Testing
Cinbench 9.5
Cinebench is a free benchmarking tool based on 3D software CINEMA 4D, so the test results usually give good overall system results, especially if we’re talking about a processor, multi-processor systems or multi-core processors.
In the table you can see the E2160 at 1800MHz, 2400MHz and 3400MHz, and AMD's dual core 3800+ X2 which was included just as a reference.
|
Cinebench 9.5 |
1 CPU |
x CPU |
Multiprocessor Speedup |
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 1800MHz |
295 |
540 |
x1.83 |
|
OC Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 2400MHz |
394 |
721 |
x1.82 |
|
OC Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 3400MHz |
553 |
1005 |
x1.82 |
|
AMD 3800+ X2 @ 2000MHz |
293 |
545 |
x1.86 |
|
OC AMD 3800+ X2 @ 2400MHz |
348 |
639 |
x1.83 |
Even at a lower speed setting the E2160 is on par with AMD 3800+ X2 processor. When running at 2.4GHz, Intel easily wins. Although the results of an over-clocked processor are not relevant, or comparable for that matter due to memory speeds; the memory on the over-clocked E2160 ran at 890MHz whereas AMDs memory was kept at 800, the results on the reference speeds still speak for themselves.
ScienceMark 2.0
ScienceMark 2.0 tests for mathematical algorithm processing performance, and in doing that it shows the processing power of a tested processor.
ScienceMark results show a slight advantage of C2D E2160 over AMD X2 3800+ processor, and you can see that ScienceMark relies on a pure processing power. Of course the over-clocked E2160 running at 3.4 GHz wins by a greater margin.
|
ScienceMark 2.0 |
Overall score |
|
Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 1800MHz |
1027.21 |
|
OC Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 2400MHz |
1366.74 |
|
OC Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 @ 3400MHz |
1881.18 |
|
AMD 3800+ X2 @ 2000MHz |
1159.59 |
|
OC AMD 3800+ X2 @ 2400MHz |
1326.10 |