Discussion Core2Quad performance in more recentish games vs Bloomfield

[loki1944]

So, I'm testing my Core2Quad Q9650@4.1Ghz (FSB@1825Mhz) with 16GB of DDR3 RAM@1800Mhz to see how it fares in various games as an ultra budget type assessment; have been doing the same with my Bloomfield and Gulftown systems (i7 920@3.8/960@4.3/980X@4.5). The Bloomfield/Gulftown CPUs smash through everything extremely well; often close to my other, newer systems (Ryzen 2600X/i7 6850K@4.5/i7 6700/i5 6600K@4.1/i7 7800X@4.8) if all are paired with a 980Ti.

I'm wondering if anyone knows why for the Core2Quad in so many games, of the more recent type, the FPS will be ~21-27 regardless of settings while in others the FPS will be pretty decent? For example; Shadow of Mordor and Strange Brigade on ultra settings will get 90+FPS @1080p with the 9650 paired with a 1060 6GB; Destiny 2/Medium, Tannenberg/Medium, Vermintide/High, and Just Cause 3/Very High play decently well at 52, 37, 36, and 37FPS, respectively. Now if I try to run Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division 2, or Hitman 2016, now I can't break that 21-27 FPS regardless of settings.

I understand the C2Q is old, but it does have 4C/4T and my i5 6600K stomps it here. Is it an L2/3 cache thing, instruction set thing or what. I'm just a bit fascinated by this and was wondering if someone knew why exactly?

 

[loki1944]

Please fix the scaling on those graphs; in particular vermintide 2 and hitman 2 are very misleading. Some of these graphs can lead the viewer to get the wrong idea when in fact the performance is the same (within margin of error).

The CPU is bottlenecking pretty hard in some newer games but performance is still above consoles. If possible, a frame time graph would be nice.

I'll see what I can do. I haven't thrown up Divsion 2 and Wildlands yet, but they are really bad. Division 1 will show as ok average, but is actually unplayable. The ones I have here are playable, though Hitman you would have to endure a lot of microstutter to play it.

 

[loki1944]

The later nForce chipsets/boards always had temper.

Worst part is restarting the thing like 20 times until it finally decides,that, yes it will go to Windows.

 

[wilds]

Just tried running Sins of a Solar Empire RTS game online with a Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz and my current system as the host.

The C2Q system was causing the game to stutter every few seconds and a message kept popping up saying it was lagging.

This is a 2012 game. Newer games I won't bother with.

It reminds me of the new chinese cpu review GN did.

 

[loki1944]

Just tried running Sins of a Solar Empire RTS game online with a Q8400 @ 2.66 GHz and my current system as the host.

The C2Q system was causing the game to stutter every few seconds and a message kept popping up saying it was lagging.

This is a 2012 game. Newer games I won't bother with.

It reminds me of the new chinese cpu review GN did.

I guess it depends on which newer games; like others, smarter than me, have pointed out there are a lot of factors that impact these CPUs from instructions to cache to to chip design. But depending on someone's budget they could get by with a C2Q for quite a few games at playable FPS; sure settings would be turned down more often than not, but if you're playing something like Payday 2, Deeprock Galactic, Shadow of Mordor, Shadow of War, Total War games, even Borderlands 3 you'll be alright.

 

[Spjut]

As far as open world games: Shadow of Mordor and Shadow of War seem to scale pretty well; GTA V and the Witcher 3 are so-so, Borderlands 3 is ok, and Hitman 2016 (and Hitman 2) is really almost unplayable 3 with aggressive hitching.

Were the Hitman tests in DX12?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I guess it depends on which newer games; like others, smarter than me, have pointed out there are a lot of factors that impact these CPUs from instructions to cache to to chip design. But depending on someone's budget they could get by with a C2Q for quite a few games at playable FPS; sure settings would be turned down more often than not, but if you're playing something like Payday 2, Deeprock Galactic, Shadow of Mordor, Shadow of War, Total War games, even Borderlands 3 you'll be alright.

I have been messing around with a Phenom II 960T@4GHz w/4GB DDR2 800 and GTX 1070. I have at least 60 games in my library that run from superb to playable. Using G-SYNC, DSR, and a frame rate limiter, seem to improve the experience too. My thinking is that if you are stuck with a Platform a decade old, and older vid card like you paired, then what the heck are you doing buying new AAA games anyways? Put that money into new hardware first. For older games that you can get for dirt cheap, it is a blast. For some of the newer free to play MP stuff like Fortnite, not so much. As a daily driver, it can handle the web and youtube easily. It is certainly superior to those 2 core pentium and celeron notebooks with 64GB eMMC drives people waste money on.

 

[loki1944]

I'm looking at seeing how performance goes with a more relevant GPU; already threw the 580 3GB in the mix, but even though cpu overclock holds solid with that card and GTX Titan Black; it refuses to hold with my GTX 480 1.5GB. I did do a 180 second FRAPS run in Borderlands 3 on the lowest settings with a Titan Black 6GB; I found it very playable, but not without some hitching once in a while as seen here:

Spoiler: Borderlands 3 180 Seconds FPS

Honestly from what I'm seeing an 1100Mhz overclock isn't doing much for a performance increase in the case of this Q9650.

Spoiler: GTX 480 1.5GB with Q9650@stock 3Ghz vs everyone

 

[loki1944]

The later nForce chipsets/boards always had temper.

I think I got it figured out; unlinking the RAM from FSB fixed it. Though that begs the question why the heck on the 1/20 times it booted to windows would it run a bunch of stress tests and games fine over days. Also this issue from what I can visually see always causes a 2b or 26 error, whichever it is and causes the GPU fans to stop; so with my limited knowledge I'm guess this RAM related problem affects the PCIE power or PSU power somehow.

 

[potato masher]

Interesting reading through the posts in this thread. I had chalked it up to game updates or windows updates. I remember a certain security update being the straw that broke the camels back. Before that my quad was gaming along happy as a clam.

 

[2is]

True, but Phenom I has an integrated memory controller, which Conroe lacks. I don't doubt that a Phenom I would lose to Penryn, which had a larger L2 cache and various other improvements, but I think a contest with Conroe would be a lot more interesting.

Just having an IMC isn't good enough. It needs to actually perform well. Intel didn't need an IMC to outperform Phenom. This is all ancient history. All those processors suck by todays standards. Even the i7 920. I get it's fun screwing around with older hardware you have laying around to see how they stack up, but in many modern games, none of these are really enjoyable to use. 40-45 fps in BF:V on an OC'd 920 is pretty crappy.

 

[loki1944]

Just having an IMC isn't good enough. It needs to actually perform well. Intel didn't need an IMC to outperform Phenom. This is all ancient history. All those processors suck by todays standards. Even the i7 920. I get it's fun screwing around with older hardware you have laying around to see how they stack up, but in many modern games, none of these are really enjoyable to use. 40-45 fps in BF:V on an OC'd 920 is pretty crappy.

Don't play BFV, but the i7 920 does pretty well in most AAA games as long as you don't go too high up the GPU chain when it comes to gaming. I've got one paired with a 980Ti that does pretty well in many recent games @1080p; even games like Vermintide 2, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Division 2, and Wildlands; only AC: Origins and Odyssey gives it a harder time for me; due to its DRM I'm guessing. In Division 2 and Wildlands it's not that far behind my 7800X when paired with a 980Ti; and @2560x1440p the gap closes to less than 10 frames difference.