Is a Core2Quad still relevant nowadays?

[deanx0r]

I've had this Core2Quad rig for 5-6 years now and never felt like I needed any extra oomph. With my recent move to Mac, buying a new rig/CPU just for gaming seems a little bit irrelevant. I am just trying to push this rig as far as I can.

I just picked up a 6970 and am now having doubt whether I have the CPU horsepower to push this card, or if the card is even enough to push my monitor. Thoughts?

C2Q @ 3.6GHz
Asus P5B-Deluxe
4GB of Ram
GTX460 768MB to 6970 on an Apple LED display (2560x1440).

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Nice display!

I think the only question that matters is this: Does your 3.6GHz C2Q + 6970 produce frame rates in the games you play at the settings and resolution you like that are acceptable to you?

If you think buying a new rig (or at least CPU, board, RAM) simply to play games is an extraneous expenditure, then I think you answered your own question and don't really need anyone else's input.

 

[nsdjoe]

I have a Q6600 @ 3.2, along with an HD6870. I upgraded to the 6870 from an 8800GT and thought my fps in Bad Company 2 would skyrocket, but the increase was modest and fairly disappointing. What did happen was my CPU usage went from around 50% in-game to much closer to 100%, which leads me to believe I'm now CPU-bottlenecked. The fact that changing the graphics quality has little affect on my fps lends further credence to this belief. I still get over 50fps most of the time, so it's not a huge deal.

I had been planning on upgrading for BF3 having assumed my system would finally be rendered insufficient, but from what I'm hearing from alpha testers, the requirements will be approximately the same as BC2, so maybe I'll be good for another year?


Q6600 @ 3.2
6GB 800Mhz
6870 1GB @ Stock

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think C2Q is still decent. Not as good as a 2500K SB, certainly, but still quite acceptable.

 

[deanx0r]

I think the only question that matters is this: Does your 3.6GHz C2Q + 6970 produce frame rates in the games you play at the settings and resolution you like that are acceptable to you?

Well, I just placed the order for the 6970 and am already having buyer's remorse It is still more cost efficient than buying a miniDP converter box for my GTX460. But I've no idea how this combo gonna work out until I receive the card.

I'd love to build a new rig, but it may be cost prohibitive if the C2Q is doing fine.

@nsdjoe

I keep hearing about BC2 insane CPU requirement, but I am surprised that your move from a 8800GT to a 6870 yield little results. I've had the 8800GT for years and it became quickly anemic with high profile games at high resolutions.

 

[Red Squirrel]

My current server at home is a core2quad, runs 5-7 vms at any given time. Works fine, still a decent cpu.

 

[996GT2]

Clock for clock, Core 2 Quad still outperforms Phenom II X4. So your Core 2 Quad at 3.6 GHz is going to be competitive with the fastest AMD Phenom II X4 980.

Of course the new Sandy Bridge chips are faster, but I think that you could get a year or two more out of the Core 2 Quad before you really need to upgrade.

With a single 6970, your CPU will not really be a bottleneck. However, if you add a second 6970 then your C2Q will bottleneck the GPU's performance.

 

[podspi]

Why don't you give it a try. Unless you are thinking of replacing the video card and getting a CPU instead, nothing is hurt by trying.


Honestly though, @ 3.6ghz it is unlikely you'll have any trouble at resolutions you are going to actually want to play. You might lose quite a few benchmarks at 640x480, though

 

[RussianSensation]

I've had this Core2Quad rig for 5-6 years now and never felt like I needed any extra oomph.... to 6970 on an Apple LED display (2560x1440).

At such a high resolution, you are far more GPU limited. Your C2Q @ 3.6ghz is plenty fast for 2560x1440 with a single 6970 (which frankly isn't fast enough for that resolution for modern games).

Just wanted to point out that say a Q6600 came out Q1, 2007. So that's about 4.5 years ago, not 6!

Obviously outside of games, a 2500k stock is nearly 2x faster than a Q6600 2.4ghz, implying an IPC advantage of at least 40%. In other words, a 2500k @ 4.5ghz will be at least 75% faster in video encoding, rendering, photoshop, etc. But for games, you'll need a far faster setup than a single 6970 at 2560 to see such a difference.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Just wanted to point out that say a Q6600 came out Q1, 2007. So that's about 4.5 years ago, not 6!

I thought something sounded a little strange about that. I've had my S775 rigs since 2007 too, but I didn't have quad-cores in them originally. I had E2140s @ 3.2.

 

[deanx0r]

At such a high resolution, you are far more GPU limited. Your C2Q @ 3.6ghz is plenty fast for 2560x1440 with a single 6970 (which frankly isn't fast enough for that resolution for modern games).

Just wanted to point out that say a Q6600 came out Q1, 2007. So that's about 4.5 years ago, not 6!

What minimum frame rate do you think is appropriate for modern games? Looking at the 6970 test at Anandtech, the card seems to perform well above 30 fps between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 in games like crysis. I think that is okay for most SP games. For MP, I only run TF2 and SC2 which should run at least a solid 60fps (vsync on).

And I think you are right about the Q6600 being out in 2007. I originally built this rig right when the Conroe was out in 2006 iirc, with an E6600. I am still amazed by the longevity of this platform. Rock solid cpu and motherboard, the only thing I keep replacing is the video card.

 

[sm625]

3.6GHz is pretty damn fast. Unfortunately it only costs $200 for a phenom (including the motherboard and 4GB DDR3) that will overclock high enough to beat it in overall performance.

 

[GTSRguy]

If anything, your CPU is behind your GPU by alot.

I have a better CPU than you, a 32nm i5 2400, and a lesser GPU, a HD6970M. Im also running a 2560x1440 Apple display (iMac). I have the mobile verison of your card, and it keeps up with my display just fine, even with gaming. So i assume your card, being alot faster should def be ok.

 

[dguy6789]

Sure is. A lot of people consider Phenom II relevant and Core 2 Quad is faster than that.

 

[blckgrffn]

I am assuming that's Penryn? If you could pull off waiting one more CPU generation that will have proven to be a very good investment.

I would like to think a Core 2 Quad is still relevant, myself... Haven't found a game that has shown me otherwise, yet.

Back in the day, when bouncing coins and barrels in Painkiller brought my frames way down with my Athlon XP 3200+ and I moved to a Socket 754 3700+ was probably the only time I have waited long enough for my CPU to really bottle neck me though... so I am probably not a good judge. I am sticking with my Core 2 because of a spousal "deal" I made for my HD projector...

I bet if you played your cards right and have a microcenter handy you could go 2500k for about $100 out of pocket, or less.

 

[piasabird]

I think the new core 2 quads with turbo boost are leaps and bounds better than the older QUADS. There is a lot more room for improvement as we start using multiple core processors.

 

[deanx0r]

3.6GHz is pretty damn fast. Unfortunately it only costs $200 for a phenom (including the motherboard and 4GB DDR3) that will overclock high enough to beat it in overall performance.

There is no doubt that the newer CPUs are going to be faster, specially if there is overclocking involved. $200 might land you a faster CPU, but it might be irrelevant if the current set up is enough.

 

[996GT2]

3.6GHz is pretty damn fast. Unfortunately it only costs $200 for a phenom (including the motherboard and 4GB DDR3) that will overclock high enough to beat it in overall performance.

Uhh...

Phenom II X4s top out at around 4, 4.2 GHz. It'll be faster than a Core 2 Quad @ 3.6 GHz, but the performance difference there is pretty negligible.

Now, going from a Core 2 Quad to Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge, on the other hand...is a much bigger upgrade.

 

[BD231]

If you have a core2quad going Phenom II is senseless, I'm not hurting for performance and I doubt clock for clock I'm doing any better than you OP.

You should be able to get plenty out if the C2Q, personally I'm just planing to get enough out of my chip until a value cpu comes along that can trounce it. Been hard not to jump on the Sandy Bridge bandwagon but I'd like to see BD before I make a move.

 

[nyker96]

I think as long as you are getting over 30fps in games, it's ok. In your case, you are CPU limited, what you can do is this. As long as your CPU can do 30fps, you can squeeze out your GPU power by turning up resolution and detail level. say you are playing Crysis 2 w/ new Hirez patch, at 720p+medium setting you get 35fps, since you are cpu limited, you will never go over 35fps, what you do is go to 1080p+max setting, now you will still get 35fps but with incredible visuals. That way you will never waste your GPU power even know you are CPU limited. But ... if you CPU can't give you 35fps even at very low resolutions, then it's time to upgrade that cpu.

 

[ieatdonuts]

The thing with threads like these is that how long you can wait depends entirely on you and your preferences. It depends on your budget, your income, how willing you are to spend. It depends on the frames you are trying to achieve, the games you are trying to play.

You can make a better decision that anyone on this board can. So I say you should make the decision. A Core 2 Quad is not definitively obsolete, but it's still somewhat of a bottleneck.

 

[OCGuy]

The 45nm are still better than anything AMD puts out, so I sure hope so!

 

[DougoMan]

I should point out that you can get an absurd amount of money selling your Core2Quad on Ebay.

I just sold a Q6600, Gigabyte motherboard and 4GB DDR Ram for around $300.

That almost covered the entire cost of my Sanda Bridge setup.

 

[Rifter]

as relevant as a PH II.

 

[tweakboy]

The first quad processor was in 2007. Soo its not 5 to 6 years.. more like 4 years ... What is it that your current processor cant do, or is doing slow ?

I've had this Core2Quad rig for 5-6 years now and never felt like I needed any extra oomph. With my recent move to Mac, buying a new rig/CPU just for gaming seems a little bit irrelevant. I am just trying to push this rig as far as I can.

I just picked up a 6970 and am now having doubt whether I have the CPU horsepower to push this card, or if the card is even enough to push my monitor. Thoughts?

C2Q @ 3.6GHz
Asus P5B-Deluxe
4GB of Ram
GTX460 768MB to 6970 on an Apple LED display (2560x1440).