Benchmark Results

WMV Compression

In this test, we tested the processors' ability to compress a high-quality WMV file.

The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 was 25% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6600, which incidentally runs at 2.4GHz.

To properly elicit the advantages of having two additional cores, we dropped the quad-core processor's clock speed to 2.4GHz. At the same clock speed, the quad-core Kentsfield was only 7.5% faster than the dual-core Conroe.

While you will see faster WMV compression with the new Core 2 Extreme QX6700, the improvement is mostly due to the higher clock speed. The additional cores only accounted for a 7.5% boost in compression speed.

CINEBENCH 9.5 (Single CPU)

In the CINEBENCH 9.5 single CPU test, we saw the QX6700 beating the E6600 by 10.1%, which is close to the 11% clock speed difference between the two processors.

When we retested the QX6700 at 2.4GHz, we found that it was actually slower than the dual-core E6600. The difference was minimal though at just 1.8%.

CINEBENCH 9.5 (Multi CPU)

In the CINEBENCH 9.5 multi CPU test however, we saw the full potential of the QX6700. The quad-core processor was 85.5% faster than the dual-core E6600. But of course, that was at a higher clock speed.

So, we throttled down the QX6700 to 2.4GHz. Even at this clock speed, the QX6700 was 65.7% faster than the E6600. Evidently, having twice as many cores does not mean you will get twice as much performance. But watching CINEBENCH render the frame 65.7% faster sure is impressive!