Anyone else still running Core 2?

[Obsoleet]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Obsoleet

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]

Originally Posted by 2is

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.

[2is]

Originally Posted by darkfalz

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]

Originally Posted by Obsoleet

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]

Originally Posted by 2is

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]

Originally Posted by darkfalz

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>

[2is]

Originally Posted by darkfalz

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)

[darkfalz]

Originally Posted by 2is

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]

Originally Posted by 2is

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]

Originally Posted by darkfalz

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]

Originally Posted by riva2model64

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

[Scholzpdx]

Obviously I do. For even BF3 it runs quite well. I've not had a game that didn't run well yet. I hoped to get 7-8 or so years out of the CPU. In a couple years it wont be in my main PC, but for research and office work, this computer might last over a decade!

This all is due to the emergence of smartphones, tablets and console games being used as internet and media devices. They have stifled the requirements for web pages, office and development applications.

[hoorah]

Heck, I just built 2 Pentium D Dual-core 775 machines from parts I picked up from a computer recycling center that had been thrown out. Unfortunately, they were a bit too old to accept core2 chips. They were both big improvements over the older single core desktops they replaced. One is an HTPC/DVR box running quite well, the other is a general office machine/browser/skype/itunes box. They work fine, and the users never complain about them being slow. If they can get by with a x2 pentium D, I imagine plenty of non-gamers have lots of of life left in core2s.

[crashtech]

Does the Xeon E5420 count? They are technically Core2 architecture. I recently picked up most of a system (dual 771 Supermicro mobo, twin CPUs, 8GB RAM) for $150. While it does tend to use a lot of power, once BSEL modded to 3.0GHz, performance is on par with an i7-2600.

[WT]

Intel e5200 @ 3.0 in my wife's PC. I keep looking at it thinking it would be a weekend project to update it but every time I consider it, I remember my friend's advice: If your wife's PC is working fine, just LEAVE IT ALONE !!

She uses it for email, web browsing and Quicken. My son plays Plants vs Zombies on it. I just think its wasted $$ to bother with it, but I would really like to ditch Win XP at the very least.

[Barfo]

Originally Posted by crashtech

Does the Xeon E5420 count? They are technically Core2 architecture. I recently picked up most of a system (dual 771 Supermicro mobo, twin CPUs, 8GB RAM) for $150. While it does tend to use a lot of power, once BSEL modded to 3.0GHz, performance is on par with an i7-2600.

wat? I find that hard to believe.

[crashtech]

Originally Posted by Barfo

wat? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe I should fudge it a bit and say "in league with," within a few percentage points in the CPU benchmarks I've run, but yeah, there are 8 full Penryn cores running at 3 GHz, as opposed to the i7's four SB cores using HT, so it may not be a fair comparison, but looking at dollar layout, its a smokin' deal, and it keeps me warm in the winter!

edit: I keep calling these Xeon 54xx series Penryns, when more accurately they should be called Yorkfield-6Ms, which betrays their relationship with the Core2 Quads.

[TylerS]

Yep. Still running Core 2. See sig. I'm working on pushing it a bit farther with the OC and right now I hope it'll get me another year before I need an upgrade.