34.3% slower||14.5% slower|
|Winrar 3.80||47.3% slower||35.5% slower|
|Winzip 11||34.2% slower||2.9% faster|
|Acrobat 9 Professional||36% slower||1.0% faster|
|Photoshop CS 3||31.6% slower||1.1% faster|
|iTunes||35.1% slower||4.7% slower|
|Lame MP3||37% slower||5% slower|
|Studio 12||22.1% slower||11.4% slower|
|DivX||48% slower||34.8% slower|
|XviD||41.3% slower||16.5% slower|
|MainConcept H.264||45.9% slower||32% slower|
|Premiere Pro CS3 HDTV||49.7% slower||26% slower|
|Cinema 4D Release 10||41.9% slower||21.1% slower|
|3D Studio Max 9||44.7% slower||23.5% slower|
|Fritz 11||47.8% slower||22.9% slower|
|Nero 8 Recode||56.3% slower||24.5% slower|
|Overall:||39.2% slower||15.7% slower|
Analysis: Core i7 965 Extreme vs. Core i7 940 vs. Core i7 920)
The Core i7 965 Extreme is clocked at 3.20 GHz. Running 266 MHz less, the Core i7 940 is around 8% slower, while the 2.66 GHz Core i7 920, performs about 16% slower than the Core i7 flagship on average across our benchmark suite.
|Benchmark||Core i7 940 2.93 GHz||Core i7 920 2.66 GHz|
|Crysis||7.4% slower||13.4% slower|
|Unreal Tournament 3||4.9% slower||11.4% slower|
|World in Conflict||10.1% slower||21.1% slower|
|Supreme Commander||4.0% slower||7.5% slower|
|AVG Anti-Virus 8||7.8% slower||16.5% slower|
|Winrar 3.80||11.5% slower||18.8% slower|
|Winzip 11||9.4% slower||17.2% slower|
|Acrobat 9 Professional||7.5% slower||16.2% slower|
|Photoshop CS 3||7.9% slower||16.2% slower|
|iTunes||7.6% slower||17.6% slower|
|Lame MP3||8.1% slower||16.8% slower|
|Studio 12||5.2% slower||10.7% slower|
|DivX||10.9% slower||19.2% slower|
|XviD||9.5% slower||17.8% slower|
|MainConcept H.264||8.6% slower||16.7% slower|
|Premiere Pro CS3 HDTV||7.8% slower||16.1% slower|
|Cinema 4D Release 10||9.5% slower||17.3% slower|
|3D Studio Max 9||7.1% slower||16.1% slower|
|Fritz 11||8.6% slower||17.5% slower|
|Nero 8 Recode||9% slower||16.6% slower|
|Overall:||8.1% slower||16% slower|
You mean Intel don't you? Other than that little mistake, good article
May Abu Dhabi restore you to life soon so we don't have to suffer through more Intel ripoffs.
This seems like an editing mistake maybe it should be 9950BE.
My thoughts exactly... I wonder if there will be some sort of resistance to this sort of thing... It's like buying a car, you can do whatever you want to it (within the limits of the law) to make it as fast as you want. Sure, you may void your factory warranty, but it's your deal. You don't see car companies making it impossible for you to do what you want to their cars so you have to buy their expensive high end just to get your kicks... (not a perfect comparison, but it works)
I dunno, it's just pretty weak. And they are just taking advantage of the situation...
Keep it up, and maybe I'll pay attention to this site like I used to.
But just for the record, I don't believe that it's particularly appropriate to use the overall average performance percentages as a basis for comparison between the "speed" of Core 2 vs. Core i7. Obviously, most people are going to be interested in the difference with games, where it's likely to be pretty minimal. But here and there, you have something like the 55% WinRAR difference pretty much skewing what otherwise would have been an accurate depiction of average expectations across the board.