@Elixer - yup.
7zip - 7zip's own benchmark seems to utilise the CPU better than WinRAR's does, but I personally prefer WinRAR because the self-extracting EXEs it claims to open, it does it properly. In my experience 7Z sometimes says "yup, I can do that", then proceeds to make a hash of it (mangled folder structure and/or file names). I experienced this when using 7Z to extract the contents of an AMD display driver install exe. As I think this is an essential feature, I want a program to do everything it claims to do, but correctly, rather than claim more than it can do. Extracting the contents of an EXE is often a time-saving exercise, but if it goes wrong, it wastes time.
---
I decided the other day to try and test two versions of WinRAR myself in the hope of answering my own question. I tested WinRAR 4.2 first as I already had it installed; I used the benchmark feature and noted down the figure it gave after 20 seconds of running (5019KB/sec IIRC). I then installed the latest version of WinRAR and did the same benchmark, which gave me a result of something like 4900KB/sec. I removed that version and put 4.2 back on, then got a benchmark result of ~4700KB/sec, at which point I gave up
