Passmark is a better benchmark than that cpuboss, which basically just scrapes data from other sources: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp%5B%5D=834&cmp%5B%5D=2367&cmp%5B%5D=2565

As you can see in that lineup, paying close attention to the Single Thread rating, even AMD CPUs are substantially more powerful than the i7-920 today, and the i7-6700K absolutely annihilates both AMD's common offerings and the older i7-920.

Now, to address some of your other concerns, which may end up being much more important to you than just comparing the absolute performance numbers:

Hyperthreading is not always useful. What it does is allow a single CPU core to process two program "threads" simultaneously at a small hit to its overall performance. In situations where your workload can take advantage of parallel processing, adding threads can nearly double your performance. But in situations where your workload doesn't make use of more threads than cores on your CPU, hyperthreading will offer you NO speed advantages, and may in some edge cases result in LOWER performance. This is why Hyperthreading has seen limited adoption - it is no substitute for more cores and even then, many applications are not/cannot be parallelized.

Your workload leans heavily on RAM and disk performance - your CPU will probably not be the "bottleneck" in your system (the part everything has to wait on in order for work to get done). My guess, given that you have triple channel RAM, is that your bottleneck will be with storage - and this kind of puts you in a good position, because the upgrades I'm about to go over would be things you'd end up needing whether you upgraded your current system or moved to a whole new architecture.

In modern computers there are a wide variety of methods for speeding up disk read and write. I will go over the two options which make sense for you, using a desktop PC, assuming all data is local to that PC (not stored remotely on a network):

1. Tiered storage - you can use a combination of RAMDisks, SSDs, and HDDs to cache your storage, enabling chunks of your total dataset to be processed very quickly. This is a relatively simple solution to set up, and is limited only by the filesize you need to be working on at any given time, because RAM and SSDs are expensive storage solutions compared to HDDs and it can be prohibitively expensive to build a cache capable of storing terabytes of data all at once - it would be better to have, say, a 1gb RAMDisk cache paired with a 32gb SSD cache, managed by some cheap software like PrimoCache, moving files on and off your HDD array as needed.

2. RAID - you can really speed up your HDD array by putting them behind some good, quality hardware RAID. Dropping an old SAS to SATA II MegaRAID controller into your PCI-E 16x slot could provide you with a way of creating a RAID0 or (ideally) RAID10 array that moves data with a small built-in RAMcache for dedicated writeback performance storage behavior. These older RAID controller cards can often be had on ebay for under $100, which can make it a more cost-effective option than building a working tiered storage system. It is harder to set up, though, requiring you to have a good understanding of how RAID levels work and how to set up your system to play nicely with the RAID array you end up creating.

Either of these options can be deployed into your old PC or a new replacement, but you'll probably want one or the other no matter which way you go.

Passmark is a better benchmark than that cpuboss, which basically just scrapes data from other sources.

As you can see in that lineup, paying close attention to the Single Thread rating, even AMD CPUs are substantially more powerful than the i7-920 today, and the i7-6700K absolutely annihilates both AMD's common offerings and the older i7-920.

Now, to address some of your other concerns, which may end up being much more important to you than just comparing the absolute performance numbers:

Hyperthreading is not always useful. What it does is allow a single CPU core to process two program "threads" simultaneously at a small hit to its overall performance. In situations where your workload can take advantage of parallel processing, adding threads can nearly double your performance. But in situations where your workload doesn't make use of more threads than cores on your CPU, hyperthreading will offer you NO speed advantages, and may in some edge cases result in LOWER performance. This is why Hyperthreading has seen limited adoption - it is no substitute for more cores and even then, many applications are not/cannot be parallelized.

Your workload leans heavily on RAM and disk performance - your CPU will probably not be the "bottleneck" in your system (the part everything has to wait on in order for work to get done). My guess, given that you have triple channel RAM, is that your bottleneck will be with storage - and this kind of puts you in a good position, because the upgrades I'm about to go over would be things you'd end up needing whether you upgraded your current system or moved to a whole new architecture.

In modern computers there are a wide variety of methods for speeding up disk read and write. I will go over the two options which make sense for you, using a desktop PC, assuming all data is local to that PC (not stored remotely on a network):

1. Tiered storage - you can use a combination of RAMDisks, SSDs, and HDDs to cache your storage, enabling chunks of your total dataset to be processed very quickly. This is a relatively simple solution to set up, and is limited only by the filesize you need to be working on at any given time, because RAM and SSDs are expensive storage solutions compared to HDDs and it can be prohibitively expensive to build a cache capable of storing terabytes of data all at once - it would be better to have, say, a 1gb RAMDisk cache paired with a 32gb SSD cache, managed by some cheap software like PrimoCache, moving files on and off your HDD array as needed.

2. RAID - you can really speed up your HDD array by putting them behind some good, quality hardware RAID. Dropping an old SAS to SATA II MegaRAID controller into your PCI-E 16x slot could provide you with a way of creating a RAID0 or (ideally) RAID10 array that moves data with a small built-in RAMcache for dedicated writeback performance storage behavior. These older RAID controller cards can often be had on ebay for under $100, which can make it a more cost-effective option than building a working tiered storage system. It is harder to set up, though, requiring you to have a good understanding of how RAID levels work and how to set up your system to play nicely with the RAID array you end up creating.

Either of these options can be deployed into your old PC or a new replacement, but you'll probably want one or the other no matter which way you go.