Is a Core2Quad still relevant nowadays?

[gramboh]

OP: have you received and tested the card? Curious about your impressions. I have a slower C2Q (3.3GHz) and went from a GTX280 to a GTX 560Ti (slower than a 6970 obviously) but I only game at 1920x1200. So far, the only thing I've played which brings it down is Witcher 2 with everything (besides ubersampling) maxed, it's still playable, but feels like it dips into the 20's sometimes.

BF3 should be fine judging by the Alpha, as long as you do not max out AA.

 

[Arg Clin]

That's a fair assessment when you are testing games at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 4AA/8AA. 2560x1600 resolution alone is nearly 2x that of 1080P, and that's before any AA is applied. For high resolutions like that, GPU is where it's at

Well OP was asking specifically about a res of 2560x1440. I don't see how a single 6970 could bottleneck a C2Q in that res. generally speaking. (assuming it performs like a PH II)

 

[sangyup81]

if you sell your C2Q, you should still be able to get a decent amount of money

 

[RussianSensation]

Well OP was asking specifically about a res of 2560x1440. I don't see how a single 6970 could bottleneck a C2Q in that res. generally speaking. (assuming it performs like a PH II)

The HD6970 is the limiting component at 2560x1440 not the C2Q 3.6ghz. In modern games, HD6970 is barely running at 25-35 fps with AA at that rez. In games like Crysis 2, Shogun 2, Metro 2033, Witcher 2, it's a slideshow.

 

[Arg Clin]

The HD6970 is the limiting component at 2560x1440 not the C2Q 3.6ghz. In modern games, HD6970 is barely running at 25-35 fps with AA at that rez. In games like Crysis 2, Shogun 2, Metro 2033, Witcher 2, it's a slideshow.

Exactly! Even if OP were to get CrossfireX'ed 6970'es, the C2Q still wouldn't be the bottleneck @ 2560x1440.

I do see your point though, that's a single 6970 may not really be a good idea for 2560x1440 overall. But that wouldn't change by getting a new CPU - OP should rather go CrossfireX or get a faster GPU.

 

[WT]

I'm kind of amazed that no one has mentioned the fact that C2Q's have what amounts to equal IPC as Phenom II's. At decent clockrates, these chips are very solid still today.

:thumbsup: I'm still rocking a Q6700@3.5 that I bought 3 years ago. A friend of mine picked up a freebie Phenom II 965 BE and gave it to me (he's an Intel only guy) and I thought, SWEET, upgrade !!
Then I found out my brand new AMD chip was no faster than my 3 year old Kenstfield chip. :hmm:

I'm soon ready to retire the Q6700, altho I am not sure whether to sell it (Ebay, CL, etc. have not been very kind to me) or just upgrade another PC in the house with it.

 

[masterbm]

I would say they are core 2quad are still relevant. My q6600 until a month ago was my main gaming rig always did more then 30 fps with 460. It was upgrade to sandy bridge 2500k. I have few phII they are faster then q6600 and overclock better, but I would not make gaming rig out phII ,sandy bridge is better value. My q6600 is now my main workstation which is a linux box.

 

[bntran02]

A C2Q is still a beast and is still plenty. If you feel your computer is getting slow then it is unlikely to be the result of your older processor. Current processors are much faster but they rarely tap into the extra power.

My opinion is to keep your rig for another 1-2 years and upgrade to a sizable SSD drive. No other upgrade or combination of upgrades will give you the everyday "oomph" that you are looking for.

 

[hooflung]

If it's a 9000 series, sure, they're on par with the phenom IIs, if it's an 8000 series, then probably not.

this many times this.

Not every c2q is built that same. Kentsfield no. Yorkfield's with 6mb+ caches yes. Wolfdales with 6mb cache are the only competitor to PII x2's either. And AMD had the PII x3 720 answer that call.

But I reccon you will start to really hit a memory performance level with the core 2 products in newer titles where older ones it might not be as prevailant.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I bought my QX6700 kentsfield quadcore in 2006.

I suspect you are thinking of the Q6600 which wasn't released until Jan 8, 2007.

That's fairly amazing to me. You could have bought a processor in 2006, overclock it, and it will still be pretty solid today. Sure, you're not going to be on top in benches, but it'll generally do most things very, very well.

Your QX6700 is probably close in performance to my PhII. Again, though I won't win any benches when compared to new chips, there isn't a game I cannot play smoothly.

 

[toyota]

That's fairly amazing to me. You could have bought a processor in 2006, overclock it, and it will still be pretty solid today. Sure, you're not going to be on top in benches, but it'll generally do most things very, very well.

Your QX6700 is probably close in performance to my PhII. Again, though I won't win any benches when compared to new chips, there isn't a game I cannot play smoothly.

well it was the very end of 2006 and it was a $1000 cpu. the faster i7 920 was released almost exactly 2 years later and was only 300 bucks at launch.

 

[RussianSensation]

well it was the very end of 2006 and it was a $1000 cpu. the faster i7 920 was released almost exactly 2 years later and was only 300 bucks at launch.

I remember because I was looking to buy the Q6600 back then. I saw its price fall from $851 or so to $530 and then to ~ $300 in a span of 8 months. It was worth the wait for such a price drop!

 

[bryanW1995]

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.

I think that a single 6970 isn't bad for 2560x1440. Heck, it's only 5-10% slower than a gtx 580 at that res!

@OP: I'd buy BC2 and try it out before getting any new hardware. Early rumors of its ability to bring a system to its knees are based upon early RC's with unoptimized drivers. Maybe once you get the game you'll be happy with your details/fps and won't need to make any other changes. And if you do decide to make some changes, then we can help you figure out the right changes to make!

 

[VirtualLarry]

I remember because I was looking to buy the Q6600 back then. I saw its price fall from $851 or so to $530 and then to ~ $300 in a span of 8 months. It was worth the wait for such a price drop!

Now will Intel's hex-cores have the same sort of pricing drops?

 

[Smartazz]

Now will Intel's hex-cores have the same sort of pricing drops?

Maybe if Bulldozer offers some serious competition?

 

[rootz91]

as long as it still serves your purposes and run your games beautifully, it's completely okay

 

[coreyb]

still running a Q6000 at 3.6 and a 5870. runs all everything nicely

 

[videogames101]

My Q9550 still rocks games, np.

This chip was baller, so fast, even when you check it against Sandy Bridge it almost keeps up. This was the first chip I don't regret going extra-high-end on, the ~$300 has gone a long long way. I always thought go mid level-cpu and high end gpu, but I really feel like the extra cash on the cpu can give your pc more staying power overall, at least for me.

 

[digitard]

Glad to see this thread answering some of my C2Q questions.

I have a LGA 775 system I built in 2008, and was considering a rebuild for BF3 and just to rebuild it. The more I was looking, though, the more it seemed just possibly updating my RAM + CPU (or even just OC'ing my E8500 more) was going to be my best option for now since I really don't want to drop the cash if I don't have to on a new mobo/ram/processor combo.

I think I'm going to swap out my E8500 for a Q9550 (or maybe a 9650 if I can get my hands on a good enough deal) and revisit it in 6-12 months. Then just drop another 4GB of RAM in for a few bucks (Newegg still carries the same RAM I picked up initially) and call it a day for now.

 

[jellowiggler]

This is the same conclusion I reached 4 months ago. My q6600 is doing me fine. I run it at 3.2ghz because I only have an arctic cooling freezer 7 pro. I clocks up to 3.6, but I need better cooling to do it on a sustained basis.

I find that this 2007 processor puts out phenom2 965 speeds so I haven't upgraded. Just the video card and monitor.

I will likely be on the ivy bridge or BD boat about 6-12 months after they come out.