One of the most popular CPUs on the market right now is the Q6600, thanks to the fact that it offers four cores at 2.4GHz. But what about the Xeon’s? Their prices are also more affordable now, with their X3210 2.13GHz retailing for $260. Read on as we pit this Quad-Core against the rest of our fleet.
For the last of our non-gaming related benchmarks, we will spin each CPU through both 7-Zip and Futuremark’s 3D Mark and PC Mark. 7-Zip is an interesting benchmark, because results can depend entirely on the settings you choose. By default, the LZMA algorithm is used to compress your files, but it’s very slow overall and will use no more than two cores in your system. Bzip2, however, utilizes all four cores and is faster regardless.
As a comparison, LZMA took 1,385 seconds on our E6600, while Bzip2 took 801. The differences in outputted file size was that the Bzip2 method was 10MB larger. For a 3.85GB file, I will take the much faster speed over 10MB. So, Bzip2 is the algorithm used here.
All three quad-cores performed exceptionally here, though the extra frequency can also make quite a large difference.
Though Futuremarks products usefulness are often disputed, we like to include them because they somewhat accurately show how one CPUs power will compare to another by giving a single clean number. 3D Mark 06 stresses the CPU in such a way an actual game would, while PC Mark puts it through tests based on real-world scenarios.
Finally… gaming performance up next!