Professional application benchmarks show us a familiar picture. Intel’s Sandy Bridge-E-based Core i7-3930K and Core i7-3960X are in the front, followed by Intel’s Ivy Bridge-, Sandy Bridge-, and Nehalem-based offerings.
AMD's FX-8170 and FX-8150, based on Bulldozer, come closest to Intel's offerings, but can't quite compete.
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :
intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33
Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
Agreed, maybe just one dual core and one quad? q9550 and e6850? not that I still own both of those or anything...
But let's do some math. Just for a rough order of magnitude I figure an average of 15% increase in performance per clock cycle, per generation (not including clock speed, number of cores, etc.). So if we start back at Conroe and work our way to present day Ivy Bridge, that's 5 new generations of processors. 1.15^5 = 2.01
Which means that an Ivy Bridge CPU at the same speed as a Conroe CPU (2006ish) is about 2x as fast per clock cycle, on average. Once you take into account faster clock speeds, number of cores, cache sizes, integrated memory controllers, etc. and more importantly what software will be used with the CPUs the real world performance difference could be almost nothing to somewhere around 10-15x as fast.
I digress. The point being, is I would like to see some more benchies Tom's! Prove me wrong!