Anyone else still running Core 2?

[infoiltrator]

My feeling is the game coding makes more difference than the CPU hardware clock to clock.
It is easy to justify upgrades, especially with sale or used purchases "if you have the urge."
The progress in CPUs is dramatic, games, however, with some exceptions have not taken advantage of this.
What is possible is to build a good rig for less than ever before, if you want to.
+
-

 

[JechtShot]

I'm still using my E8400 stock lol. I will upgrade to Haswell once it comes out. Upgrading everything around my computer actually. (All networking equipment, peripherals, monitor and a wireless printer maybe..)

 

[lowrider69]

It's more a tie, my recollection was more lop sided than that (I was probably comparing a E6600 to a low end Ivy Bridge).

Core 2 is nearly double the power consumption (more at idle). There's also a 733 MHz clock difference here, I was thinking more clock for clock.

Still, point taken. How well Core 2 runs modern games depends entirely on the game. Even a 2010 game like NFS:HS really struggled on the Core 2. Maybe I am spoiled but I just can't play a racing game or FPS at 20-40 frames a second. The difference when I moved that GTX 560 (my HTPC / TV gaming box) from a Core 2 platform to a budget i5 was simply night and day. Just for kicks I have tried a few new games on Core 2, some do okay, some struggle badly (BF3 comes to mind, but that's also because I only have 2 GB on my Core 2 rig). Diablo is quite playable, as are any Source games (TF2 is starting to get a tad CPU heavy though).

I know NFS is not a technical showcase but I play NFS:HP and Shift 2 with everything set to high on a Q9550 stock clocked with a budget GTX 550Ti @ 1920 x 1080 and it stays at 60fps. I have vsync enabled. I also have 4x AA on. I don't really play games much these days but when I do everything is smooth.

 

[2is]

The Core 2 does not run new games "like a champ". It severely limits any mid-range modern GPU (like the 560 GTX, 650/660 GTX). It (by this I mean the entire platform, including chipset and memory) also requires 2-3x the power at idle and 1.5x at load (while doing less). I replaced a overclocked E6600 with an el-cheapo 3470 while keeping the same GTX 560 and the computers are worlds apart. The Core 2 is still fine for web browsing and undemanding games, but it is not longer an acceptable gaming CPU.

Seems you have an unwarranted disdain for Core 2s. Part of the problem seems to be your own recollection, the other is you're grouping all core2's in the same performance segment as your Core 2 [DUO]. Core 2 QUADS do run most every single game out there exceptionally well considering their age.

 

[Obsoleet]

The Core 2 does not run new games "like a champ". It severely limits any mid-range modern GPU (like the 560 GTX, 650/660 GTX). It (by this I mean the entire platform, including chipset and memory) also requires 2-3x the power at idle and 1.5x at load (while doing less). I replaced a overclocked E6600 with an el-cheapo 3470 while keeping the same GTX 560 and the computers are worlds apart. The Core 2 is still fine for web browsing and undemanding games, but it is not longer an acceptable gaming CPU.

My Q9450 disagrees with you. I have no issues in real world gaming with it and a 5870.

If you check efficiency charts and everything else, you'd believe otherwise.. and it is less efficient.. but it gets the job done without spending more money needlessly.
I'm not going to deny that Ivy Bridge isn't better, it is. I have one in my laptop. There's a difference in overall system smoothness.. I've tested the same SSD with the same image in an IB vs an Arrandale.. there's a noticeable difference between those two. But it's not worth upgrading to in my reasonable opinion.

If anyone MUST upgrade (and you're likely not that type any longer if you still have a C2Q), do yourself a favor, wait for Haswell..

 

[Qbah]

Running a Q9450@3.2GHz. Runs my games OK. I see some of my games are CPU limited, like Skyrim, but they still run acceptably. And I'm gaming at 1080p so can max details in the games Getting a GTX670 bought my rig another year or so until Haswell is out Then I'll decide again.

 

[Schmide]

I'm not going to deny that Ivy Bridge isn't better

Do you want to logically think about this?

Applying double negation...

I'm going to deny that Ivy Bridge is better

 

[X98]

Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz E4600 Allendale

FTW

 

[darkfalz]

Seems you have an unwarranted disdain for Core 2s

I loved my Core 2 and still do. But as I said, even my budget i5 which was half the price (even before adjusting for inflation) utterly destroys it. As said earlier, I had an original Core 2, with slow DDR2 RAM and a 965 chipset. I have no doubt that a higher clocked Core 2 Quad with DDR3 and newer chipset would be even significantly faster, but would still be beaten handily by my budget 3470, let alone an overclocked K.

I also didn't like leaving a system that chewed over 100watts idle on all day downloading stuff, when my Core i5s use around 50watts.

 

[tweakboy]

I have afew core 2 duo Cpus in my closet.

I had a bunch of pent 4s i delidded them all tho lol.

Hey hokies83 what voltage are you giving your CPU to go that much and be stable......

 

[2is]

I loved my Core 2 and still do. But as I said, even my budget i5 which was half the price (even before adjusting for inflation) utterly destroys it. As said earlier, I had an original Core 2, with slow DDR2 RAM and a 965 chipset. I have no doubt that a higher clocked Core 2 Quad with DDR3 and newer chipset would be even significantly faster, but would still be beaten handily by my budget 3470, let alone an overclocked K.

I also didn't like leaving a system that chewed over 100watts idle on all day downloading stuff, when my Core i5s use around 50watts.

Except that isn't what you were saying until essentially, everyone disagreed with you. You basically said Core 2's couldn't handle modern games, which is quite simply, wrong. YOUR Core 2 DUO may not, huge difference. No need to even go off on the i5 tangent, no one is disagreeing that an i5 is better.

 

[cytg111]

..

 

[cytg111]

My Q9450 disagrees with you.
... do yourself a favor, wait for Haswell..

- I am in the same boat, rocking a Q9450, and eyeballing haswell too. But even at haswell, it really comes down to what kind of

1. IPC increase we will see (5% .. meh) and clock.
2. How does TX scale
3. And of course the much hyped AVX2, what will it deliver.

And if benches dont back that up, this C2Q may rock yet another generation... i mean, why shouldnt it?
So far it has been the longest running system i've ever had. It's kind of sad.

 

[darkfalz]

You basically said Core 2's couldn't handle modern games

Depends which Core 2 you are talking about. An overclocked high end one, sure, just maybe not "like a champ". People forked out a lot of money for them and are anxious to protect their "investment", but it doesn't change the fact that a budget chip is performing as well in most tasks and better in others than a 3-4 year old flagship CPU. Some new games are particularly badly threaded or not threaded at all (this is where Turbo really helps).

 

[cytg111]

Depends which Core ....[static]... about. An overclocked high en..[static]... not "like a champ". P..[static]..their "investment", but it doesn't change the fact ...[static].... performing as well..[static]...ip CPU. Some new games ...[static].... where Turbo really helps).

<ArnoldVoice> Thread must die Naw, Ya! </ArnoldVoice>

 

[tweakboy]

I'm still using my E8400 stock lol. I will upgrade to Haswell once it comes out. Upgrading everything around my computer actually. (All networking equipment, peripherals, monitor and a wireless printer maybe..)

First quarter its the Mobile Haswell cpus

End of 2013 beginning of 2014 Intel will begin shipping Desktop Haswells but just 4 core 8 threads ........ deep in 2014 they will put out 6core 12 thread CPUs.....

in other words its not months rather years until it comes out unless you want the mobile Haswell ....... Ivy Bridge E is coming out and that will blow haswell 4 core chips. Ill pass on Dukes of Haswell unless daisy is involved.

lol But in all seriounsess the fastest CHIP for Intel in 2013 will be the Ivy Bridge E 6 core 12 thread monster, because I dont think they will get out the 12 thread Haswells in 2013. All Haswell is ,, is a new CPU with a new socket and very faster much faster graphics built into CPU ,,,,, can rival 460 1GB and what not. Ill take ivy bridge e over haswells 6 core cpu which will be long time from now.............Haswell is more for consumers not us, not the enthusiast..

 

[2is]

Depends which Core 2 you are talking about. An overclocked high end one, sure, just maybe not "like a champ". People forked out a lot of money for them and are anxious to protect their "investment", but it doesn't change the fact that a budget chip is performing as well in most tasks and better in others than a 3-4 year old flagship CPU. Some new games are particularly badly threaded or not threaded at all (this is where Turbo really helps).

At the risk of repeating myself, you're backpeddling now that essentially everyone said you're wrong. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this new argument considering no one is actually arguing it.

You: Core 2's can't play modern games
Everyone else: Yes they can
You: Well i5's are better... (we all know this, doesn't change the fact your initial comment was inaccurate)

 

[tweakboy]

In Modern Warefare 3 I was getting a steady 38 39fps ,,,,, After my upgrade now its 43fps or 44fps,,, I gained 4 or 5 fps switching from a Q6600 GO @3.7Ghz

However a game like BF3 with 50 player servers the new CPUs will love it,,while core 2 falls down...... gl

 

[darkfalz]

You: Core 2's can't play modern games

Not so well threaded ones at 60 FPS, no. A turbo'd i5 is going to be much faster for a mostly single threaded game than any Core 2. There are some such games. Many games are perfectly playable at 30-40 FPS but I aim for steady 60 FPS in all games. I also play MAME a fair bit and the extra CPU really helps here.

You need to keep in mind that the AI/OS etc. uses a fixed amount of CPU regardless of the frame rate, what is left can be used for rendering (again, proper threading helps a lot here). This is why depending on the profiler, one CPU which is on paper only 20% faster than another can end up getting double the FPS.

One thing I liked about AMD, even though I never used one, is they kept the same platform for longer periods. An Intel upgrade is often a new PSU (on a few occasions, where new connectors were introduced), board, memory as well as the CPU. Thankfully though, these days, they're all so much cheaper than even a few years ago.

 

[2is]

The Core 2 does not run new games "like a champ".

That's what you said. You didn't say "not so well threaded ones" you didn't say "depends on which core 2"

You made a blanket statement that encompasses all Core 2's and all new games.

Trying to defend an incorrect statement by saying something completely different doesn't turn it in to a correct statement. Not to mention "like a champ" isn't a quantifiable term.

 

[darkfalz]

That's what you said. You didn't say "not so well threaded ones" you didn't say "depends on which core 2"

You made a blanket statement that encompasses all Core 2's and all new games.

Trying to defend an incorrect statement by saying something completely different doesn't turn it in to a correct statement. Not to mention "like a champ" isn't a quantifiable term.

Well, "like a champ" to me sounds like top of the line, no compromises, 60 FPS (ie. GPU limited), whereas "adequately" is 30-50 FPS (with a good video card, CPU limited). If you can't quantify "like a champ", how is it an incorrect statement?

And with all due respect the thread refers to "Core 2", not specifically top end, overclocked quads.

 

[ehume]

I just added a Samsung 840 500GB to my wife's rig as a direct replacement for her 5400 rpm HD. Even though it's only SATA II it's running much faster (of course). What was surprising is that the Graphics WEI went from 3.7 or so to 5.4.

I can't speak for the upgrade kit version of this SSD, but you shouldn't get the plain SSD unless you already have cloning software. The product description says it has software to move the contents of your drive, but it has a partly disabled form of Norton Ghost -- to get the disk cloning capacity you must pay their website. No thanks. So it's either pay $40 more for the upgrade kit version (includes cables and 3.5-inch adapter) or use your own cloning software.

But the SSD is working properly, and its 7mm thickness means I can reuse this on the laptop she really wants.

 

[piasabird]

Still using an E7200 for E-mail, surfing and watching video on the Internet. It is plenty fast enough. If I could not watch video on the Internet, I would buy something new. If it works, dont fix it. Still using Vista.

Note: I built a i-5 machine with a "K" processor also but I did not put a video card in it. It worked better with my TV so I have been using it with the HDMI.

 

[2is]

Well, "like a champ" to me sounds like top of the line, no compromises, 60 FPS (ie. GPU limited), whereas "adequately" is 30-50 FPS (with a good video card, CPU limited). If you can't quantify "like a champ", how is it an incorrect statement?

And with all due respect the thread refers to "Core 2", not specifically top end, overclocked quads.

With all due respect, this thread refers to "Core 2", not specifically lower end duals.

If you can't quantify it, how is it a correct statement?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Lately I've been thinking about getting an upgrade, but my E8400 runs every new game I throw at it like a champ. . I keep thinking that I can hold out til' the next generation of CPUs since Core 2 seems fast enough.

I sold everything and left myself with an ancient E2180 running @ 3.0 Ghz.

Of course, it's not fast, but it's enough for my needs for the time being.

Getting ready for a new adventure, always :awe: