- Sep 26, 2011
- 9,263
- 5,312
- 136
Ivy Bridge vs Core 2 duo and Core 2 quad
- Thread starter pauldun170
- Start date
To think I upgraded my E8400 -> i7 930 -> 3570k, and it's only 50% faster in starcraft (all I play)!
1. CPUs help a lot in smoothness, experience, and remove stuttering/lag/jerkiness, even if FPS aren't very different, the experience can be a lot different and improved. Unlike GPUs where FPS and MS are the only criteria, for CPUs it isn't the same. There is no research for this except my experience but it holds true if you have the aptitude and observational power to comprehend it, which 99.9% people can not understand but can feel the difference in a blind test.
2. In Starcraft, your new CPU in FPS terms is about 100% faster which is unlikely over a single CPU generation.
3. 2500k and 3570k are essentially the same performance. So you are unnecessarily adding a generation which added 0 value to anything at all.
4. The newer CPUs overclock higher as well, which you didn't take into account.
5. Try playing with a fast card on a Q9650 at stock, then at 4GHz, then with a Core i3 and then with a Core i5 quad. The difference will be very obvious in each case in 80%+ of today's games. Especially in terms of the fps graph, smoothness and experience and to a significant extent in terms of median fps as well.
6. The Q9550 is unplayable in all games while the 3570k is playable. Isn't this a big enough difference? Besides, I guarantee you that assuming both CPUs get 40 FPS, the 3570k will still be a smoother experience.
7. My experience with old games back in the day, (present games of that time)
A643200 @2.4 to E4500
Huge difference even if FPS are similar or more. Though FPS were always more except with much higher settings on the latter.
E4500 to E7200
Minimum difference but could be felt by the naked eye at times.
E7200 oc to Q9550 stock/oc
Some difference in some games, no difference in others. Worth upgrading at that time but debatable VFM.
Q9550 oc to Core i7 860 stock
Significant performance difference, big jump, a lot more smoother and much better consistent fps, huge difference in fact with games of the period.
Core i7 860 oc to Core i7 2600k stock
Minimum difference at that time, barely noticeable. But of course things will be very different today and i don't regret the move.
Core i7 2600k 4.3 to Core i7 3770k 4.3
Never noticed a difference at that time. Can't say about now, but I really doubt it. I regret this move.
2. In Starcraft, your new CPU in FPS terms is about 100% faster which is unlikely over a single CPU generation.
3. 2500k and 3570k are essentially the same performance. So you are unnecessarily adding a generation which added 0 value to anything at all.
4. The newer CPUs overclock higher as well, which you didn't take into account.
5. Try playing with a fast card on a Q9650 at stock, then at 4GHz, then with a Core i3 and then with a Core i5 quad. The difference will be very obvious in each case in 80%+ of today's games. Especially in terms of the fps graph, smoothness and experience and to a significant extent in terms of median fps as well.
6. The Q9550 is unplayable in all games while the 3570k is playable. Isn't this a big enough difference? Besides, I guarantee you that assuming both CPUs get 40 FPS, the 3570k will still be a smoother experience.
7. My experience with old games back in the day, (present games of that time)
A643200 @2.4 to E4500
Huge difference even if FPS are similar or more. Though FPS were always more except with much higher settings on the latter.
E4500 to E7200
Minimum difference but could be felt by the naked eye at times.
E7200 oc to Q9550 stock/oc
Some difference in some games, no difference in others. Worth upgrading at that time but debatable VFM.
Q9550 oc to Core i7 860 stock
Significant performance difference, big jump, a lot more smoother and much better consistent fps, huge difference in fact with games of the period.
Core i7 860 oc to Core i7 2600k stock
Minimum difference at that time, barely noticeable. But of course things will be very different today and i don't regret the move.
Core i7 2600k 4.3 to Core i7 3770k 4.3
Never noticed a difference at that time. Can't say about now, but I really doubt it. I regret this move.
Last edited:
jimbob200521
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2005
- 4,108
- 29
- 91
Kinda wonder why they didn't include any i7-9xx series chips, seems like they skipped a middle generation.
Otherwise, great article.
Otherwise, great article.
Last edited:
tweakboy
Diamond Member
The move from a e6750 to a q6600@3ghz was amazing but the move to a i7 940 to me felt like a waste of a upgrade,i am amazed to see how efficient the newer intel quads are with the e8400 pulling more wattage during gaming then the i5 ivy quad. :biggrin:
Might be a while before i even consider switching out my i5 2500 non k,i should compliment this chip with anticipation of keeping it a while with a awesome motherboard more worthy then my gigabyte h61 microatx....maybe the gene?
Might be a while before i even consider switching out my i5 2500 non k,i should compliment this chip with anticipation of keeping it a while with a awesome motherboard more worthy then my gigabyte h61 microatx....maybe the gene?
Still have one computer with an E7200. It works great still. I dont game much. Still works for watching internet video.
TakeNoPrisoners
Platinum Member
- Jun 3, 2011
- 2,599
- 1
- 81
Wow, pretty much every game benefits from a nice fast quad core. Dual cores just don't cut it for max settings anymore.
Nice article, kudos to THG for doing their full suite of benches for this article. Pity they left out the OC scores of the 3570K though - even a modest 4.2GHz would have been nice. If anyone is listening, I'd like to see more articles along this line from other review sites too.
jimbob200521
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2005
- 4,108
- 29
- 91
200-400MHz higher should be enough to perform just like the 3.4GHz q9550 they tested...
I think I'm one of the few around here who only looks at productivity apps when reading CPU comparisons.
If I wanted higher FPS in a game, I'd just get a new graphics card for a more meaningful impact.
If I wanted higher FPS in a game, I'd just get a new graphics card for a more meaningful impact.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 25,232
- 14,725
- 136
Indeed.
If you're still holding onto a core2quad like me, and going by the ~2x performance increase rule before upgrading, this is about the time to get building.
I can confirm...
My old E8400 (never OC'ed) PC died a while ago after years of service and I replaced it with a modern 3470 setup.
What an upgrade! Hard to believe, honestly, difference was like night and day.
My old E8400 (never OC'ed) PC died a while ago after years of service and I replaced it with a modern 3470 setup.
What an upgrade! Hard to believe, honestly, difference was like night and day.
I upgraded from a low tier core 2 duo to a 3570k based system a while back and the difference was tremendous in every game I tried, even before my new GPU had arrived (I was using the old one).
I see threads all the time started by people who are getting worse than expected performance in games with their new systems, and a huge number of them involve low end, value oriented processors. Too many people underestimate the importance of the CPU in gaming.
I see threads all the time started by people who are getting worse than expected performance in games with their new systems, and a huge number of them involve low end, value oriented processors. Too many people underestimate the importance of the CPU in gaming.
I like articles that compare a few generation old processors vs the new cheap chips.
Rarely do I read people writing about the Celeron chips. For the price it is you cannot go wrong.
Rarely do I read people writing about the Celeron chips. For the price it is you cannot go wrong.
WTSherman
Member
- May 18, 2013
- 91
- 0
- 0
I'm still running the Q9550. It's a hard situation to be in because as much as I would like something new like the I5 3570K in the article I can't bear to spend $200+ on something that isn't going to be a huge upgrade. Most other people made that expensive jump away from LGA775 a few years ago but the money dried up right when this was going on for me. I definitely got my money out of the Q9550 though, having used it in my main system since they came out. It was overclocked to around 4 Ghz for a year or so too.
WilliamM2
Platinum Member
- Jun 14, 2012
- 2,833
- 802
- 136
I was in the same boat last year with my Core2. My motherboard was getting flaky, and I debated just replacing the board, as I knew it wouldn't be a huge jump.
I really didn't want to buy a new board for a CPU that was almost 5 years old, so I ended up rebuilding with an i5 2500K (@4.4Ghz). Besides the performance increase, I also gained SATA 3, USB 3, UEFI bios, and other features I didn't have before. That seemed to make it worthwhile. Probably good for another 4 years too.
Revolution 11
Senior member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 952
- 79
- 91
How did the raw performance increase feel to you? Would you say it was a substantial boost? Is the smoothness of your system better? I am also with a Core 2 PC and will be moving to Haswell so any opinions are welcome.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter