Measuring CPUs by thread count and clock speed is not a good way to gauge performance. A current gen CPU would be several times faster than this old CPU.

Depending on workload, this old CPU might be as slow as a 2 thread or even 1 thread current gen server.

It does 8000 CPU marks with 4 cores. Sure Xeon 674X does 83641 with 28 cores. But show me where can you find it for less than 10 times the price? And with 320GB RAM, 10TB of NVMe SSD storage and 10 GBit/s of "unlimited" bandwidth

More than that, compare it to modern cloud CPUs. Epyc 9845 gets 153000 but that's with 160 cores / 320 threads. Per core it's under 1000 and 4 cores would be 3825 when the 11-year-old i7 is 8000.

Because those big systems are optimized for power efficiency. That Epyc is ~2.4W/core compared to ~16W/core for the old i7. It has a lower base clock and is Zen5c. If we cut the 8-core Ryzen 9850X3D's score in half, 4 Ryzen cores from the same generation but with a higher base clock and six times the L3 cache per core would be 20942. But it's also back up to 15W/core. The Epyc still has better performance per watt.

The newer cores are significantly more efficient. That doesn't mean they're unconditionally faster independent of all other variables.

> And with 320GB RAM, 10TB of NVMe SSD storage and 10 GBit/s of "unlimited" bandwidth

I think you’re talking about something else. The comment above was about a machine that didn’t have 10TB of storage, 320GB RAM, or unlimited bandwidth.

If you find 320GB of RAM and unlimited bandwidth for 40 Euro monthly then send it over!

The 39 eur machine has 32GB of RAM ~1TB of storage and 1gbit/s. So to make it a fair comparison the 10 times faster cpu should also have 10 times of those things

Yes, e.g. for AWS it pays off to have a look at the 'CoreMark Score' column at https://instances.vantage.sh/