Intel Core i7 - 965/920 - architecture and performance

Published by Jean-Luc Hadey on 03.11.08
Page:
« 1 ... 7 8 9 (10) 11 12 13 ... 16 »


Synthetic benchmarks

PCMark Vantage results in points
Intel Core I7-965 Extr. Edition, 3.2 GHz7'457
Intel Core I7-920, 2.66 GHz6'655
Intel Core2 Quad Extreme Q96506'004
Intel Core2 Dual E86005'230
Intel Core2 Dual E72004'297

more is better



3DMark Vantage, Performance Preset (CPU Score), results in points
Intel Core I7-965 Extr. Edition, 3.2 GHz 19'837
Intel Core I7-920, 2.66 GHz17'033
Intel Core2 Quad Extreme Q9650, 3.0 GHz12'627
Intel Core2 Dual E8600, 3.3 GHz6'883
Intel Core2 Dual E7200, 2.53 GHz5'095

more is better


3DMarkVantage not only profits from the overworked architecture it does so also because it is optimized to run in an environment with eight cores. The performance advantage for the Nehalem in this case is 24 percent.


SuperPI 1.5 - 1M
Intel Core I7-965 Extr.Edition 3.2 GHz12.106 sec
Intel Core2 Dual E8600, 3.3 GHz13.843 sec
Intel Core I7-920, 2.66 GHz14.562 sec
Intel Core2 Quad Extreme Q9650, 3.0 GHz14.390 sec
Intel Core2 Dual E7200, 2.53 GHz19.905 sec

less is better



SuperPI 1.5 - 32M
IntelCore I7-965 Extr. Edition 3.2 GHz 680.875 sec
Intel Core I7-920, 2.66 GHz 798.552 sec
Intel Core2 Dual E8600, 3.3 GHz 855.047 sec
Intel Core2 Quad Extreme Q9650, 3.0 GHz 912.469 sec
Intel Core2 Dual E7200,2.53 GHz DDR3 1105.000 sec

less is better


In SuperPi 1M Core i7 965 performs about 14 percent better then a Q9650. If one calculates Pi to 32 million digits Nehalem performs 26 percent better.






comments powered by Disqus

Intel Core i7 - 965/920 - architecture and performance - CPUs Reviews - Reviews - ocaholic