Intel did some testing that can prove that Nehalem generation and Hyperthreaded architecture actually pays off, and it found at least five applications that can make both Bloomfield Core i7 and upcoming Lynnfield, Nehalem based quad-cores looks much better than Core 2 Quad 45nm generation.

According to Intel, in Sysmark 2007 that should represent business applications a Lynnfield clocked at 2.93GHz with four cores and eight treads is some nine percent faster than the Q9650 3GHz Core 2 Quad. In the same test Core i7 950 clocked at 3.06GHz scores 11 percent better, or some two percent faster than Lynnfield 2.93GHz.

In audio MP3 Encoding, again in rather old iTunes 7.4.3, Lynnfield 2.93GHz is some 14 percent faster than Q9650, while Core i7 950 is 13 percent faster than Q9650, but less than one percent slower than Lynnfield 2.93GHz.

In HD Video Encoding TMPGEnc Xpress 4.4 test, Lynnfield 2.93GHz is 24 percent faster than Q9650 while Core i7 950 is some 27 percent better than Q9650 and less than three percent faster than Lynnfield 2.93 GHz.

In 3D rendering Cinebench 10 test, Lynnfield 2.93GHz is 20 percent faster than Q9650 while Core i7 950 scores 27 percent better score or less than seven percent faster than Lynnfield 2.93GHz.

In a cherry picked 3Dmark Vantage CPU test, that tests 3D gaming including Physics and AI, Lynnfield 2.93GHz is a massive 62 percent better than Core 2 Quad Q9650 at 3GHz while Core i7 950 at its 3.06GHz clock is 71 percent faster than Q9650. In this test Core i7 is around 5.5 percent faster than Lynnfield 2.93GHz.

Overall in some applications, like the five showed above, Lynnfield 2.93GHz will end up faster, but you will clearly see that performance of Lynnfield 2.93GHz can put a lot of burden of Core i7 950 3.06GHz as in most cases, dual channel DDR3 based Lynnfield 2.93GHz ends up just slightly slower. That is why Intel wants to quickly replace Core i7 950 at 3.06GHz with Core i7 960 at 3.2GHz and put some distance between cheaper Lynnfield and the more expensive Core i7 platform.