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

Nvidia too?

[Bert64]

Someone needs to do the same for nvidia graphics cards...
I went out and bought an 8600 card, only to find out later that a 7900 is actually faster (despite being lower model number and previous generation tech).

Product names too confusing

[Yvan256]

This is the list of the CPUs in the article:
Core 2 Extreme QX9650
Core 2 Quad Q9550
Core 2 Quad Q9450
Core 2 Duo E8500
Core 2 Duo E8400
Core 2 Duo E8300
Core 2 Duo E8200/E8190
Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Core 2 Extreme QX6800
Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Core 2 Quad Q6700
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Core 2 Duo E6850
Core 2 Duo E6750
Core 2 Duo E6600
Core 2 Duo E6550/E6540
Core 2 Duo E6420
Core 2 Duo E6320

Seriously, someone in the marketing department needs a swift kick in the ass.

Re:Product names too confusing

[Mex]

"Seriously, someone in the marketing department needs a swift kick in the ass."

Ha ha, are you kidding? They most likely have got a raise.

I upgraded my machine for the first time in about 5 years, and I had to ask a LOT of questions before I found out that the Q6600 had the best price/performance ratio at the time. In the end, Toms Hardware charts of CPU comparisons was the simplest way to figure it out.

Any normal person who walks into a store will have absolutely no idea whether a Core 2 Duo E6850 is better than a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Thus they'll have to believe whatever the salesman says, or just buy the best they can afford, without regard to whether it is the better value.

Intel made a masterful marketing stroke when they removed GHz as the best indicator of a processor. Confusing their customer to the point they have no choice but to believe whatever the sales guy says is probably the best thing they have ever done.

Re:Product names too confusing

[Shadow of Eternity]

ghz hasn't been the best indicator of a processor since EVER, different processors at different speeds perform differently. A 2.6ghz athlon would wipe the floor with a 2.6ghz dualcore pentium and both would be completely thrashed by a 2.6ghz core 2 duo.

Intel's naming is not confusing at all to anyone that should be looking at it to begin with, which is to say everything at least as intelligent as a spoon of yeast.

Re:Get a hint from Apple

[TeknoHog]

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.

Where do you draw the line between incremental upgrades and new architectures? The Core 2 is not completely new, it's an updated and extended (as in "64-bit extensions") version of the Core, which is almost but not quite the same as Pentium M. Which in turn is basically a Pentium III with the frontend taken from Pentium 4.