Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results - Page 25

Poll Results: Are you surprised with these results?

 
  • 38% (28)
    Yes, very much so...
  • 61% (44)
    No, not at all.
72 Total Votes  
post #241 of 257
I think it's pretty well known by now that there's little to no difference between a high clocked Core 2 Quad and the latest processor with a single GPU. The newer chips are fast enough, though, to keep up with the new GPUs whereas the older chips can't. I mean, One GPU can easily hang with the older chips but once you get into something like dual 580s you start to see the bottleneck appear.

This is the same for the Phenom II line. If you have a 965 @ 4.2GHz, you won't bottleneck a single GTX 580 in any game. But it's still reassuring to those users who still use the Core 2 line that they aren't really outdated at all.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6300HQ Dell Proprietary 4GB Nvidia GTX 960M Samsung 12GB (1x8GB 1x4GB) DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
256GB SanDisk M.2 SSD 1TB HGST 7.2k HDD Custom Cooling by Dell Solutions Windows 10 Home 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
15.6" 1920x1080 IPS Screen Dell 130w PSU Logitech G602 Wireless 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 'Ripper' Mouse Pad 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2760QM Toshiba Qosmio X775 Nvidia 1.5GB GTX 560M 8GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
120GB Samsung 830 SSD + 1TB HGST 7200RPM HDD CD/DVD-RW Stock Windows 10 Home 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
17.3" - 1600x900 Standard backlit 180w Power Adapter Logitech G500s 
Audio
Harmon/Kardon Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6300HQ Dell Proprietary 4GB Nvidia GTX 960M Samsung 12GB (1x8GB 1x4GB) DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
256GB SanDisk M.2 SSD 1TB HGST 7.2k HDD Custom Cooling by Dell Solutions Windows 10 Home 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
15.6" 1920x1080 IPS Screen Dell 130w PSU Logitech G602 Wireless 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 'Ripper' Mouse Pad 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2760QM Toshiba Qosmio X775 Nvidia 1.5GB GTX 560M 8GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
120GB Samsung 830 SSD + 1TB HGST 7200RPM HDD CD/DVD-RW Stock Windows 10 Home 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
17.3" - 1600x900 Standard backlit 180w Power Adapter Logitech G500s 
Audio
Harmon/Kardon Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #242 of 257
I'm using an HD5970, which beats a gtx580 in a lot of benchmarks, but overall is about equal to a gtx580 in performance from the benchmarks I've seen. I'm using an e8500 cpu (which is dual core), and I could tell you in Crysis, my graphic card is the bottleneck. But I'm playing the game at 1920x1200 with 4x AA with all settings on "very high." The game is really smooth and playable, but the framerates sometimes dip into the low 30's and even the high 20's rarely but it does happen. My CPU usage is around 70%.

I did some more Far Cry 2 benchmarks, and I managed to get my "minimum framerate" up to 60fps, I know my e8500 is the bottleneck in that game, but it's a complete non issue. A game that does run like **** on dual cores is GTA 4, and I just bought it on steam for $6, so I'll be testing that soon.
post #243 of 257
I had an e8600 at 4.0Ghz, decided I need a quad and went to a Q9650 at 4.0 Ghz.
Better results across the board with the Q9650 - although it took a lot more FSB to get to the same speed and ran a little hotter.

Both were great chips.
Mild Mod
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k 4.5Ghz @1.331v Asus X99-A EVGA GTX1070 SC 16Gb Gskill DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
850 Pro SSD, 2 Cav Blacks Asus HWLabs 280mm SR-1 and GTX120 mm radiators EK GPU waterblock and backplate 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EK Supremacy EVO cpu block W7 64 Pro Dell U3011  Razer BlackWidow Ultimate 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX850 Corsair 650d Modded SteelSeries Sensei Raw (heat orange) Creative 5.1 setup 
Audio
Creative Soundblaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
Mild Mod
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k 4.5Ghz @1.331v Asus X99-A EVGA GTX1070 SC 16Gb Gskill DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
850 Pro SSD, 2 Cav Blacks Asus HWLabs 280mm SR-1 and GTX120 mm radiators EK GPU waterblock and backplate 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EK Supremacy EVO cpu block W7 64 Pro Dell U3011  Razer BlackWidow Ultimate 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Corsair AX850 Corsair 650d Modded SteelSeries Sensei Raw (heat orange) Creative 5.1 setup 
Audio
Creative Soundblaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
post #244 of 257
Yeah, usually higher bus speed equals higher gaming performance. The e8400, e8500, and e8600 can easily handle 2000Mhz FSB, (aka 500). Running an e8600 @ only 4GHz doesn't make much sense. The e8400 could do that just fine with air cooling.
post #245 of 257
Not surprised at all. My HTPC (C2D+GTS 450) can still play BF3 in mid-high settings and other demanding games (FarCry, SCII) with ease.
X79 The Hydra
(22 items)
 
 
i865G Chronos
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Extreme X6800 AsRock 775i65G R2.0 ATI Radeon X1950 XT OCZ EL DDR Gold Edition GX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung MMBRE64GHDXP-MVBD1 Samsung SH-222 Thermalright Ultima-90 Windows 98 SE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows XP Professional 32 bit Dell SP2309W Genius SlimStar 8000 Generic 500w PSU 
CaseMouseAudio
Generic Case Genius SlimStar 8000 Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS 
  hide details  
Reply
X79 The Hydra
(22 items)
 
 
i865G Chronos
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core 2 Extreme X6800 AsRock 775i65G R2.0 ATI Radeon X1950 XT OCZ EL DDR Gold Edition GX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung MMBRE64GHDXP-MVBD1 Samsung SH-222 Thermalright Ultima-90 Windows 98 SE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows XP Professional 32 bit Dell SP2309W Genius SlimStar 8000 Generic 500w PSU 
CaseMouseAudio
Generic Case Genius SlimStar 8000 Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS 
  hide details  
Reply
post #246 of 257
Glad the e8500 still doing well! Tried the FC2 benchmark with same settings as the 1st page and oc'd my e8500 to 4Ghz and averaged 54 fps; close but was hoping my 6850CF would be better than the GTX570.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel e8500 3.8Ghz@1.23v Asus P5q PRO 6850 CF 4GB Corsair DDR2 PC2-6400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
Samsung Spinpoint 1TB F3 Windows Vista  NEC EA231WMi Lian Li PC-B25 
Audio
Auzen X-FI Prelude 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel e8500 3.8Ghz@1.23v Asus P5q PRO 6850 CF 4GB Corsair DDR2 PC2-6400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
Samsung Spinpoint 1TB F3 Windows Vista  NEC EA231WMi Lian Li PC-B25 
Audio
Auzen X-FI Prelude 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #247 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtymer781 View Post
Running an e8600 @ only 4GHz doesn't make much sense.
Ahem!

I run mine at 4GHz for a number of reasons.

For one, it let's me keep all of my voltages relatively low. The CPU is at 1.248V, FSB VTT at 1.15V, Northbridge at 1.3V, and RAM at 1.9V.

This helps temperatures too.

Lastly, an extra 200MHz or 300Mhz isn't going to really do much to make up for the trade-off for my use, in my opinion. Sure, I ran it at 4.5GHz when I got it and wanted to, but I had half the RAM, and it was at 1.4V, and still not truly stable.

I could push an extra 200MHz - 300Mhz through it relatively easy, and maybe I will (I get the itch too every now and then), but it'd do little in the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Also Heaven does almost nothing with the cpu, my i5 will downclock to power saving mode during it.
This is interesting. What would you say accounts for this discrepancy then?

Core i7 920 at near stock (2.8GHz) and a GeForce GTX 470 (I think it's overclocked, but not sure how far):


Core 2 Duo E8600 overclocked (4GHz) and GeForce GTX 560 Ti (no "real" overclock):


You can see the same OS/settings/drivers were used. I thought the GeForce GTX 470 is supposed to be better with tessellation than the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, so wouldn't that basically just leave the CPU?
post #248 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by awing View Post
Glad the e8500 still doing well! Tried the FC2 benchmark with same settings as the 1st page and oc'd my e8500 to 4Ghz and averaged 54 fps; close but was hoping my 6850CF would be better than the GTX570.
The northbridge (I'm using the p45 NB) and bus speed greatly impact performance, not just cpu frequency.
post #249 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet View Post
Ahem!

I run mine at 4GHz for a number of reasons.

For one, it let's me keep all of my voltages relatively low. The CPU is at 1.248V, FSB VTT at 1.15V, Northbridge at 1.3V, and RAM at 1.9V.

This helps temperatures too.

Lastly, an extra 200MHz or 300Mhz isn't going to really do much to make up for the trade-off for my use, in my opinion. Sure, I ran it at 4.5GHz when I got it and wanted to, but I had half the RAM, and it was at 1.4V, and still not truly stable.

I could push an extra 200MHz - 300Mhz through it relatively easy, and maybe I will (I get the itch too every now and then), but it'd do little in the end.

This is interesting. What would you say accounts for this discrepancy then?

Core i7 920 at near stock (2.8GHz) and a GeForce GTX 470 (I think it's overclocked, but not sure how far):


Core 2 Duo E8600 overclocked (4GHz) and GeForce GTX 560 Ti (no "real" overclock):


You can see the same OS/settings/drivers were used. I thought the GeForce GTX 470 is supposed to be better with tessellation than the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, so wouldn't that basically just leave the CPU?

Normal tessellation, not overclocked probably, possible first pass bench causing lower score than a second pass run.

Could be any number of things, probably not cpu related though.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #250 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Normal tessellation, not overclocked probably, possible first pass bench causing lower score than a second pass run.
I am almost sure that his GeForce GTX 470 is overclocked, but it might just be a factory OC. Regardless, my GPU has next to no OC at all anyway (it is the FPB version, so it has a mere 28MHz OC, making one of the slowest GeForce GTX 560 Tis).

As per it being normal tessellation and not extreme tessellation, here's that.

Core i7 920 at 2.8GHz and GeForce GTX 470:


Core 2 Duo E8600 at 4GHz and GeForce GTX 560 Ti:


I'm not sure about the number of passes part, but mine ran once and once only. He was doing tests at the time, mainly to check out his new 3D stuff, so maybe he was running it numerous times. That's when I saw the program, found it neat, tried it, and noticed the scores.

Maybe something else is amiss though, who knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Q9650@4.05GHz VS E8500@4.05GHz VS i5 2500K@4.04GHz Benchmark results