Performance Comparison of Current Intel Core 2 CPUs

crazyeyes writes "Intel has way too many Core 2 processor models. No one really knows if it's worth paying $100 more for a Core 2 Quad, instead of a Core 2 Duo. And when tech websites start interjecting codenames like Wolfdale, Kentsfield and Yorkfield, you know the battle is lost. All we want is a simple guide on the REAL WORLD performance differences between the many Intel Core 2 processors. How do they perform in games like Crysis, 3D rendering software, video encoding software, etc.? Fortunately, there is such a guide — just simple comparisons of the relative performance of these CPUs."

Comments

Re:Product names too confusing

[Waffle Iron]

I think that all those numbers at the ends are too confusing. They should replace them with unique combinations of easy-to-remember terms such as "Pair", "Twin" and "Quartet". Then we would have more friendly names without arbitrary digits, such as:

Core 2 Duo Twin Pair Double
Core 2 Extreme Quartet Pair Duplex
Core 2 Quad Twin Quartet II Deuce
Core 2 Trio Double Couplet Twin Duet

Overblown

[Carbon016]

E8xxx are 45nm. The die is Wolfdale. E6xxx are 65nm. The die is Conroe/Allendale. Q9xxx are quad 45nm. The die is Yorkfield. Q6xxx are quad 65nm. The die is Kentsfield. Generally speaking, anything in the E8xxx line is better than any of the E6xxx line, and anything in the Q9xxx line is better than anything in the Q6xxx line. I'm not understanding what's hard to figure out about this. It's pretty clear nomenclature, especially compared to AMD's 3405940900+X2 silly naming system that's a relic of the megahertz wars, and ATI's similar crazy system. It seems if you go by relative performance in your number system, people complain, but if you go by new "families" like Nvidia, people complain too.