Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 vs Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

[Tao_Ikry]

I want to know if I should upgrade my Core 2 Duo E8500 for a slower but with more cores Core 2 Quad, I plan to run games like Roblox and Minecraft with a GT 710 on 2gb ram.

[Guest]

You want the quad. 

[TehDwonz]

1 minute ago, Tao_Ikry said:

I want to know if I should upgrade my Core 2 Duo E8500 for a slower but with more cores Core 2 Quad, I plan to run games like Roblox and Minecraft with a GT 710 on 2gb ram.

Nah, those games need higher single-core performance. You could upgrade to the slightly faster C2D E8600 though, if you can find one cheap.

Only difference is the clock: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=33911,35605

[TehDwonz]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

You want the quad. 

Why? It'd be worse for the intended use.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=33911,35605,35428

 

[ProjectBox153]

If you've already got the E8500 then there's only one better C2D, the E8600. I don't think it would be worth the money for a slight clock boost. The E8500 and a GT 710 should be able to handle Minecraft fine, but I can't speak about Roblox. Save your money and get a platform upgrade instead. As for the C2Q: I don't think it's worth it at this point. My Q8400 seems to perform worse than my E8500 does for the same tasks. 

[MeDownYou]

4 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

Nah, those games need higher single-core performance. You could upgrade to the slightly faster C2D E8600 though, if you can find one cheap.

Only difference is the clock: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=33911,35605

E8500 and e8600 are the same arch, comes down to batch numbering and silicon ability. 

8 minutes ago, Tao_Ikry said:

I want to know if I should upgrade my Core 2 Duo E8500 for a slower but with more cores Core 2 Quad, I plan to run games like Roblox and Minecraft with a GT 710 on 2gb ram.

E8500 and Q8300's should both do decent enough in those games if they are tuned well. What board do you have?, that probably will make the decision very easy.


A good starting place for overclocking those chips would be an overclocking guide on here from harryowl for some basics

[TehDwonz]

Just now, ProjectBox153 said:

If you've already got the E8500 then there's only one better C2D, the E8600. I don't think it would be worth the money for a slight clock boost. The E8500 and a GT 710 should be able to handle Minecraft fine, but I can't speak about Roblox. Save your money and get a platform upgrade instead. 

Or even a cheap GT 1030 card if a platform upgrade is not possible - way better than a 710.

[ProjectBox153]

Just now, TehDwonz said:

Or even a cheap GT 1030 card if a platform upgrade is not possible - way better than a 710.

Maybe, but even upgrading to a Sandy Bridge machine would be a major improvement over the C2D. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

Why? It'd be worse for the intended use.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=33911,35605,35428

 

Cause the quad will OC easily to Duo specs. 

 

Minecraft also has multi-core support and will utilize up to 3 cores if running a server.

[TehDwonz]

3 minutes ago, MeDownYou said:

E8500 and e8600 are the same arch, comes down to batch numbering and silicon ability. 

E8500 and Q8300's should both do decent enough in those games if they are tuned well. What board do you have?, that probably will make the decision very easy.

Yes, that's why I said the only difference is clock speed. The best C2Q is the 9650, and it's the same as the E8600 - it's 2 put together.

[Speedbird]

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Cause the quad will OC easily to Duo specs. 

 

Minecraft also has multi-core support and will utilize up to 3 cores if running a server.

And you can also OC the E8500. And this assumes that the motherboard even supports overclocking, and can deliver enough power. Remember the Q8300 is 95W.

[TehDwonz]

1 minute ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Cause the quad will OC easily to Duo specs. 

 

Minecraft also has multi-core support and will utilize up to 3 cores if running a server.

He's not running a server... and the duo would o/c higher than the quad, if o/c was a goal, which it isn't. The quad is also 95W TDP vs 65W.

[MeDownYou]

2 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

Yes, that's why I said the only difference is clock speed. The best C2Q is the 9650, and it's the same as the E8600 - it's 2 put together.

Those quadcore chips are yorkfield chips, both mentioned dual cores are wolfdale chips. 

[Guest]

Just now, TehDwonz said:

He's not running a server... and the duo would o/c higher than the quad, if o/c was a goal, which it isn't. The quad is also 95W TDP vs 65W.

Yes, I understand all the variables. And thank you for reading the OP's mind and speaking up for him/her! 

 

1st, we don't even know what motherboard, so you may very well be correct about 65w vs 95w, some OEM may not supprt 95w chips in the first place.

 

The original post is so vague, not a single person here can give accurate advice.

 

The best advice I seen, was to save for a platform upgrade. 

[TehDwonz]

8 minutes ago, MeDownYou said:

Those quadcore chips are yorkfield chips, both mentioned dual cores are wolfdale chips. 

That's a codename, they are the same. york = dual core, wolf = quad. They are otherwise identical.

 

edit: other way round - it's 5am, shush.

Edited January 8, 2021 by TehDwonz

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

That's a codename, they are the same. york = dual core, wolf = quad. They are otherwise identical.

steppings

[emosun]

19 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

Nah, those games need higher single-core performance.

I believe that the day of dual cores despite their higher single core performance is long gone with the advent of most applications supporting multicore cpu's.

Even in the case of encountering a game which only supported a single core a quad core would handle the task of running the game along with windows/all the other background applications much better.

This used to be more of a preference prior to mainstream multicore support , but alas those days are long behind us.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

I believe that the day of dual cores despite their higher single core performance is long gone with the advent of most applications supporting multicore cpu's.

Even in the case of encountering a game which only supported a single core a quad core would handle the task of running the game along with windows/all the other background applications much better.

This used to be more of a preference prior to mainstream multicore support , but alas those days are long behind us.

I was thinking in my head... Which operating system will be used. Hopefully nothing heavier than W7. Probably won't have available Ram to do anything if W10 even installs on 4GB.

[TehDwonz]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

I believe that the day of dual cores despite their higher single core performance is long gone with the advent of most applications supporting multicore cpu's.

Even in the case of encountering a game which only supported a single core a quad core would handle the task of running the game along with windows/all the other background applications much better.

This used to be more of a preference prior to mainstream multicore support , but alas those days are long behind us.

He wants to run Minecraft and Roblox. They run a single world-thread. Quad core won't help in the slightest.

[ProjectBox153]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

I believe that the day of dual cores despite their higher single core performance is long gone with the advent of most applications supporting multicore cpu's.

Even in the case of encountering a game which only supported a single core a quad core would handle the task of running the game along with windows/all the other background applications much better.

This used to be more of a preference prior to mainstream multicore support , but alas those days are long behind us.

From my experiences with Core 2 Duos and Quads I've actually had far better performance from the C2Ds (E8400/E8500) than the C2Qs. 

 

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

I was thinking in my head... Which operating system will be used. Hopefully nothing heavier than W7. Probably won't have available Ram to do anything if W10 even installs on 4GB.

Windows 10 actually runs shockingly well on older/weaker hardware. 4GB would be "plenty" for it. 

[emosun]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

I was thinking in my head... Which operating system will be used. Hopefully nothing heavier than W7. Probably won't have available Ram to do anything if W10 even installs on 4GB.

If they're running an old OS and older games , then yeah it could be debatable. Kind of a tossup as to which would perform best without simply benching the machine with whatever their software and driver selection is.

I'd say if it were a newer OS however the more core cpu would better allocate the multitasking it needs to do.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ProjectBox153 said:

From my experiences with Core 2 Duos and Quads I've actually had far better performance from the C2Ds (E8400/E8500) than the C2Qs. 

 

Windows 10 actually runs shockingly well on older/weaker hardware. 4GB would be "plenty" for it. 

Well I have never seen W10 use less than 4gb of memory. I am using a fresh install raid 0 as we speak. I just closed everything minus this one tab, I'm at 4.7gb usage. 

[TehDwonz]

Just now, ProjectBox153 said:

From my experiences with Core 2 Duos and Quads I've actually had far better performance from the C2Ds (E8400/E8500) than the C2Qs. 

 

Windows 10 actually runs shockingly well on older/weaker hardware. 4GB would be "plenty" for it. 

Agreed. E8600 even o/c far higher than any of the quads (which are just 2 C2D under the IHS - open one...). I'd probably leave the E8500 tbh, and add more RAM instead, and maybe a GT1030.

[MeDownYou]

4 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

That's a codename, they are the same. york = dual core, wolf = quad. They are otherwise identical.

While, the die might be similar as they are both penryn chips there is a lot of difference between them; manufacturing time or stepping, core to core latency, available cache, and how the management engine allows those chips to run being a few. Density, heat, and how nicely the boards chipset plays with them are all considerations additionally. This will also dictate how well these chips tolerate voltage as sometimes getting your memory tuned well can be quite a chore on the quad cores especially.

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

He wants to run Minecraft and Roblox. They run a single world-thread. Quad core won't help in the slightest.

I think that could possibly be accurate provided there are no other tasks running such as an operating system. Although I have not seen a version of minecraft that used only a single core in quite a long time.