Jump to content

Core 2 Quad Q8200 Vs Core I5 2500K


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
sean blake

sean blake

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Hey there I had a old system bundle lying around so for curiosity sakes I installed mountain lion 10.8.2 on it to see how well it coped, the specs are as follows.

 

motherboard - P5KPL-AM 

Cpu - Core 2 Quad Q8300 

Ram - 2X2GB DDR2 667MHz

Video - ATI HD 5570 1GB of Memory 

HDD - Western Digital 160GB 7200RPM Sata ii 

WIFI - Atheros AR9285 a/b/g/n 

 

Once installed and I sourced all the device drivers the system felt really snappy despite its relatively low Xbench score of 90. (with multithreading and Hard drive benching turned off. For some reason Xbench crashes on 10.8 if multithreading is enabled) All the GUI effects seemed really fast and startup was fast as well. So after that i decided to reinstall 10.8.2 on my main system it didn't seems as fast or snappy as the Q8300 system at all, longer startup times and longer application start up times, and thats very surprising considering its specs 

 

Motherboard - GA-H77N-WIFI

Cpu - Core i5 2500K

Ram 2x2GB 1600MHz Corsair XMS3 

Video ATI HD 5770

HDD - Western digital 1TB 64MB Cache Sata ii 

WIFI - Replaced MINI card Atheros AR9285 a/b/g/n (the original mini card that came with the motherboard wasn't compatible with os x 

 

The Xbench score was 398 for this system (With the same two options disabled).

 

What I'm wondering is this, despite the fact the Q8300 is generally a lot slower than the i5 is it optimised in some way for faster smaller operations. and on the other hand if i used a multithreaded program the i5 would shine wheres the q8300 would choke. But on day to day programs the Q8300 seems faster strangely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#2
dcai777

dcai777

    BAZINGA!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Jose, CA
  • Interests:Hacking your Hackintosh

yeah, my q6600 seems faster then my rMBP :(



#3
Smith@@™

Smith@@™

    InsanelyMac LOL

  • Retired
  • 2,928 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere over the rainbow...ITALIA!
  • Interests:Dark matter and dark energy. E basta. HD3000. E basta.

yeah, my q6600 seems faster then my rMBP :(

agree



#4
gils83

gils83

    DJ Officiel d'InsanelyMac

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France
  • Interests:le soleil du var et l'informatique

:)

you should do some tests as below (video ) to see the health of your CPU , the xbench / Geekbench tests and other stupid tests do not represent the reality of things , I made ​​no trial for anyone but I think we have the ideas distorted by digital journalists who tell salads , well placed to know , I tasted the SandyBridge ( i3 2100 / Xeon E31230 ), I was really disappointed by the lack of performance ( which on paper still impressive for xeon !)
which led me to AMD (that is another story)

I think the Q8300 is a great CPU misjudged , certain that the i5 2500 is also powerful but in my opinion, the difference between the two CPUs are not so huge as that.

I would like to see 2 CPU actually work on two identical applications for comparison purposes and we show that using ScreenFlow or Quicktime .

then we can estimate the actual verdict.

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=CUKdVEp0n4Y



#5
CharlieSheen

CharlieSheen

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Ball

yeah, my q6600 seems faster then my rMBP :(

I wouldn't go THAT far, but my Q6600 machine has most definitely stood the test of time! One of the best processors I've ever had







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy