Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

All about CPU, mainboards, and memory.

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Wed May 08, 2013 8:42 pm

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy ... ,3487.html

In the end, we're impressed by the staying power of Intel's Core 2 architecture, especially the 45 nm CPUs tested today. But we’re also saddened that Intel no longer sells budget-friendly processors to enthusiasts, like so many Celerons and Pentiums from the past. While the company clearly made big improvements to threaded performance, memory bandwidth, efficiency, and value-added features, it's a little disappointing that an overclocked Core 2 Duo from four or five years ago can match or beat today's best dual-core offerings. Of course, we're keeping in mind that the E8400 original sold for almost three times as much. But still, it would be fun to disable two of Core i5-3570K's cores and see how a K-series Pentium might have performed.

Finally, we found that an overclocked Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) easily outmaneuvers the latest Core i3 in many video encoding and productivity applications. Once it's clocked high enough, it even matches the i3 in threaded games.

The real winner today has to be Intel's Core i5-3570K control processor. Out of the box, it's pretty much unrivaled by any of these lower-priced chips. And, sporting the unlocked multiplier enthusiasts covet, it'd let us tap into even greater levels of performance, if that were the point of this story.


8) :D

Nice to see the old Quadcore ( Q9550 ) and even the old E8400 dual core hang with the new processors ( once overclocked of course ). Sure the new cpu's are faster, but it is the "gap" between them that concerns me, and it is smaller than I would have guessed it to be after reading that review.

The only difference between my Q9400 and the Q9550 quad is the amount of L2 cache, mine has 6 MB, the 9550 has 12 MB, otherwise they are identical.

So my cpu , Q9400 running at 3.35 Ghz would be very close the Q9550 @ 3.40 Ghz ( as overclocked and tested in that review ), very very close...

My cpu is still "strong enough" for current games ( this year at least ) so I hope to keep my rig running like this for rest of the year then upgrade my platform next year.

I want to get a new sound card ( Asus Xonar DX for $90 or so ) and a new video card ( Asus GTX 660 Ti on sale ) this summer and that will be "enough" to keep me happy till next year.

Thanks to Tom's hw for this review, I love reviews like this that pit older hw against newer hw in a big "shootout" review to see exactly how much faster ( or not ) the new stuff is compared to the old...kudos...

Image

:mrgreen: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu May 09, 2013 1:08 am

So you started to save up some coins for next years upgrade..
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu May 09, 2013 1:58 am

Yep, got me one of these! :

Image
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby TAViX » Thu May 09, 2013 4:08 am

I donno man... I had a Q9650 with a little oc, but after my mobo craped, I replace it with a i7-3770k and 16 GB - DDR3 RAM. I don't exaggerate on saying that almost ALL of my games are now played with almost DOUBLE the FPS, so before I was having ~40-50FPS with my 5870, now I have on the same settings more than 80 FPS... That was a good update, surprisingly good.
Image
User avatar
TAViX
X-Bit Gundarm
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Fuzz » Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 am

I'll keep this article on hand next time one of my users asks for a new faster computer. :) Although the one running the P4 prescott may have a case...
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu May 09, 2013 1:54 pm

TAViX wrote:I donno man... I had a Q9650 with a little oc, but after my mobo craped, I replace it with a i7-3770k and 16 GB - DDR3 RAM. I don't exaggerate on saying that almost ALL of my games are now played with almost DOUBLE the FPS, so before I was having ~40-50FPS with my 5870, now I have on the same settings more than 80 FPS... That was a good update, surprisingly good.



Yes of course, cuz your 3770K was overclocked too right? I find it impressive that a 5 year old Quadcore like these can even keep up at all with a stock 3770K or 3570K ( as tested by Tom's hw in their review ), or come "close" to performance of modern cpu. Once you overclock the modern cpu, of course the performance really takes off... I would not have expected the old quads to still perform "adequately" for midrange gaming as they do, not high-end obviously. Another factor is that modern games are truly taking advantage of quad ( or more ) cores these days... games from just a year or two ago could only really take advantage of dual or triple-core cpu's ( performance increase dropped off sharply by having more cores...3 cores used to be the "target" ). Crysis 3 , FarCry 3, and other new games this year really do take advantage of having quadcore ( or more ) so the cpu is becoming more important factor in overall gaming performance than it used to be ( this is a good thing actually, look at visual quality and physics effects in modern games, stunning!! ) 8)

I want to do sound card and video card upgrade first, then mobo/ram/cpu next year. I see that ASRock and Biostar are releasing new Haswell Socket 1150 mobos with "Audiophile onboard audio", about friggin time!! Mebbe I should put off the sound card upgrade and just wait ... do the video card now, then get one of these Haswell "Audiophile" mobos with Haswell cpu and 8 GB of faster ram next year...that would work nicely methinks...
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Thu May 09, 2013 4:24 pm

Thanks to Tom's hw for this review, I love reviews like this that pit older hw against newer hw in a big "shootout" review to see exactly how much faster ( or not ) the new stuff is compared to the old...kudos...

Very much same here! We need it to be able to see "the real face" of the cpu´s so to speak.

And far too few serious tests like that are done.

I would not have expected the old quads to still perform "adequately" for midrange gaming as they do

Told´ya. :moon:

Excellent find by the way.

The only difference between my Q9400 and the Q9550 quad is the amount of L2 cache, mine has 6 MB, the 9550 has 12 MB, otherwise they are identical.

Nuh-uh! Yours have 2x3MB, not 6. That is unfortunately a very noticeable difference.
My cousins E8200 completely trashes an aquintance´s E7600 in most things.
Half of that is the FSB, but the L2 is the rest.

It IS why i shelled out the extra cash to get that larger L2 after all, because i found that it made such a NICE difference.

I'll keep this article on hand next time one of my users asks for a new faster computer. :) Although the one running the P4 prescott may have a case...

You let someone keep a Prescott? That is just SO pure EVIL!


I donno man... I had a Q9650 with a little oc, but after my mobo craped, I replace it with a i7-3770k and 16 GB - DDR3 RAM. I don't exaggerate on saying that almost ALL of my games are now played with almost DOUBLE the FPS, so before I was having ~40-50FPS with my 5870, now I have on the same settings more than 80 FPS... That was a good update, surprisingly good.

Yeah but a 3770 is just as highend as the 9650 is, so i wont call it that much of a surprise that you got a big boost from it.

If it hadn´t been for stupid and evil Intel keeping prices artificially VERY high, my original plan was to upgrade my E8400 to a Q9650 by now, but now i´m thinking maybe Haswell could be a decent option in 1-2 years.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu May 09, 2013 8:36 pm

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
The only difference between my Q9400 and the Q9550 quad is the amount of L2 cache, mine has 6 MB, the 9550 has 12 MB, otherwise they are identical.

Nuh-uh! Yours have 2x3MB, not 6. That is unfortunately a very noticeable difference.


Is 2 x 3 MB not equal to 6 MB L2 ( total ) cache?? I was quoting the total cache of my cpu... yes I fully realize that each bank of L2 is not shared across ALL 4 cores, 2 cores share a 3 MB bank and same for the other two cores, but the cpu still has a total 6 MB L2 cache. I realize that each core can only access up to max 3 MB L2, and of course I would love to have the higher cache amount of the Q9550 or 9650 cpu ( up to 6 MB L2 max per core ) but I bought my cpu used for $100 so am not complaining too much about that. There is nothing wrong with my statement as I implied 6MB L2 cache in total, and that is how Intel advertises these Q cpu's:

http://ark.intel.com/products/35365/Int ... 33-MHz-FSB

Launch Date Q3'08
Processor Number Q9400
# of Cores 4
Clock Speed 2.66 GHz
L2 Cache 6 MB


http://ark.intel.com/products/33924

Processor Number Q9550
# of Cores 4
Clock Speed 2.83 GHz
L2 Cache 12 MB


The Q9550 and 9650 have 12 MB L2 cache ( total ), or 2 x 6 MB L2 as you prefer to have it quoted.

Tavix - do you still have your Q9650 cpu laying around? If so please mail it to me!! :wink: :twisted: :mrgreen:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu May 09, 2013 8:40 pm

Fuzz wrote:I'll keep this article on hand next time one of my users asks for a new faster computer. :) Although the one running the P4 prescott may have a case...


Yep, except for your one user that has a P4 Prescott "heater", the majority of your users would benefit more from having an SSD drive added to their system than by getting a new platform ( real world useability ). I am assuming at least a decent dual core system here...give em a reliable fast SSD and they will stop bugging you for a while... :D

Image

I remember a few unscrupulous laptop makers using DESKTOP ( not the mobile version ) P4 Prescott 3.0 Ghz cpu in their laptops ( to save money of course, mobile P4 cost a lot more than desktop P4 back then )...talk about a hot lap!! If using the laptop under load while sitting on my lap, it would actually burn my leg ( where the cpu was located inside the laptop ) after about 5 to 10 minutes of usage!! :shock: :roll: :moon: :lol:

Image

Sooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! :whistle:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu May 09, 2013 10:16 pm

Hammer_Time wrote:Yep, got me one of these! :

Image


That piggy bank is a bit small.... unless you save large notes in it!
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu May 09, 2013 10:17 pm

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
I'll keep this article on hand next time one of my users asks for a new faster computer. :) Although the one running the P4 prescott may have a case...

You let someone keep a Prescott? That is just SO pure EVIL!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted:
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu May 09, 2013 10:19 pm

Hammer_Time wrote:Yep, except for your one user that has a P4 Prescott "heater", the majority of your users would benefit more from having an SSD drive added to their system than by getting a new platform ( real world useability ). I am assuming at least a decent dual core system here...give em a reliable fast SSD and they will stop bugging you for a while... :D


Or even only a cheap Sandisk Readycache. The speed boost with that is already impressive! Love mine.
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu May 09, 2013 11:36 pm

Yep, me too! 8)
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Fri May 10, 2013 12:11 am

Hammer_Time wrote:I remember a few unscrupulous laptop makers using DESKTOP ( not the mobile version ) P4 Prescott 3.0 Ghz cpu in their laptops ( to save money of course, mobile P4 cost a lot more than desktop P4 back then )...talk about a hot lap!! If using the laptop under load while sitting on my lap, it would actually burn my leg ( where the cpu was located inside the laptop ) after about 5 to 10 minutes of usage!! :shock: :roll: :moon: :lol:

Image

Sooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! :whistle:


They even lasted that long on battery?
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Fri May 10, 2013 4:22 am

Is 2 x 3 MB not equal to 6 MB L2 ( total ) cache??

Nope. As you should remember since last time this came up. :mrgreen:
If you have something >3MB work data chunk, it wont fit in your L2.
Also, the need for cache coherency between those two creates extra traffic on the FSB and also limits how much of that size can be fully utilised.

2*3 will never equate 6, because it simply can´t utilise all of it. At worst, your 2*3 is no better than slightly below 3, at best it should be like something in the 5-5.5 area. In theory it can reach a workable size of 5.9-<6, but that´s unlikely to happen in any kind of normal usage.

This was why i tried hard to get Barton cores for my previous system.

but I bought my cpu used for $100 so am not complaining too much about that.

Definitely shouldn´t complain indeed! That´s a damn good price.

There is nothing wrong with my statement as I implied 6MB L2 cache in total, and that is how Intel advertises these Q cpu's:

Total cache vs effective cache makes too much difference for me consider that an ok way to define them.

Tavix - do you still have your Q9650 cpu laying around? If so please mail it to me!!

Hey! You already have a Quad, i need it MORE!!! :fist:
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Fri May 10, 2013 4:17 pm

Argh, I give up... Intel advertises TOTAL L2 cache...not per-core L2 cache...as I pointed out above

the cpu ( Q9400 ) has a TOTAL of 6 MB L2...and yes I realize that each core can only access up to 3 MB L2 cache max... does not mean it is a "3MB L2 cache" cpu... that is not how Intel or Newegg or anybody else lists the L2 cache and you damn well know it... they do not list the "effective" cache as you call it, they list the TOTAL cache and that is what I referred to...

I understand your point here, but I am not WRONG to say my cpu has TOTAL of 6 MB L2 cache ( which it does ), even if each core can only access 3 MB L2 cache at most...

you are starting to get on my nerves here...blame Intel for how they describe their L2 cache, not me for describing the TOTAL cache the same way they do...

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with my statement as I implied 6MB L2 cache in total, and that is how Intel advertises these Q cpu's:

Total cache vs effective cache makes too much difference for me consider that an ok way to define them.


I agree but unfortunately you are not Intel so your wish does not apply here...you can call it that but you cannot force the rest of the world to agree with your particular viewpoint about the description of the L2 cache.

If they listed "effective" cache then I would follow suit, but since they do not, and nobody else but you does, get off my back about this...
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Fri May 10, 2013 6:33 pm

Now don´t go and blow a fuse...

that is not how Intel or Newegg or anybody else lists the L2 cache and you damn well know it...

Did I ever claim such? :shock:

That´s like saying that because they list dynamic contrast on monitors, that you expect that to actually MEAN something useful that you can compare to a simple scale.

I understand your point here, but I am not WRONG to say my cpu has TOTAL of 6 MB L2 cache ( which it does ), even if each core can only access 3 MB L2 cache at most...

Of course. Problem was that you equated it as if a 2*3MB should be expected to be equal to a cpu with an effective 6MB overall and regardless.

you are starting to get on my nerves here...blame Intel for how they describe their L2 cache, not me for describing the TOTAL cache the same way they do...

:moon:

get off my back about this...

Sorry for annoying you, especially since i´m not "aiming" at you. But after the amount of time i spent on researching stuff before i bought my current system, well i found out just how dastardly deceptive Intel was with those descriptions, and i simply refuse to lower myself to being equally bad in proliferating what is essentially a lie.

It´s why i paid up the extra >30% on the pricetag for the E8400 instead of the E7500 or even E5400. And didn´t bother upgrading to a Quad when i couldn´t get a Q9xxx model for a decent price. The extra cores would be GREAT to have, but the drop in L2 would mean that singlethreaded stuff would sometimes take too much of a hit for me to be pleased about it.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sat May 11, 2013 12:22 am

DIREWOLF75 wrote: But after the amount of time i spent on researching stuff before i bought my current system, well i found out just how dastardly deceptive Intel was with those descriptions, and i simply refuse to lower myself to being equally bad in proliferating what is essentially a lie.


Image
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sat May 11, 2013 4:31 am

Definitely.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core2 Duo/Quad

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat May 11, 2013 10:17 am

Moi, blow a fuse :?:

Image

Image

:whistle: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Next

Return to Platform

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests