Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
sean blake

Core 2 Quad Q8200 Vs Core I5 2500K

5 posts in this topic

Recommended 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.









Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


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.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.