Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark And PCMark Vantage
I like to start things off with synthetic benchmarks, so that we can see if the real-world results mirror these theoretical workloads. It is important to keep in mind that synthetic benchmarks are usually written with the future in mind, so we expect them to be a little more responsive to configuration changes than today's real-world applications.
Let's start with the 3D gaming graphics benchmark, 3DMark Vantage. We selected the "Entry" preset, which is 3DMark's lowest-resolution preset, to better demonstrate the CPU's effect on the results:
The almost-linear speed increase is really interesting. The largest bump occurs between one and two CPU cores but it keeps scaling from there. Now let's have a look at PCMark Vantage, 3DMark's general-use counterpart:
PCMark suggests that an end user would see tangible benefits with up to three CPU cores, while the fourth core even drops performance by an insignificant amount. Let's dig a little deeper and see if we can find out why.
In the Memories test, we once again see the biggest performance jump between one and two CPU cores.
The productivity test is likely weighted heavily in PCMark's total system score, as here we see that performance tapers off at three cores. Let's move on to SiSoft's Sandra synthetic benchmarks and see if the results are similar.
Current page: Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark And PCMark VantagePrev Page Test System Setup And Benchmarks Next Page Synthetic Benchmarks: SiSoft Sandra
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Very neat article, this is the kind of thing i read tom's for.Reply
Good piece, this will probably clear up some misunderstandings about dual vs. quad core processors. With just a clarification, that this article is based on the same clock speed (2.7Ghz) for ALL processor cores. And so, in some cases where the software isn't optimized for a multi core experience then going up on the Mhz scale is a valid option. If it wouldn't be, why do we overclock :).Reply
You have to consider that dual-core processors will often be clocked faster than a quad-core processor at the same price range (Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz vs. Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz at $165 on Newegg). Inversely, to get the same clock speed, to get the same clock speed for a quad-core as a dual-core, you will have to pay 2x or more of the dual-core price (E8400 vs. Quad Q9650 - $165 v. $325). You have to ask yourself whether a 30% increase in speed justifies a 100% increase in cost. In certain scenarios, yes, it is worth it. For the average user on a budget, however, dual-core will often be the most cost-effective. Not to mention the over clocking power of mature dual-core processors (but then, an overclocker is not an average user).Reply
Great article, i enjoyed seeing some of the gaming conclusions. I guess my CPU having 4 cores is a bit useless even though on some of your graphs it still shows 2 to 3 frames more in some of them compared to having only 3 cores. None the less though great article i enjoyed it very much.Reply
What about the average user running multiple programs at the same time. I often run both virus scanner, office applications and multimedia encoding at the same time. With four cores this runs smoothly, but with only one core it would be a pain.Reply
Very informative! I keep seeing comments regarding which applications or games are good for multi-core versus single etc, it's good to have some hard data.Reply
And that's a neat trick for creating a standardized platform for the tests, eliminating the architectural differences between single and various multi-core processors.
Since I see a lot of Tom's articles considering power efficiency and read a lot of comments asking for underclock results, it would have been nice to throw some data about power usage with each configuration. Does disabling a core (or three) significantly reduce power consumption? What about temps?
I too expected to see some even priced CPU comparison, but this worked out well. Since it's so easy with any quad core system, all we need now is some gamer with a ton of titles to put up a list.Reply
Oh, such things already exist, whaddya know :)
I second martindamp's question... what happens when you run iTunes, lame, antivirus, and winrar on 1-4 cores?Reply
But what I'm most interested in is what would happen when you move this to a Corei7. It seems to me that some of the apps that see a slowdown while moving to four cores are likely bumping into bandwidth and bus arbitration overheads, as the Q6600 is essentially two C2D's packaged on the same chip, sharing the FSB. The Corei7 eliminates this bottleneck, and I'd be willing to bet the performance decrease from 3->4 cores goes away as well. And when you play around with the i7, you can toy with Turbo and HyperThreading as well, but it'd be most interesting to directly compare the two architectures based on real cores.
Nice article. A few comments for thought though. On the first page it is mentioned how single core CPUs often had a higher clock of newer dual-core CPUs. This fact still exists today between dual-core and quad-core. For example, on newegg, a 2.33 GHz quad-core is about $165. A 3.0 GHz dual-core is $168. That's almost a 29% clock increase for the same amount of money. In the gaming benchmarks, if you multiply the dual-core results by 1.29, you will find that this shows an increased performance over the quad-core benchmark. Just like it did years ago (a faster single core cpu was better for gaming than a slower dual-core), this shows that a faster dual-core is still better for gaming than a slower quad core. At least for now. This will change in the future just as it did for single and dual cores, but I'm sure it will take still a few more years before a higher-clocked dual-core is dethroned to a slower quad-core.Reply
Is there a comparison between the i7 and a standard 4-core CPU? I was wondering if the real-world gains are there to justify spending more money for a 4-core hyperthreading CPU?Reply