• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Last Draw for Core 2

M

Mir96TA

Golden Member
2ylsb5w.jpg

Need mem upgrade to 4 more GB
 
Why bother? Anything requiring 8GB is likely going to run miserably slow on an ancient C2Q. Even that one.
 
Nothing requires 8 GB but I have notice Win 7 bit more fluid with 8 GB.
It is cheaper to get 4 more GB and Maximized the platform; till MB or CPU dies
 
Should do fine with browsing, other basics, and some light gaming. There are still plenty of games that run fine on Core 2 Quads; especially if it's yorkfield.

My mother is still using a Dell Optiplex SSF box for browsing, basics, and citrix with a Phenom X4 9650 and 8GiB of RAM with Windows 10 on a 64GB Plextor m3.
 
Shivansps said:
And C2Q are true quads, C2D true duals...
Click to expand...

If I recall, Core 2 Quads worked the same way Pentium Ds did - they're two dies on one package. They're effectively two dual core CPUs taped together. I believe this can theoretically make communication between the CPUs slower.

That said, overclock that CPU if you haven't already. A Core 2 Quad at 4.0 GHz would theoretically perform roughly on par with a modern 2.5 GHz quad core. That's pretty impressive for a CPU that's eight years old - can you imagine using a Pentium MMX in 2006 and expecting it to manage 70% the performance of a Core 2 Solo?
 
pantsaregood said:
If I recall, Core 2 Quads worked the same way Pentium Ds did - they're two dies on one package. They're effectively two dual core CPUs taped together. I believe this can theoretically make communication between the CPUs slower.

That said, overclock that CPU if you haven't already. A Core 2 Quad at 4.0 GHz would theoretically perform roughly on par with a modern 2.5 GHz quad core. That's pretty impressive for a CPU that's eight years old - can you imagine using a Pentium MMX in 2006 and expecting it to manage 70% the performance of a Core 2 Solo?
Click to expand...

i7 920 @4ghz (cpu from 2008 ) is way more impressive today.

consider it was 300$, but most pple paid 250$ for it (or less in my case)
 
Mir96TA said:
It feel no slow here at all.
It is running on SSD
Click to expand...

Exactly my feeling here. Even nunning a slower (2.66GHz) core quad with a lowish 4GB, SSD makes miracles on these rigs! 😉
Recent games do run even in fullhd with low details left and right, no filters because I don't even care (and GPU could die if I turn them on), but after all I usually play much more older games that run effortlessly.
Ram though is an issue at times when using photo editing softwares or poorly written programs (think Minecraft with 2GB allocated... I'm left with some 500MB free ram).

Comically a laptop with i7 and 16GB is better for productivity and I switch to that when I have to 3D model etc... yet 7700K or whatever it will be called plus Vega/Volta could make me feel like to upgrade in 2017.
Or I could resist up to 2018 for 10nm and 6 cores, so this rig will be 10 year old... wow. I would have never imagined it could last this long, it's kind of sad too. :|
 
I was very impressed, that my Q9300 (OCed to 2.8Ghz), and a R7 260X 2GB video card, could decode and view 4K60 YouTube, even at 2560x1440 VSR resolution. (What I now run my 1920x1080 monitor at. More screen real-estate for free.)

Edit: But I've got my memory maxed out at 4x2GB DDR2-800. 8GB on a Core2Quad is essential these days. I wouldn't run a PC with less than 8GB, unless it's strictly a low-end "browser box", and even then, that's pretty cramped. (Like a laptop with only one RAM slot, that came with 4GB stock, or something, that I haven't bothered to upgrade yet.)
 
Last edited:
That chip is about equivalent to a Sandybridge i3 at stock clocks, so it's not surprising you can still compute competently with it.

I've actually got a friend who has a ThinkCentre M58p, and dropped a Xeon L3360 (server equivalent of the 65W Q9550s) into it, along with a low-profile GeForce 730 and 8GB of memory. It's a surprisingly good gamer for titles a few years old.
 
Azuma Hazuki said:
That chip is about equivalent to a Sandybridge i3 at stock clocks, so it's not surprising you can still compute competently with it.

I've actually got a friend who has a ThinkCentre M58p, and dropped a Xeon L3360 (server equivalent of the 65W Q9550s) into it, along with a low-profile GeForce 730 and 8GB of memory. It's a surprisingly good gamer for titles a few years old.
Click to expand...

I bought a whole bunch of GT730 (Kepler, 384 CC) dGPUs, that came with LP brackets, but I seem to have mis-placed the brackets. Along with some other things. Which, I could have sworn, I had around here, but now they're no-where to be found. Gremlins. 🙁
 
This box will be use for browsing u tube facebook email,roadblox and extra PC
And play HD Disc and Blue Ray.
Just need to find software to play thise disc.
 
On a 965 BE 'ere.

I think the lads with these upper end i7 thingymajiggers just need a bit o' perspective. Me ancient proccy is pretty potent at games. Sure, it ain't ever going to reach that sweet constant 60fps since it's an AMD CPU (bad draw call perf), but 'ey. I'm still gpu bound with this 7850.
 
one worrying thing is DX12 being broken on Core 2 with the latest AMD drivers

but for web browsing my E5420 even stock (2.5GHz) feels fine

also the memory performance tends to be low, so I think some games like GTA V are specially penalized by that?
 
SPBHM said:
one worrying thing is DX12 being broken on Core 2 with the latest AMD drivers

but for web browsing my E5420 even stock (2.5GHz) feels fine

also the memory performance tends to be low, so I think some games like GTA V are specially penalized by that?
Click to expand...
I think win 7 highest DX is DX 11
 
Denithor said:
Why bother? Anything requiring 8GB is likely going to run miserably slow on an ancient C2Q. Even that one.
Click to expand...

Only thing my C2Q Q9650 w/8GB can't reliably run is Star Citizen. I'm not a fps junky and I don't play COD games but it ran BF3 fine, BF4 demo good enough. I agree its toward the end of its useful gaming life.
 
If you look at the OS forum, you'll see how I and other speculated about Microsoft's "Windows Update" problem to suggest they were covertly doing more to encourage migration to Win 10 than simply "advertising." This, of course, is speculation, but you can add to that the possibility that MS might want to encourage folks to unload really "dated" hardware.

Also, merely a suspicion of mine . . . .
 
Even a Core 2 Duo class CPU (at least if well over 2 GHz) + SSD + 8 GB RAM works quite well, esp. if it's mated to Windows 10.

Not so much if you're gaming, but more than fine for most business usage, surfing, and video playback.

Yuriman said:
Consider - Core2Quad has about the same IPC as AMD's FM2+ APUs.
Click to expand...
I am using 2.9 GHz triple-core AM3 + 8 GB + SSD. Even that seems fine to me, despite being so old.

No, it's not quite as instantaneous for surfing as the recent Core i7 CPUs, but I'd say it's more than adequate for >90% of the population, myself included.
 
A Core 2 is useless in 2016. Web browsing is so bloated I wouldn't even bother with an i3. A new i5 with at least of 8GB RAM if not 16GB would be a huge difference along with a way more modern chipset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top