sean blake Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcai777 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 yeah, my q6600 seems faster then my rMBP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith@@™ Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 yeah, my q6600 seems faster then my rMBP agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gils83 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 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.com/watch?v=CUKdVEp0n4Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieSheen Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts