CPU Comparison Table

[MomoCC]

Below is a table to help people easily locate their CPU and see where it stands when compared to other
CPUs; the source Flash content doesn't allow easy searching for a particular CPU.

CPU : Clock Speed : Benchmark
Intel Core i7 975 : 3.33 : 7,535
Intel 000 : 3.20 : 7,027
Intel Core i7 965 : 3.20 : 6,776
Intel Core i7 950 : 3.07 : 6,196
Intel Xeon W570 : 3.20 : 6,131
Intel Core i7 940 : 2.95 : 6,091
Intel Xeon W5580 : 3.20 : 5,972
Intel Core i7 920 : 2.67 : 5,451
Intel Xeon X5482 : 3.20 : 5,387
Intel Core i7 9200 : 2.67 : 5,251
Intel Xeon X5492 : 3.40 : 5,223
Intel Xeon E5450 : 3.00 : 5,177
Intel Xeon X5460 : 3.16 : 5,105
Intel Core 2 Extreme 9770 : 3.20 : 4,898
Intel Xeon X5472 : 3.00 : 4,870
Intel Xeon W3520 : 2.67 : 4,795
Intel Xeon E5440 : 2.83 : 4,600
Intel Core 2 Extreme X9750 : 3.16 : 4,545
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 : 3.00 : 4,446
Intel Xeon E5430 : 2.66 : 4,385
Intel Xeon X5560 : 2.80 : 4,378
Intel Core 2 Extreme X9650 : 3.00 : 4,324
Intel Xeon X5450 : 3.00 : 4,270
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 : 2.83 : 4,166
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 : 2.60 : 3,961
Intel Xeon E5410 : 2.33 : 3,942
Intel Xeon E5420 : 2.50 : 3,846
AMD Phenom II X4 940 : - : 3,757
Intel Xeon E5520 : 3.27 : 3,721
Phenom II X4 955 : - : 3,700
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 : 2.66 : 3,665
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9300 : 2.53 : 3,664
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q6850 : 3.00 : 3,655
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 : 2.50 : 3,567
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 : 2.50 : 3,500
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 : 2.66 : 3,415
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q6800 : 2.93 : 3,379
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9100 : 2.26 : 3,345
AMD Phenom II X4 925 : - : 3,339
AMD Phenom II X4 910 : - : 3,325
Intel Xeon X5365 : 3.00 : 3,294
Intel Core 2 Extreme : 2.26 : 3,289
AMD Phenom II X4 920 : - : 3,266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 : 2.66 : 3,194
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 : 2.33 : 3,188
AMD Phenom iI X4 810 : - : 3,114
Intel Xeon X5355 : 2.66 : 3,106
AMD Phenom II X4 945 : - : 3,093
Intel Xeon E5405 : 2.00 : 3,051
Intel Xeon X3350 : 2.66 : 3,045
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 : 2.00 : 3,042
AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core : - : 3,032
Intel Xeon X3230 : 2.40 : 3,009

Did I miss anything? Also, how reliable is PassMark's software (used to generate the above figures)?

 

[mindless728]

seems sketchy for AMD, it has the Phenom 945 below the 925, not sure about the intel's though (im a bit of an AMD fan)

 

[juncwil]

The list doesn't have AMD Phenom II X3 710 and 720. Anyway I agree with above post, pretty sketchy list.

 

[skyturnred]

i'm sort of a noob to these benchmark tests... just building my first build now. but what do these numbers mean exactly? by that i mean what would be considered a good score, or a bad score, etc.

 

[chrisgoo]

I can't believe AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core QL-64 is faster than Intel Core i7 975 and the performance is almost double. Check the source (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html).

So, I don't think cpubenchmark.net is truthworthy at all.

 

[MomoCC]

Good points guys... which site in your opinion have trustworthy benchmarks (aside from this one of course)?

 

[Eljay451]

CPU benchmarks measure how well the CPU performs running the benchmark. That's it, really.

And some benchmarks are "shenanigans", in that the benchmark may be measuring some aspect of the CPU in which a certain sort of CPU performs exceptionally well, but other CPUs perform mediocre-at-best (where for other benchmarks the mediocre CPUs would perhaps excel).

If you wonder if the CPU benchmark has any correlation with the performance running your applications, you need to benchmark your applications. Really. There is no substitute.

Often, benchmarks have many factors, such as (for example) the standard Quake performance (framerate) benchmark. That benchmark also is impacted by the optimizing compiler used (and which particular CPU tuning was enabled), graphics card, memory, bus speed, graphics card drivers, motherboard, chipset, overclocking, yada yada.

So if you are using some CPU benchmark to gauge your next CPU purchase, take the CPU benchmarks with a grain of salt. Also factor in the (theoretical?) performance of the CPUs you are considering against the price of the CPUs. That is: look at the value.

How do you gauge value when you can't really tell if two CPUs perform comparably? Yes, that's the rub.

That's why we love Tom's Hardware, which will run a variety of CPUs against a battery of performance tests and try to keep other factors constant where possible.

Unless you actually benchmark YOUR application with some given sets of hardware, other benchmarks may only have marginal bearing.

 

[Guest]

Actually theres more to this than meets the eye.

Testing CPUs against each other and keeping everything else constant sounds logical, but thats not the whole picture. I imagine that many people will use a CPU benchmark to help answer the question "which CPU should I choose for my next purchase?"

Equally important is the question, if I buy a current model laptop with a core i7 mobile, how will this system compare to my Dual Pentium 4 Compaq workstation, my iMac core duo, my Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo, ...

For this question I want to consider the fact that the Core 2 duo is running on a different chipset with a different memory bandwidth than the dual pentium 4, because this stuff makes a difference. For this, the Passmark methodology is useful.


Now Im not just making a rhetorical point. My empirical experience has been that system performance is well correlated with these scores, as is broad-brush benchmarks like SPECjvm, which, like Toms Hardware, runs a set of real-world applications.