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:Get a hint from Apple

[Mad Merlin]

It's easy to understand "Core" vs "Core 2" (2nd version of Core), and "Solo", "Duo", "Quad" (number of cores).

Actually, it's not. The Core Duo is not based on the Core microarchitecture, the Core Duo is just 2 Pentium-Ms fused together and does not include 64-bit support. The Core 2 Duo is the first CPU to use the Core microarchitecture and includes 64-bit support.

Don't forget that the first Intel Quad didn't actually include Quad in the name, either. It was called the Core 2 Extreme QX6700.

Re:Nvidia too?

[mobby_6kl]

Well, maybe you should've thought about it for a few extra second before buying the card. The 7900 is indeed one generation older (the 7<8 part), but it's higher up in Nvidia's model range (900>600). Knowing this, I think it's unreasonable to expect the newer, but much cheaper card to be significantly/any (depending on exact configuratio) faster than the older one.

And not to be a complete dick, here's a handy chart for comparing graphics cards across several games.

Intel publishes this---make your own graph

[crath]

US Government regulations require that Intel publish performance numbers for all of their CPUs. See the following links for the relative performance of all of Intel's CPUs. Make your own graphs if you need a pretty picture.

Intel microprocessor export compliance metrics:

• Pentium Extreme Edition, D, M, M LV, M ULV, dual-core, 4, Mobile 4: http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-028241.htm
• Core 2 Extreme, Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, core 2 Duo LV, Core 2 Duo ULV, Core 2 Solo, Core Duo, Core Duo LV, Core Duo ULV, Core Solo, Core Solo ULV: http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-023143.htm
• Itanium, Pentium III, Pentium II, Pentium II Xeon, Pentium II OverDrives, Pentium Pros, Pentiums with MMX technology, PentiumsIntel 486s, Intel 386s, i960s, i860s: http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-020868.htm

Re:Nvidia too?

[sa1lnr]

You can do a spec comparison here http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php.

Not a real world comparison but it may be useful.

Re:Get a hint from Apple

[tjrw]

Sorry, but that simply is not the case. The "Core brand did not use the new "Core 2" microarchitecture. The Core 2 microarchitecture *is* significantly different to the Pentium-M/Yonah microarchitecture. Intel marketing were total dickheads to label the warmed-over Pentium-M as "Core". If they had avoided doing so, we could have had a "Core" brand with the "Core microarchitecture" and avoided all of this confusion.

Core 2 was designed from the ground up (i.e. it isn't an updated Yonah/P-M), and incorporates ideas from both the Pentium-M design and the ill-fated Netburst architecture. The Core 2 execution unit is 4 issues wide unlike both Yonah/Netburst that were 3-issue cores. Core 2 is 64-bit across the board. It does single-cycle 128-bit SSE instructions. It has "macro-ops fusion" (the clever trick that combines a lot of "compare and jump" x86 instruction pairs into a single micro-op. It does memory-disambiguation to allow much more aggressive memory access reordering, etc. etc. Yes, it is logically a progression in the P6 family, but it was a very big jump architecturally. Ho hum.