Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 vs Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

[TehDwonz]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

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. 

It will use what you give it. I have a few old E7500 boxes running on only 4GB, and they barely go over 2GB used RAM with a single Chrome tab. W10Pro, de-cluttered.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

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.

Indeed. 

 

Initially I was going off the PC usage I see when my son plays games. He often times leaves a lot of stuff open, even multiple games sometimes. 2700X looks like minimum of 30% usage when playing the games described, but that's W10, a lot of tasks running.... pretty much like todays computing on more modern hardware looks.

 

Yes maybe the game will fair better on a dual in the right circumstances, but by single digit percentages. 2% might be 2 fps from 100 at 1024x768 resolution, kinda where gaming would be on this generation hardware. I can't see trying to drive anything over 720P here.

[emosun]

5 minutes 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. 

Ah I see. From my experience the quads tend to be much faster but I am typically using applications or operating systems that support them.

If the application or operating system didn't support all 4 cores then yes the quad would be much slower I agree.

[ProjectBox153]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

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. 

How much RAM is in the computer? My folding box only has 8GB, and it's using 2.7GB right now. It's got some programs running and has been powered on for more than 2 weeks. One of my workstations has 16GB of RAM and is only using 3.2GB.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TehDwonz said:

It will use what you give it. I have a few old E7500 boxes running on only 4GB, and they barely go over 2GB used RAM with a single Chrome tab. W10Pro, de-cluttered.

Generally when I run HW this old, W10 is out of the question. For my purposes, which is generally benchmarking, W10 is way too heavy. It gobbles resources like a black hole lol.

[TehDwonz]

4 minutes ago, MeDownYou said:

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.

They have the same manufacturing and launch dates. I did link Intel's own specs...

[ProjectBox153]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

I can't see trying to drive anything over 720P here.

I don't have much time for games anymore, but I used to play Minecraft occasionally with a Core 2 Duo E8400 and a 2GB GT 710. I played at 1080p and typically maintained 60 FPS.

 

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

Ah I see. From my experience the quads tend to be much faster but I am typically using applications or operating systems that support them.

If the application or operating system didn't support all 4 cores then yes the quad would be much slower I agree.

I was referring to general usage. YouTube performed better on the E8400 than the Q8400 for me, and a few other things like that. 

[Guest]

Just now, ProjectBox153 said:

How much RAM is in the computer? My folding box only has 8GB, and it's using 2.7GB right now. It's got some programs running and has been powered on for more than 2 weeks. One of my workstations has 16GB of RAM and is only using 3.2GB.

Closed Steam, one drive.... everything. 4.6gb used from 16gb G.Skill 4000mhz 16-16-16-36. It's a totally clean fresh install on the 1st.

 

[ProjectBox153]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

Closed Steam, one drive.... everything. 4.6gb used from 16gb G.Skill 4000mhz 16-16-16-36. It's a totally clean fresh install on the 1st.

 

Something's running in the background then. I've got Windows 10 installs from years ago that idle with far less than that used. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ProjectBox153 said:

Something's running in the background then. I've got Windows 10 installs from years ago that idle with far less than that used. 

Nothing out of the normal. The start up processes are running. Chroma software NV software ect ect. F@H is off. 

 

I found out I have a drive at 89% life/health ... of course after I get the system all set up lol. But other than that, the Chroma software is the only thing off the norm. 88mb total usage.

 

It's windows 10 pro. Does that make a difference?

[ProjectBox153]

1 minute ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Nothing out of the normal. The start up processes are running. Chroma software NV software ect ect. F@H is off. 

 

I found out I have a drive at 89% life/health ... of course after I get the system all set up lol. But other than that, the Chroma software is the only thing off the norm. 88mb total usage.

 

It's windows 10 pro. Does that make a difference?

It shouldn't matter between Home or Pro. Every system is different, so who knows. 

[emosun]

12 minutes ago, ProjectBox153 said:

I was referring to general usage. YouTube performed better on the E8400 than the Q8400 for me, and a few other things like that. 

 

Well again without support for a multicore cpu then yes single core performance would be quicker.

But in most tasks that are capable of allocating to a 4 core cpu the q8400 would be significantly faster. As Is referenced by benchmarks that support cpu testing while loading all the cpu cores regardless of how many there are.

 

But if you were to use a single core task on an older OS then yes the two could be very debateable.

[emosun]

although I just now noticed the cinebench reference i used shows the q8400 slightly overclocked so it would be a bit less than that

[thewelshbrummie]

23 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.

And it's a great chip, if you can still get one. Mine has bee a great investment.

I'd suggest getting one if possible as despite being a $250 CPU when launched, it's over 10 years old so it might be very cheap these days.

 

Linus did a video on upgrading an old business PC (found it - upgrading the $69 PC) for gaming and used a Core 2 Quad - yes the cores are slower and they went from an E7500 to a Q9550 but just having 4 cores made a massive difference in the results (especially minimum fps)

 

To the OP - this is worth a watch:

 

 

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

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. 

Windows 10 will use a variable amount of memory for background tasks to improve performance but obviously will only do that IF it is available.

 

I've run Windows 10 on 4GB RAM and it's fine, uses around 2GB by default. I'm sure a 2GB system will work so long as you don't try to open 100+ tabs in Chrome. That said obviously if you can get more, the better.

 

To the OP - if possible upgrade your RAM to 4GB - probably DDR2 as most (but not all) LGA775 boards used DDR2.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, emosun said:

although I just now noticed the cinebench reference i used shows the q8400 slightly overclocked so it would be a bit less than that

That's a neat angle, benchmarking.

 

So every 3Dmark benchmark since 3DMark06 can utilize 4 cores or more. There's tons of games that utilize a dual core or more since Core2. Quads where pushed because software started scaling quickly with available resources.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, thewelshbrummie said:

And it's a great chip, if you can still get one. Mine has bee a great investment.

I'd suggest getting one if possible as despite being a $250 CPU when launched, it's over 10 years old so it might be very cheap these days.

 

Linus did a video on upgrading an old business PC (found it - upgrading the $69 PC) for gaming and used a Core 2 Quad - yes the cores are slower and they went from an E7500 to a Q9550 but just having 4 cores made a massive difference in the results (especially minimum fps)

 

Windows 10 will use a variable amount of memory for background tasks to improve performance but obviously will only do that IF it is available.

 

I've run Windows 10 on 4GB RAM and it's fine, uses around 2GB by default. I'm sure a 2GB system will work so long as you don't try to open 100+ tabs in Chrome. That said obviously if you can get more, the better.

 

To the OP - if possible upgrade your RAM to 4GB - probably DDR2 as most (but not all) LGA775 boards used DDR2.

I have an old s775 rig here somewhere. 

Past rig, P4 521 OC on the bench 4.1ghz. The system had 1gb of memory lol. I pulled 3 sticks to lighten the memory controller load to accomplish that frequency XD.

Gosh, that was 10 years ago now. 

 

Entry level gaming rig today, 6 cores 12 threads 16gb of memory.

 

Edit: I found the cpu-z!

https://valid.x86.fr/show_oc.php?id=1645038