How to check processor performance?

Question

Processors

Do I understand correctly that the clock frequency is not yet an indicator and both the frequency and the number of operations per clock appear? In general, I need to order a server to calculate some algorithms. Budget 70 - 80$. I have an Intel® Core™ i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz × 8 on my local machine. Is
8 the number of cores or threads? In general, I need a server that will be no more than 2 times slower than my machine.
For example, is this processor suitable?
8x2 GHz CPU Cores (Intel® Xeon® E5-2620)

Answer 1

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1214...
here is the synthetic

Answer 2

@386DX in the comments on @ EnterSandman 's answer is quite right, the question is very sloppy.
Ok, a small educational program: a very long time ago, when Intel was winding up the frequencies as best they could, AMD, which had not even bought a Radeon, took "high-quality" frequencies. But something went wrong, Intel changed its mind and muddied the Core series. First, Core Duo as mobile solutions, then Core 2 Duo, and now they have been operating the Core iX series for more than five years. And then something went wrong. Intel is so raging that AMD is now almost dead. Their CPUs, by no means, do not at all compare with Intel stones. And they started raising the megahertz - their flagship, AMD A10, quietly exceeds 4 GHz, which is very, very much. But still, they are sluggish and do not die yet only due to the best integrated graphics (quite usable in games, for example).
Well, but why is that? Why? And the thing is that the CPU today is no longer a CPU at all. This engineering marvel is an example of incredible integration, so many features are integrated into one chip that you can lose count. Pipeline, cache, instructor, different types of controllers, specialized scalar or vector video accelerators.
That is why measuring performance is very, very difficult. Synthetics never cope at all, and for a long, long time, demanding games have become a kind of test. And all because they use almost all the pieces of iron to the fullest (unless the hard drive is critical), although they use the graphic part still stronger (which is why AMD solutions have not yet been swept away from the market). What now? And now everything can go downhill, not so long ago, Intel announced integrated FGPA into its CPUs. Oh gods, how my fingers are shaking, for this will simply increase the productivity of those who "cut" incredibly. And if it will still be possible to flash FGPA "on the fly", games will acquire a new engineering vein and consoles of "what-there-already-generation" will again remain "out of work".
In general, good luck in a useless choice. I mean, take any, Xeon works better with tasks of the same type, as it has a better pipeline, however, i7 copes much better with non-trivial tasks, such as graphics, sound, and the like, because it is consumer.