Q8300 (2.5Ghz) still any good for gaming?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
Even an i7 860 was a limit for me.

While there is a difference on need and want. A faster CPU sure would make a difference.
Were you running your 860 at stock? If you jumped to 3570K then of course you will see a big increase, the IPC went up by ~15% and clock of your IB is considerably higher due to better Turbo(~3.5-3.6Ghz in games vs ~2.9Ghz on your older i7).
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Were you running your 860 at stock? If you jumped to 3570K then of course you will see a big increase, the IPC went up by ~15% and clock of your IB is considerably higher due to better Turbo(~3.5-3.6Ghz in games vs ~2.9Ghz on your older i7).

Yes. So is the OP (atleast for now) :)

But it just shows even a 2.8Ghz i7 860 is the limit. So a 2.5Ghz older Q8300 aint exactly gonna be any better.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
He can OC his Q8300 ;). But if he doesn't want to bother with OCing he can just buy newer CPU/MB combo and be done with it. It will cost him some $$$ but it's the easier way than OCing and possibly braking some of his current stuff.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
I just played BF3 on a 40 man server in a conquest map and the performance was pretty good. With all settings on high, 2xAA and 16xAF I averaged 49fps with dips to 27 and highs to 93 according to fraps over a 22 minute span. CPU averaged a ~91% load and GPU load was pegged at 96~99%.

To say these CPUs cant game is hilarious. At least with a 68xx card they are an equal match with games that can utilize a quad core.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
I just played BF3 on a 40 man server in a conquest map and the performance was pretty good. With all settings on high, 2xAA and 16xAF I averaged 49fps with dips to 27 and highs to 93 according to fraps over a 22 minute span. CPU averaged a ~91% load and GPU load was pegged at 96~99%.

To say these CPUs cant game is hilarious. At least with a 68xx card they are an equal match with games that can utilize a quad core.
Your post is interesting since I have very similar system and I play BF3 :). I have K10 @3GHz ,4GB RAM and 6870 1GB. My average fps with settings VERY similar to yours is around ~45fps on 32-48 slot servers. Lows at around 29-30fps with maximum slots and maximum explosions/action (Gulf of Oman is the heaviest) and highs at 75fps since I pegged it with vsync trick to my monitor refresh rate. These "old" CPUs certainly can run modern titles ;).

Now having said that,running Planetside2 on my machine is one painful experience in heavy action situations(think 22fps-30fps maximum :D). That game is a PC tormentor!
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
It obviously very much depends on the game. I personally am unhappy at anything other than 60 fps constantly so I wouldn't find either of the above acceptable. But if you happy in the 30-45 fps range then a lot of games can be played on the older dual cores just fine. They still out perform the consoles so its fair to conclude many ports will run very well on such a PC.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
It obviously very much depends on the game. I personally am unhappy at anything other than 60 fps constantly so I wouldn't find either of the above acceptable. But if you happy in the 30-45 fps range then a lot of games can be played on the older dual cores just fine. They still out perform the consoles so its fair to conclude many ports will run very well on such a PC.
Well 30fps is certainly not "smooth" but 40+fps is (for me at least). Running 45fps and running 75fps in BF3 I cannot see a difference to be honest. The low(minimum) of 30fps I hit very rarely and when it happens it's usually lasting a short while.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,884
4,691
136
That's true but like I've said, for me average is what I usually see with my system in BF3 MP ;). That means that the lowest fps (~30fps) is hit very rarely and ~45fps is more or less constant. The high (75fps) is rarely achieved in combat,it's usually when running around and not engaging any enemies. All this on high slot count servers. If I play on 24 slot servers I see higher(than 45) fps naturally.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
Remember minimum FPS is what matters, not average.

^ Subjective.

In most FPS games (BF3 especially) the frame dip (what accounts for the minimum) is usually caused by a predetermined animation (buildings crashing, massive explosions, etc) where one doesn't have the ability to accurate control the motions while the action is taking place. Such examples are crashing a plane into the ground (the animation for the player is different than the other living players in terms of complexity), changing perspectives from first person to third after being shot, and the building you're in being blown up (all you can see is fog anyway).

In no firefight was I getting less than 35~37FPS, and it typically hung around the average.
 

Jacky60

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2010
1,123
0
0
The Q8300 is a quad core...
Oops my bad, well you will be 'ok' for some games with a quad core Q8300 but it certainly needs overclocking. It won't be the quickest CPU on the block but should be serviceable.
 

Seier

Junior Member
Oct 26, 2009
6
0
0
Yes, I'd definitely overclock your Q8300. I'm running my at 3.0GHZ and will try higher when I get better RAM. However, I have a GTX 295 and can still run most games just fine. I'm sure if you took either any two AMD n800 or Nvidia n70+ series or any one AMD n9 or Nvidia n9 card you should be just fine for a while coming. If you are lucky enough to have an SLI board and multiple 90 (NVIDIA) or 900 (AMD) then almost all games will play just fine for a while to come. My statement holds true with anything like the 2xGTX 275, or 2x4870 these will do a passable job 30-50 fps or 2 GTX 295s (Dual GPU Card) 2 4870x2s (Dual GPU Card) should kick ass for a while to come. All that being said I don't recommend anyone play any game until it's at least 2 years old. Let them work the bugs out and optimize it. The same game will run faster and cause you far less grief if you can keep your pants on long enough for them to work most of the bugs out. I recently beat Quake 4 and it's still a fun game. I'm playing Batman: Arkham Asylum right now. I plan on playing these other games I own when I get around to it Crysis I, II, Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed: Brotherhood and Half Life 2. They're all great highly rated games. I'd rather have a system that is overkill for a particular game than play the latest and greatest with something passable. I know I saw nearly the full potential of Quake 4 and am enjoying nearly the full potential of Batman Arkham Asylum. Old games are great, the vast majority of bugs have been worked out. Your system can handle it, the hacks, and walkthroughs have all been published, and your drivers have either been tuned to work better or not crash while playing. Not only that, but you can pick them up on Steam for $5-10 vs. $50-60. Pre-ordering is pure insanity in my opinion, wait until the game doesn't crash after every 15 minutes of gameplay.
 

tonyfreak215

Senior member
Nov 21, 2008
274
0
76
I currently run a Q9550 at 3.6 with a 6970. I have yet to experience where my CPU would slow games down to an unplayable rate. I know that my CPU is a bottle neck, but it's nothing too severe.

I can run Far Cry 3 at 1080 and everything at high (or better) and it runs very smooth. (except the radio towers have a small stutter) I will check the frames when I get home.

I would just overclock for now. If you really wan to upgrade, I would wait for Haswell. You've waited this long, why not another few months?
 

Hubb1e

Senior member
Aug 25, 2011
396
0
71
At 2.5ghz it's getting a bit long in the tooth for games that aren't well threaded. That's not a lot of single thread speed. At 3ghz my Q6600 was getting long in the tooth but could still hang fairly well a year ago, but time marches on and I don't regret upgrading at all.

But, this is an easy test for you to do yourself. Set your graphics card to the lowest settings on the games you play so you can take that out of the equation, and then see if your games run smoothly enough for you. If they do, then you're not CPU limited yet.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,067
990
126
I'm still able to play the newest games, so as I said above, it's not really a bottleneck. Especially in NEW games!