E8600 vs. Q9300 (Both at stock speed)

[cbn]

E8600 vs. Q9300.

Which processor (at stock speed) would you use for a cheap Core 2 refurbished SFF desktop connected to a 4K TV or large 4K monitor? This for HTPC duty and light gaming (eg, Valve games like CS:GO and Team Fortress 2).

GPU would be the upcoming GT 1030 or RX 550.

P.S. Both of these processors are priced roughly the same at the moment (about $12 shipped).

 

[tamz_msc]

E8600.

Would have voted for the Q9300 if it were intended for playing games.

 

[cbn]

E8600.

Would have voted for the Q9300 if it were intended for playing games.

I edited the opening post to include light gaming (ie, playing games natively rather than relying purely on streaming games from another more powerful computer in the house or apartment).

Also, if you want you can change your vote. (The poll allows a user to do that)

 

[tamz_msc]

I edited the opening post to include light gaming.

Also, if you want you can change your vote. (The poll allows a user to do that)

In that case the Q9300.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm, tough call, but for gaming, I think I would avoid a pure dual-core, so quad-core it is.

 

[cbn]

For 4K native gameplay.......

1. How old would the AAA titles need to be in order to graphically undemanding enough to be playable at 4K with such low end cards and what would the core scaling be like? (Eg, I remember back around 2010 game scaling for quad core (over dual core) was only around 50% in the best case scenario)

2. What new games are graphically undemanding enough to be playable at 4K with such low end cards? If so, what is the core scaling like for these titles? Maybe some Indie titles fall into this category?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't know about 4K gaming on such low-end cards.

I managed some 4K Skyrim (vanilla) on an RX 460 @ low (20-30 FPS?).

I can't imaging running @ 4K on a card with half of that power.

 

[cbn]

I don't know about 4K gaming on such low-end cards.

I managed some 4K Skyrim (vanilla) on an RX 460 @ low (20-30 FPS?).

I can't imaging running @ 4K on a card with half of that power.

Skyrim is pretty tough.

I was able to run Team Fortress 2 at 1080p low on an Athlon 5350* though....so with both the RX550 and the GT1030 being at least 8x stronger than that iGPU 4K should be doable for that game.

*CPU (on the Athlon 5350) was the bottleneck for Team Fortress 2.

 

[SPBHM]

I voted for the q9300, I think it's overall a better and safer choice for HTPC work.

but I think TF2 doesn't really scale well with more than 2 threads and could benefit from the larger l2 (per die) and all the extra clock (2.5 vs 3.33GHz) making it clearly better for this game

TF2 is a CPU limited game, I played often for a few years on 32p servers and even my i5 sandy bridge was slow for it in some cases (drops under 50-40FPS).

 

[cbn]

but I think TF2 doesn't really scale well with more than 2 threads and could benefit from the larger l2 (per die) and all the extra clock (2.5 vs 3.33GHz) making it clearly better for this game

I agree about the E8600 for TF2.

In fact, if you look at my notes from the link in post #8 I did mention it only uses three cores of the Athlon 5350.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Going with the contrarian viewpoint. For older games, with such low end gpus, in an HTPC, I would go with the dual core for higher clocks and lower power usage.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Going with the contrarian viewpoint. For older games, with such low end gpus, in an HTPC, I would go with the dual core for higher clocks and lower power usage.

In fact, if overclocking is on the table, then I might be swayed to choose the E8600 too, especially if there was a much greater chance of reaching 4.0Ghz with it.

 

[sm625]

For a HTPC the Q9300's 2.5GHz Core 2 architecture is going to choke and die. For gaming, anything besides esports titles is going to be a lost cause so you may as well at least get something that can play videos without stuttering.

 

[tamz_msc]

For a HTPC the Q9300's 2.5GHz Core 2 architecture is going to choke and die. For gaming, anything besides esports titles is going to be a lost cause so you may as well at least get something that can play videos without stuttering.

A Core 2 CPU can handle 1080p h264 video just fine.

 

[cbn]

For a HTPC the Q9300's 2.5GHz Core 2 architecture is going to choke and die. For gaming, anything besides esports titles is going to be a lost cause so you may as well at least get something that can play videos without stuttering.

Don't forget this Core 2 HTPC will have a GT 1030 or RX550.....so video decode is offloaded.

 

[edcoolio]

Don't forget this Core 2 HTPC will have a GT 1030 or RX550.....so video decode is offloaded.

This is a very good point.

So, basically, it boils down to: Single thread (E8600), or multi-threaded (Q9300) performance.

Since a good chunk of the video decode will be offloaded, you will be best served with more threads to carry the workload.

With the OP's limitations, Q9300. No question, in my book.

 

[Denithor]

P.S. Both of these processors are priced roughly the same at the moment (about $12 shipped).

This implies you are buying one of these chips, not deciding which of two you already own to use.

In that case, neither. You can get a refurb OEM machine with a Sandy or Ivy i3/i5 and 4GB and Windows 7 (typically on throw-away 250GB or so HDD) for well under $100 these days through eBay. There's about zero reason to buy those really old processors these days. On the other hand, there's a very valid reason they only cost $12...

 

[cbn]

You can get a refurb OEM machine with a Sandy or Ivy i3/i5 and 4GB and Windows 7 (typically on throw-away 250GB or so HDD) for well under $100 these days through eBay.

I agree there is a lot of price compression now. For example take a look at these prices.

In fact, I got a Dell optiplex 9010 SFF with Core i5 3470, 4GB, 250GB HDD, Windows 10 Pro in Grade A condition (it looks ~ brand new) at that same sale for $85 shipped.

 

[edcoolio]

This implies you are buying one of these chips, not deciding which of two you already own to use.

In that case, neither. You can get a refurb OEM machine with a Sandy or Ivy i3/i5 and 4GB and Windows 7 (typically on throw-away 250GB or so HDD) for well under $100 these days through eBay. There's about zero reason to buy those really old processors these days. On the other hand, there's a very valid reason they only cost $12...

Could be, but it sounds more like he/she has a ..."cheap Core 2 refurbished SFF desktop..." and has $12 to burn.

That having been said, I completely agree. Right now, you can find an i5 3470 on eBay in SFF (HP 6300 w/4gb RAM) for $105 which will clearly blow either of these out of the water. That is, unless you only have $12 to spend.

 

[cbn]

So, basically, it boils down to: Single thread (E8600), or multi-threaded (Q9300) performance.

The E8600 has 33% more clockspeed.

So in order to beat the E8600, the Q9300 has to scale at least 33%. <----Modern games will do this easily, but they won't run at 4K on either at GT 1030 or RX 550. (So this basically leaves leaves old games or Indie titles. Any indie title game engines out there at scale well on quad cores, but are not graphically demanding?)

 

[edcoolio]

This setup (a q9300 and rx550) with 4gb RAM should EASILY run a game like Battlefield 3 and can run Battlefield 4 with even lower settings. I would recommend you go to
game-debate and punch in your potential specs and games you want to play.

Forget the cutting edge eye candy, you are just not going to get it with this rig, but there are still plenty of non-indi former AAA titles that will play nicely.

In this case, gaming with a serviceable low end card, the quad core is the way to go, in my opinion, of course.

 

[cbn]

This setup (a q9300 and rx550) with 4gb RAM should EASILY run a game like Battlefield 3 and can run Battlefield 4 with even lower settings.

RX 550 would work for BF4 at 4K low?

(I used at R7 250X for BF4 at 1080p low)

R7 250X = 640sp @ 1000 Mhz, 128 bit GDDR5 4500
RX 550 = 512sp @ 1183 Mhz boost, 128 bit GDDR 7000

P.S. Here was a BF4 test from Tom's on R7 240 and R7 250 at 1680 x 1050 low (with is less than 1/4 resolution of 4K).

R7 250 = 384sp @ 1000 Mhz/1050 Mhz, 128 bit GDDR5 @ 4500
R7 240 = 320sp @ 730 Mhz/780Mhz, 128 bit DDR3 @ 1800.

 

[edcoolio]

At 4K, the E8600 is not even an option.

I did not realize you would not play or even consider a game unless it runs at 4K.

That card is roughly equal to a gtx 650 ti, so in a best case scenario, you are looking at 30-40 FPS for Battlefield 3.

It should run games Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Batman: Arkham City, Black Ops 2, Black Ops, and many others. Of course, it is up to you what is acceptable regarding resolution.

3840×2160 is just too high. You need a better card, a better rig, overall.

Good luck with this project.

 

[cbn]

I did not realize you would not play or even consider a game unless it runs at 4K.

In the past, I would have thought running 1080p on 4K screen would be no problem, but I have seen complaints like this one of the image not looking good.

 

[edcoolio]

Assuming you are locked into these CPU and GPU choices:

It depends a lot on your monitor/tv. If it has 1-4 pixel scaling, it should look decent. If it doesn't, then you may experience more of the visual issues you are worried about. Since both of those cards you are looking at are brand spanking new (like, literally, yesterday) the level of GPU scaling available has not been tested in the real world.

Regardless, it is up to you. If you will find yourself upset that it doesn't look good enough, then obviously do not mess with it. If you enjoy the gameplay, it is worth it.

Personally, I would start with DOOM 3 BFG edition as a test. It is $5 on steam/newegg. I would also wait a bit for all the reviews and testing to come out for both cards, assuming that freesync is not a make or break technology for you, and pick from there.