Anyone else still running Core 2?

[Somniferum]

Windows 7 definitely is quite performant and secure, but Windows 8 is even more so, and the upgrade from Windows 7 is pretty cheap. Just sayin'

It seems to be a matter of preference at this point. Windows 8 seems fine under the hood, but I'm a fan of things like Aero, gadgets and the Start menu so it's a non-starter for me.

 

[Erenhardt]

Does athlon 64 X2 count?

 

[gazhen]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this seems like a good place to ask.

My current pc is:

Dell Inspiron 530

Q8200
Dell 0FM586 mobo
3Gb RAM DDR2
HD 5770

Now this processor is beginning to struggle in games like WoW for me, would it be possible to upgrade the CPU with a second hand chip off ebay for a super cheap upgrade?

I am not really too familar with the yorkfield lineup, or what i could upgrade it to, any help would be great thanks.

 

[Somniferum]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this seems like a good place to ask.

My current pc is:

Dell Inspiron 530

Q8200
Dell 0FM586 mobo
3Gb RAM DDR2
HD 5770

Now this processor is beginning to struggle in games like WoW for me, would it be possible to upgrade the CPU with a second hand chip off ebay for a super cheap upgrade?

I am not really too familar with the yorkfield lineup, or what i could upgrade it to, any help would be great thanks.

In theory you could upgrade to something like a Q9650, but good luck finding one for a reasonable cost. I mentioned this upthread. It's really more cost-effective to upgrade to a new platform at this point. In your case I think some more RAM might also help, but again, DDR2 is very overpriced compared to DDR3 due to lack of supply. If you can find some for cheap it might be worth it.

 

[darkfalz]

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.

 

[Torn Mind]

Core 2 will remain relevant as long as it remains competitive with some current processors. Currently, the high end Core 2 Duos are comparable to the Pentium Gxxx. Probably when Haswell comes around, the i3 tier will have enough of a lead over the remaining Core 2 Duos to get folks to upgrade.

 

[darkfalz]

Currently, the high end Core 2 Duos are comparable to the Pentium Gxxx

Sorry, but even the severely crippled Pentium Gs have nearly twice the performance per core, and at massively reduced power consumption.

You don't have to upgrade, but you can't say they are "comparable".

 

[Icecold]

Sorry, but even the severely crippled Pentium Gs have nearly twice the performance per core, and at massively reduced power consumption.

You don't have to upgrade, but you can't say they are "comparable".

E8600 beats G620 in pretty much every benchmark

 

[cytg111]

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.

something like

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/51?vs=701

we see that the new IVY I5 is about double as fast, and by double I mean Only 2x as fast.
Define "severely" please? Cause what I am hearing you say is that any mid-range modern GPU today gives "a state of the art Ivey i5" a run for its money and a top range GPU will run circles around it. We are not really GPU constrained at the resolutions we play our games at, is that right?

 

[SPBHM]

E8600 beats G620 in pretty much every benchmark

that's 3.33 vs 2.6GHz

and there is this:
Dragon Age Origins - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (no AA/Vsync)
E8600 = 71.8FPS
G620 = 107.3



also 130 vs 76w

but the higher end/overclocked C2D can certainly still keep up well,

e8600 was a $275 CPU from 2008/2009
G620 a $65 CPU from 2011

 

[darkfalz]

E8600 beats G620 in pretty much every benchmark

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).

The Pentium G series and to some extent the i3 series are really designed for low power OEM/basic office systems, or "mum and dad" computers. You're comparing them with the top of the line chips from 5 years ago. The thing is that "gamer" i5s are now ridiculously cheap, half the price or less that the mid level Core 2s cost in their heyday. The 3470 I bought was $178 or something like that, with a sub $100 MB and $30 RAM. I just don't know how you can justify not upgrading unless you are an a shoestring budget. I too held out for a long time but the price/performance for Sandy/Ivy bridge are nothing short of amazing (remains to be seen if Haswell will be a worthwhile improvement).

 

[darkfalz]

Cause what I am hearing you say is that any mid-range modern GPU today gives "a state of the art Ivey i5" a run for its money and a top range GPU will run circles around it. We are not really GPU constrained at the resolutions we play our games at, is that right?

Only speaking from experience. The same games that chugged along at an acceptable 20-50 FPS on my GTX 560 / C2D sprang to life at near constant 60 FPS on a super cheap 3470.

I was a C2D early adopter mind you, an E6600 at 3.0 GHz - the newer revisions were probably slightly faster per clock, could clock higher and also paired with faster DDR3 memory. So my Core 2 experiences may not be the same as yours.

 

[KoolDrew]

Still running an E8400 @ 3.8GHz with a 4890. I've been getting an itch to upgrade and was actually planning on getting getting an i3-3220 & 7850, but I think I'm going to hold off for now. My PC still does what I need it to and with Haswell around the corner I might as well wait. I might just upgrade to an SSD now though.

 

[Torn Mind]

Sorry, but even the severely crippled Pentium Gs have nearly twice the performance per core, and at massively reduced power consumption.

You don't have to upgrade, but you can't say they are "comparable".

In terms of performance and solely performance, yes they are. I have experience with both a E8400 at my uni and a G550 home computer. Both offer comparable snappiness.

Just like how Atoms are indeed similar to some Pentium 4s performance-wise but power consumption is a whole different matter altogether.

Only speaking from experience. The same games that chugged along at an acceptable 20-50 FPS on my GTX 560 / C2D sprang to life at near constant 60 FPS on a super cheap 3470.

I was a C2D early adopter mind you, an E6600 at 3.0 GHz - the newer revisions were probably slightly faster per clock, could clock higher and also paired with faster DDR3 memory. So my Core 2 experiences may not be the same as yours.

My point is that C2D's presence won't be eliminated until it is equivalent with the absolute bottom rung of modern processors(Celeron G4xx) or if the modern bottom rung outclasses it completely. It's just that the systems are just for the friends and family market now instead of power users..

 

[skipsneeky2]

Still running an E8400 @ 3.8GHz with a 4890. I've been getting an itch to upgrade and was actually planning on getting getting an i3-3220 & 7850, but I think I'm going to hold off for now. My PC still does what I need it to and with Haswell around the corner I might as well wait. I might just upgrade to an SSD now though.

A ssd is the best upgrade over even the processor in some cases to do to a pc especially if your sitting on rotating discs,the age of anything that rotates on a spindle is coming to a end.

Used to be hooked on the wd raptor drives but when ssds came out,i was hooked and their premium is very much justified.

Have the 180gb intel 330 myself,its fantastic.

 

[TekDemon]

The faster Core 2's with tons of L2 cache (like the E8400) are still very usable in gaming. The E8400 in particular does better than most current AMD cpus in 2-threaded games like Starcraft II.

I don't use it as my primary system anymore but my E8400 based rig is still very usable and to be honest for most people there'd be 0 difference.

 

[VirtualLarry]

A ssd is the best upgrade over even the processor in some cases

In some cases. For an older S478 P4 rig with onboard "Intel Extreme Graphics 2" video, and an AGP slot, and IDE ports, I wouldn't exactly go recommending an SSD.

But if they had a modern motherboard, 4GB of RAM as a minimum, and decent (ATI 4250, Intel HD) integrated graphics, and at least SATA2 ports, then I would definitely recommend an SSD as an upgrade.

 

[shady28]

On this site there is a link called 'Bench' at the top right. You can do your own comparisons, but what I see is a "Core 2" Quad 9550 vs a Sandy Bridge i5 2500K turns up about a 10-20% increase in gaming FPS. Compare a Q9650 and of course it gets a bit narrower.

For normal user tasks, the difference is single digit percentages.

It's worth mentioning here that the last of the Core 2 generation were about 25% faster than the original Core 2's. So if you are using an E6xxx series, then you'll see a good bit more boost going to Sandy or Ivy Bridge.

I don't think you will see a huge bump in performance going from an E8xxx series C2D system, unless you are going from a dual core to a quad core (apples to oranges in that case though, has little to do with the architecture and more to do with the number of cores - they did make a Core 2 Quad series).

 

[OCNewbie]

Q9550 @ 3.6 GHz here. I think I've had it for like 4 years now, at 3.6 GHz the entire time, I believe. It still seems pretty quick, for the games/apps I've used, anyway.

 

[ehume]

I built a i7 860 rig in 2009, which is now my daughter's. With a new GTX 650 Ti in it she plays all the games she likes -- mostly AC3 and web-based stuff.

Her Dell 530s with a 9500 GT I gave to my wife. It has an E7200 in it, and does everything she wants it to. For Christmas I have a new 500GB Samsung 840 to put in her rig. That will speed her up nicely, I think -- at least, judging from what SSD's did for my own rig.

Why an 840? I'm wasting a SATA III drive in a SATA II system, right? Whenever the Shuttle goes to SATA III, or whenever I see a slimline case I think will be quiet, I can move the 840 over there.

Next week, we'll see what an SSD can do for an E7200-based system.

 

[Engineer]

I still have a Core 2 E6300 in my daughter's room. Might replace it with my "spare" Core I5 750 that is being replaced with my new Xeon E3-1230V2. Not sure yet.

 

[I.M.Weasel]

Yeah, still running Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, not the primary computer for latest games, however adequate backup computers.

 

[infoiltrator]

E8400 vs G620 on Bench
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/56?vs=406

 

[cytg111]

something like

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/51?vs=701

we see that the new IVY I5 is about double as fast, and by double I mean Only 2x as fast.
Define "severely" please? Cause what I am hearing you say is that any mid-range modern GPU today gives "a state of the art Ivey i5" a run for its money and a top range GPU will run circles around it. We are not really GPU constrained at the resolutions we play our games at, is that right?

.. and for good measure
for reference

9450 Launch Date Q1'08
3570 Launch Date Q2'12

4 years later we get 2x performance ... screw moore, he's dead.

 

[Schmide]

something like

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/51?vs=701

we see that the new IVY I5 is about double as fast, and by double I mean Only 2x as fast.
Define "severely" please? Cause what I am hearing you say is that any mid-range modern GPU today gives "a state of the art Ivey i5" a run for its money and a top range GPU will run circles around it. We are not really GPU constrained at the resolutions we play our games at, is that right?

.. and for good measure
for reference

9450 Launch Date Q1'08
3570 Launch Date Q2'12

4 years later we get 2x performance ... screw moore, he's dead.

A good relative comparisons

Core i5 2500K 3.3GHz vs Core i5 3470 3.2GHz

Core i5 2400 - 3.1GHz vs Core i5 3470 3.2GHz

+5-10% to ivy

Core i5 2400 - 3.1GHz vs Core 2 Quad Q9650 - 3.00GHz

+ 10-20% sandy (games rather close 5%)

So around 20-25% diff.