3DMark '05:

1. Assassin: 10215
2. Executioner: 10665
3. M9700: 9868

3DMark '06:

1. Assassin: 6690
2. Executioner: 5558
3. M9700: 4963

Sisoft Sandra- Arithmetic:

1. Assassin: Dhrystone 14594 MIPS, Whetstone 12328 MFLOPS
2. Executioner: Dhrystone 20746 MIPS, Whetstone 14457 MFLOPS
3. M9700: Dhrystone 8371 MIPS, Whetstone 7310 MFLOPS

Sisoft Sandra- MultiMedia:

1. Assassin: Integer x4 aEMMX/a SSE- 37785 it/s __ Floating Point x4 iSSE2-41143 it/s
2. Executioner: Integer x8 iSSE4 -124804 it/s __ Floating Point x4 iSSE2-67178 it/s
3. M9700: Integer x4 aEMMX/a SSE- 22501 it/s __ Floating Point x4 iSSE2-24397 it/s

CodeCreatures Benchmark:

1. Assassin: score: 11260
2. Executioner score: 12116
3. M9700 score: 8584

HDTach Benchmark:

Assassin: 203.8 MB/s (Dual Seagate Hard drives in Raid-0)

Executioner: 191.0 MB/s (Dual Seagate Hard drives in Raid-0)

M9700: 163.5 MB/s (Dual Seagate Hard drives in Raid-0)

Results:

Its interesting to note that the Assassin and Executioner swap places for first and second in each benchmark and at no time was the M9700 ever out of 3rd place. Its additionally interesting as the Executioner has the Intel Core 2 Duo processor clocking in at 2.33 Ghz and the Assassin has the Turion X2 clocking in at 2.0 Ghz. Its clear that the Turion X2 is by no means an underpowered processor looking at these numbers. We must mention that both systems shipped with a raid 0 array, and DDR2 667, and as such the differences in the systems are limited to subsystem, chipsets, and CPU only. In the Sisoft Sandra - MultiMedia tests you can see that the Assassin ran an identical test to the M9700 and the Assassin came out ahead by a large margin. We feel this is due to the processor in the M9700 being a single core Turion and the ram being DDR and not DDR2 as in the Assassin.