iXBT Labs - Intel Core i7 920 Processor - Page 3: Non-professional tests

Next page >>

Non-professional/home tests

Archivers

Performance per GHz	Core 2 Duo E6850	Core 2 Duo E8200	Core 2 Duo E8500	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Core i7 920
7-Zip	38.76	44.40	40.92	42.25	42.61	45.11
WinRAR	37.56	41.77	40.18	42.67	44.64	45.57
Ultimate ZIP	41.59	41.74	41.46	41.59	41.35	47.81

Archivers are not as enthusiastic about the new architecture as some previous groups of tests. Interestingly, the biggest difference in efficiency between the leading Core i7 and its nearest competitor is demonstrated in Ultimate ZIP -- a single-threaded application. It suggests an idea that Turbo Boost might have something to do with it.

Encoding

Performance per GHz	Core 2 Duo E6850	Core 2 Duo E8200	Core 2 Duo E8500	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Core i7 920
FLAC	40.94	41.77	41.02	41.79	41.27	43.86
LAME	41.67	45.62	45.47	45.45	45.42	45.62
Musepack	41.67	44.91	44.97	44.63	44.88	50.25
Vorbis	41.57	43.02	43.10	42.29	42.56	45.11
CanopusProCoder	40.80	43.82	42.90	43.06	42.20	54.60
DivX	36.36	38.12	37.97	41.74	41.67	49.21
x264	21.62	22.41	22.30	42.76	42.49	45.88
XviD	41.53	44.21	44.07	43.59	43.92	52.20

As we have already mentioned many times, the second place for Core i7 920 with its clock rate is almost a victory (from the architectural point of view), not just a very good result. Some of our predictions about uselessness of new features in Core i7 with the execution core remaining practically the same suddenly proved to be true in our LAME tests: all Yorkfields and the new Bloomfield demonstrate similar efficiency, and only the older Conroe (Core 2 Duo E6850) is less efficient. If we take a closer look at detailed test results, we'll see that Core i7 demonstrates the best results in Canopus ProCoder, DivX, and Musepack.

Games

Performance per GHz	Core 2 Duo E6850	Core 2 Duo E8200	Core 2 Duo E8500	Core 2 Quad Q9300	Core 2 Extreme QX9770	Core i7 920
Call of Duty4	33.06	39.44	33.98	38.69	33.30	32.36
Company ofHeroes	33.33	37.59	31.65	40.00	31.25	37.59
Call ofJuarez	33.33	37.59	31.65	40.00	31.86	34.65
Crysis	40.02	43.13	38.02	43.20	39.00	46.47
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.	34.72	39.16	33.49	40.67	33.33	38.22
UnrealTournament 3	30.19	35.47	34.63	42.64	42.75	49.30
World inConflict	38.78	42.96	40.04	44.08	41.45	42.96

Strange as it may seem, it's the only group of tests, where Core i7 is absolutely unimpressive, even in terms of its efficiency. It's too early to generalize, but the simplest explanation that comes to mind is the drivers, which are not optimized for the new architecture yet.

Non-professional photo processing

Performance per GHz	Core 2 Duo E6850	Core 2 Duo E8200	Core 2 Duo E8500	Core 2 QuadQ9300	Core 2 ExtremeQX9770	Core i7 920
ACDSee	37.07	36.95	38.06	42.04	40.93	37.52
IrfanView	41.54	45.40	45.28	45.18	45.10	52.63
Paint.NET	21.24	22.85	22.67	43.87	43.50	62.27
xat.com ImageOptimizer	41.25	42.02	41.61	41.70	41.36	49.64
XnView	41.54	42.44	42.29	42.02	42.07	56.75

And the finishing touch: Core i7 is a champion of efficiency. Moreover, it keeps up with the top Core 2 in score. Familiar symptom -- three applications out of four, where Core i7 920 shoots forward in efficiency, are single-threaded programs. Perhaps it's Turbo Boost again...

Total non-professional score

This score does not require any comments. Just note that Core i7 even enlarges the efficiency gap.

Conclusions

Core i7 is apparently a good product. We insist that the main objective of this project was not to improve performance. It wouldn't have been a failure even if it had been less efficient than Core 2. As it is, it's 7% more efficient. What else there is to wish?

Write a comment below. No registration needed!

<< Previous page