Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Performance Comparison of Current Intel Core 2 CPUs

Posted by timothy on from the now-wait-a-few-months dept.

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."

22 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Nvidia too? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Nvidia too? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      Yeah, the lower end 8 series cards are real dogs. I wouldn't bother with any 8 series card under an 8800 GS/GT/GTS/GTX, as you pointed out, the 7 series cards are faster.

      --
      Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
    2. Re:Nvidia too? by greg1104 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/

    3. Re:Nvidia too? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Nvidia too? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB used in the review any good? It could only muster 18 fps on Crysis at only 1280x1024, regardless of CPU. Isn't that game about a year old? Interesting that the most graphics-hungry game would be two years ahead of the hardware (because 18fps doesn't cut it).

    5. Re:Nvidia too? by sa1lnr · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      Not a real world comparison but it may be useful.

    6. Re:Nvidia too? by Fweeky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try Tom's VGA Charts.

      And even a passing understanding of how their model numbers work should make it obvious that an 8600 isn't necessarily even as good as a 7900; yes, it's a newer generation (7 -> 8), but it's a much cheaper part (900 -> 600).

    7. Re:Nvidia too? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB used in the review any good?

      From what I've seen, the GeForce 8800 GT 512MB cards are the best bang-for-the-buck at the moment. I just recently upgraded from a pair of 7950 GT cards in SLI mode to a pair of 8800 GT cards.

      (Enough of an upgrade that I'm now CPU-bound instead of GPU-bound. Oops.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    8. Re:Nvidia too? by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My friend won a 9800 pro before they even came out (yeah he was THAT GUY at quakecon). He's got it pushing a 1080p hdtv now as part of his media box (though it doesn't support HDCP since it wasn't even invented yet). Those are amazing cards considering the life you were able to wring out of them (5+ years)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Nvidia too? by springbox · · Score: 2, Informative

      ATI and NVIDIA guide

  2. Product names too confusing by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Product names too confusing by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      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

    2. Re:Product names too confusing by Mex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:Product names too confusing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  3. Re:Get a hint from Apple by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
  4. Re:Get a hint from Apple by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  5. Barcelona performance by jdb2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This may be a little off-topic, but I've been trying to find out exactly what architectural difference is responsible for the Intel Core having a higher IPC than the AMD Barcelona. I've looked at all manner of micro-architectural diagrams and descriptions of both architectures, yet I am unable to pinpoint any obvious reason for the Core's higher IPC. Perhaps I'm overlooking something simple -- that would be just like me.

    Can anyone provide some elucidation for this topic?

    jdb2

  6. Intel publishes this---make your own graph by crath · · Score: 4, Informative

    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:

    1. Re:Intel publishes this---make your own graph by crath · · Score: 2, Informative

      The AMD export compliance specifications are a little easier to find on AMD's site than Intel's. Search AMD.com for "CTP calculations". CTPs (Composite Theoretical Performance) are a synthetic benchmark, but do show the relative performance of various CPUs.

  7. Just use Passmark you fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

    Almost every CPU compared. Now was that so hard?

  8. Re:Get a hint from Apple by tjrw · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Overblown by Carbon016 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.