Yeah, 1366 was the move, not 1156. Initially you wouldn't notice too much, but in time with the tripple channel memory up to 24gb or even 48gb, hexa core xeons that could oc to 4.5ghz, and all the pcie lanes you could stuff sound cards, m2 and high performance networking without sacrificing gpu performance made it an very long lasting platform. It really was insane considering how realtively cheap hedt motherboards were back then, and being able to get a used xeon for cheap later. I ran my x58 setup as my main system/gamer all the way up until mid 2019 when the mobo took a dump.
Yeah, but C2D/C2Q was also possible to OC to 4 GHz and in gaming tests back in the day, first gen core i was not that good upgrade I would say if you wanted it only for games. Core 2 architecture was that good, that it was really hard to beat it with some new generations. I jumped from E8200 to i5-4670K, that was THE upgrade, but still, single core performance was not that crazy better compared to overclocked Core 2 Duo, it was the best CPU architecture of all time.
Core 2 extreme Why did this series not receive its due reviews, even though it is much stronger than... Core 2 quad Maybe because it is rare or its price is high, right?
The Q9650 would've been a better opposition to the i5 as it's stock speed is 3.0ghz making up for the auto boost of the i5 IMO. Q9550 and 9650 share the same cache sizes and everything it is just the clock speed difference
I daily drive a Xeon E5450 (3.20Ghz) @ 80w, definitely a better option than the C2Q @ 95w, it would have been an interesting comparison against the I5 750s. The longevity of these CPUs is bonkers! Coincidentally I just bought a Q9550 because it was hella cheap, it will be useful for a beefed up socket 775 Windows XP era gaming machine!
Back in the day I upgrade from a Q9650 to a 980x, that was a proper upgrade, also the one and only time I spent $1000 on a CPU because it was pretty unnecessary, that CPU was a beast though 😮
If you upgrade to Core 2 extreme qx9770 I would have seen another monster much better than... Q9650It is the most powerful and last processor installed on Lga 775
The first gen I5's also overclock pretty well, do look up a guide on how to do it and you'll probably learn how too get id guess between 3.5 - 4 ghz depending on what motherboard you have & how far your ram overclocks.
Great vid dude! You should totally OC that C2Q and see how it goes against the i5. You mentioned overclocking kinda excited to see how the OC does vs the stock i5.
I have a nice ASUS P5P43TD DDR3 board and currently have my Q9650 OC'd to 3.866 ghz very stable. Unfortunately was expensive, ebay find, P43 chipset, was able to get FSB up to 441. The performance gain from stock was huge.
@@ANN1H1LATE89 It seems you didn't come Core 2 extreme Or you haven't heard of it because it is much stronger Core 2 quad It supports overclocking up to 6 GHz or more
enjoyed the bench as always, though i noticed in your videos when you speak of difference of performance in games you mention it in fps. I have one request regarding this, if you can, please use percentages rather than raw fps difference because for your viewers its most likely harder to feel whether those 20fps for example, are going to be impactful or not without looking a lot into context. But yeah thx for the vid👍
Good video. Socket 1156 was the first Intel series that I never owned. I went from Quad 2 Core to Socket 1155 (i7 2600k) and then I went socket 1366 (6 core Xeon) and then I went to socket 1150 with a i7 4790. Then I went Ryzen for years, my gaming rig is a 5800x3d. My desktop is a 13700k. My next gaming pc will be Intel, I like the "E-cores". I can assign a large task with the "P-cores" and the pc is still absolutely usable with the "E-cores", watch 4k video, social media, answer e-mails, even some light gaming. Ryzen 5800x3d just chugs and is unusable if I try to multitask like with the 13700k.
Does the ryzen perform better in gaming or not? my PCs tech stuck at before 2015 😅 from dualcore i went to core 2 quad then i5 3470 (main pc) and i got an amd fm2 a6 6800k them upgraded it to athlon x4 740 but its still suck 😅 i always wanted to try the ryzen but it seems intel 13th gen perform better? 😅
Surprised to see the 5800 struggle, because going by the reviews many would've thought that it was the best cpu there ever was. And no just that it's also overpriced af atleast in India. Where you can find a 13 gen i7 for the same price.
Interesting to see the 5800x3d struggling, rn I am using a 2600 and also have a 5600x and a 5800h, all of them are pretty decent even when doing multiple things at once. All 3 systems are equipped with 16gb of ram. I pretty much always have multiple things open at once, like a game, firefox, spotify, discord etc.
Not having the integrated memory controller seems to be hurting the Quad a lot. Also the fact that it has two Core2Duo dies must be hurting latency as well. The FPS you get in GTA V is even lower than what I used to get from my Phenom II X4 + HD5750 1GB GDDR5 setup back in 2015.
GTAIV ran better on AMD Phenom I and II chips than C2Qs for this exact reason. The true quad and hex core architecture of these old chips significantly improved latency
It's better to use highly clocked Core 2 Duo than C2Q. E8600 on 4 GHz beats even i7-860 in gaming performance and I am not kidding, I am just testing it. I also noticed that turbo boost probably doesn't work that great with this first gen core i architecture, but maybe it's problem of mother board but anyway, it's better to clock it manually to fixed speed.
I was just testing overclocked E8600 vs i7-860 and no, it was not an upgrade back in the day, that's why most of people stayed with core 2 architecture until like 2012 or even more. In some CPU or RAM tests, you see a difference, but in real gaming tests, highly clocked Core 2 Duo has still more FPS than even overclocked i7-860. Ofcourse Q9550 with no OC is pretty bad choice for gaming back in the day, games didn't need 4 cores until like 2015.
Also, first generation of turbo boost technology acts weird, it's better to OC it manualy to fixed frequency to get better performance. What I really want (but it's hard to find one for good price) is Core 2 Extreme edition with unlocked multiplier. It's pretty easy to OC E8600 to like 4 GHz, but it's not that easy to do it with Core 2Q CPUs that are available because they have mostly much lower multiplier which makes overclocking not that simple. I'd like to see how would C2Q be doing against first gen Core i if it was running on 4 GHz stable or even more.
The test would be fair, if both CPUs were clocked to 3GHz. It would be interesting to see the performance difference. And graphics intensive tasks maybe slower on core 2 Quad, because the MCH would only support up to PCI Express x16 1.0, while Core i5 750 have PCI Express x16 2.0
In this very specific instance I would love to know how a lower end similarly specced Xeon like the L5420 would fare, specially now that they can be bought for cheap and easily modifiable in place of a C2Q. Hope you get better!
The first-gen Core i processors were pretty underwhelming compared to the later Core 2 models. The real excitement started with the first high-performance platform, LGA 1366 with the X58 chipset. This setup could handle up to two Nehalem chips (6 cores and 12 threads each) on the new QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) architecture, eliminating bottlenecks for system devices and peripherals. Two 771 Core 2 / Xeons couldn't have matched the massive performance boost from both the new architecture and QPI (note a 771/775 can be bottlenecked by just using 2 GPUs or a consumer grade RAID-0 HDD arrangement). Meanwhile, the consumer platform (1156) only saw a proper release at 45nm and a disappointing 32nm Clarkdale with no quad-core chips. Later on, the 1155 consumer platform made a big splash with SATA3, PCIe 3.0, and USB 3.0. These were significant upgrades over their 2.0 versions, especially for USB (selected Sandy Bridge boards only, and later norm on Ivy Bridge).
Hey man got a great idea for a video...... maybe a decent idea... why don't you compare Core 2 Duo E8400 and E6850. Both run at 3.00 GHz..... Will you?
Sure. Not sure when cuz I have a few things I'm working on and gotta pickup a 6850. Those are two different generation duos and I've wanted to compare generations. So that'll defiantly work. Thanks!!!
I'm looking to "upgrade" my old office PCs with the quad since the dual core in them are tooo slow. And after watching this, if it can run crisis, it can very well do spreadsheets, I suppose.
the FSB is the real bottleneck of late core 2 quads, not IPC or lack of instructions. execution cores are fast with OC, but the connection between them and memory is painfully slow.
Highly overclocked Core 2 Duo beats even i7-860 in gaming tests, ofcourse I mean games from that time, not today games. I don't know anyone who upgraded to first gen or core i architecture and now I know why when I am testing it, it was not worthy.
2.8ghz on the quad? what did not know anybody that was running a quad or dual at stock, 3.2 at least but ofter 3.4 or even 3.6. this is not realistic scenario to what we hw enthusiasts ie us hanging on hw forums ran at just like the content creator said at the end.
Hw enthusiasts wouldn't have ran the i5-750S at stock 2.4GHz either, or even bought the lower TDP S-variant. The regular i5-750 had 2.8GHz all-core turbo and of course hw enthusiasts would have ran them at 4GHz or above
Thing is many didn't want to spend the money for the minor upgrade. They'd rather wait for something better or an AMD. Wasn't just me, it was all over the forums at the time.
Your running oem boards, the 775 board is only pcie ver 1.1 where the 1156 is pcie ver 2.0 so cant really compare the cpu performance based off gfx, maybe try using decent motherboard rather than the oem junk your using here, also find a pcie version 1.1 gpu to show gfx performance leveling out the playing field, yeah the 1156 will kill the 775 chip in 2d benches as its a gen higher, just like a 13900k will be better than a 12900k, try using a p45 chipset 775 board rather than the q45 oem junk your using here.
The i7 920 also came out in 2008, could also make for an interesting comparison.
If I remember right a stock i7 920 beats even C2Q Q9650 and both overclocked the i7 920 really pulls ahead.
Yeah, 1366 was the move, not 1156. Initially you wouldn't notice too much, but in time with the tripple channel memory up to 24gb or even 48gb, hexa core xeons that could oc to 4.5ghz, and all the pcie lanes you could stuff sound cards, m2 and high performance networking without sacrificing gpu performance made it an very long lasting platform. It really was insane considering how realtively cheap hedt motherboards were back then, and being able to get a used xeon for cheap later.
I ran my x58 setup as my main system/gamer all the way up until mid 2019 when the mobo took a dump.
The later 6 cores on that platform lasted ages, if a game doesnt use avx theyre still usable!
I remember the i5 being a oc monster, i saw a lot of them stable at 4ghz on all cores.
I had an i5 750, which I got overclocked up to 3.85 GHz but when I tried going to 4, I think that attempt killed the motherboard
Yeah, but C2D/C2Q was also possible to OC to 4 GHz and in gaming tests back in the day, first gen core i was not that good upgrade I would say if you wanted it only for games. Core 2 architecture was that good, that it was really hard to beat it with some new generations. I jumped from E8200 to i5-4670K, that was THE upgrade, but still, single core performance was not that crazy better compared to overclocked Core 2 Duo, it was the best CPU architecture of all time.
Core 2 extreme Why did this series not receive its due reviews, even though it is much stronger than... Core 2 quad Maybe because it is rare or its price is high, right?
The Q9650 would've been a better opposition to the i5 as it's stock speed is 3.0ghz making up for the auto boost of the i5 IMO. Q9550 and 9650 share the same cache sizes and everything it is just the clock speed difference
I daily drive a Xeon E5450 (3.20Ghz) @ 80w, definitely a better option than the C2Q @ 95w, it would have been an interesting comparison against the I5 750s. The longevity of these CPUs is bonkers! Coincidentally I just bought a Q9550 because it was hella cheap, it will be useful for a beefed up socket 775 Windows XP era gaming machine!
Back in the day I upgrade from a Q9650 to a 980x, that was a proper upgrade, also the one and only time I spent $1000 on a CPU because it was pretty unnecessary, that CPU was a beast though 😮
If you upgrade to Core 2 extreme qx9770 I would have seen another monster much better than... Q9650It is the most powerful and last processor installed on Lga 775
The first gen I5's also overclock pretty well, do look up a guide on how to do it and you'll probably learn how too get id guess between 3.5 - 4 ghz depending on what motherboard you have & how far your ram overclocks.
You can get 4.4-4.5 out of them with ease
Phenom II X4 955BE and i5 750 both came out in 2009 and were quite popular in the middle class.
Thanks! I was going to check the charts to see which came out when so I knew what to pickup..but that gives me a direction. Appreciate it.
Great vid dude! You should totally OC that C2Q and see how it goes against the i5. You mentioned overclocking kinda excited to see how the OC does vs the stock i5.
The C2Q's were amazing overclockers absolute monsters back in the day
Txs! I plan on it. Just gotta find a board that can push past 1333 fsb. People still want hundreds of dollars for those old things
It would also be nice to see OC results of the i5
I have a nice ASUS P5P43TD DDR3 board and currently have my Q9650 OC'd to 3.866 ghz very stable. Unfortunately was expensive, ebay find, P43 chipset, was able to get FSB up to 441. The performance gain from stock was huge.
@@ANN1H1LATE89
It seems you didn't come Core 2 extreme Or you haven't heard of it because it is much stronger Core 2 quad It supports overclocking up to 6 GHz or more
enjoyed the bench as always, though i noticed in your videos when you speak of difference of performance in games you mention it in fps. I have one request regarding this, if you can, please use percentages rather than raw fps difference because for your viewers its most likely harder to feel whether those 20fps for example, are going to be impactful or not without looking a lot into context. But yeah thx for the vid👍
Good video. Socket 1156 was the first Intel series that I never owned. I went from Quad 2 Core to Socket 1155 (i7 2600k) and then I went socket 1366 (6 core Xeon) and then I went to socket 1150 with a i7 4790.
Then I went Ryzen for years, my gaming rig is a 5800x3d. My desktop is a 13700k. My next gaming pc will be Intel, I like the "E-cores". I can assign a large task with the "P-cores" and the pc is still absolutely usable with the "E-cores", watch 4k video, social media, answer e-mails, even some light gaming. Ryzen 5800x3d just chugs and is unusable if I try to multitask like with the 13700k.
Does the ryzen perform better in gaming or not? my PCs tech stuck at before 2015 😅 from dualcore i went to core 2 quad then i5 3470 (main pc) and i got an amd fm2 a6 6800k them upgraded it to athlon x4 740 but its still suck 😅 i always wanted to try the ryzen but it seems intel 13th gen perform better? 😅
@@fajarjarjarbinks1946 It can, if the game uses the cache.
Surprised to see the 5800 struggle, because going by the reviews many would've thought that it was the best cpu there ever was.
And no just that it's also overpriced af atleast in India. Where you can find a 13 gen i7 for the same price.
Interesting to see the 5800x3d struggling, rn I am using a 2600 and also have a 5600x and a 5800h, all of them are pretty decent even when doing multiple things at once. All 3 systems are equipped with 16gb of ram. I pretty much always have multiple things open at once, like a game, firefox, spotify, discord etc.
@@JoseLgamer05 The 5800x3d is awesome for gaming, just not great at multi-tasking like 12th-14th gen cpu's are.
Not having the integrated memory controller seems to be hurting the Quad a lot. Also the fact that it has two Core2Duo dies must be hurting latency as well. The FPS you get in GTA V is even lower than what I used to get from my Phenom II X4 + HD5750 1GB GDDR5 setup back in 2015.
GTAIV ran better on AMD Phenom I and II chips than C2Qs for this exact reason. The true quad and hex core architecture of these old chips significantly improved latency
It's better to use highly clocked Core 2 Duo than C2Q. E8600 on 4 GHz beats even i7-860 in gaming performance and I am not kidding, I am just testing it. I also noticed that turbo boost probably doesn't work that great with this first gen core i architecture, but maybe it's problem of mother board but anyway, it's better to clock it manually to fixed speed.
Excellent benchmarks
Thanks!
Would be interesting to see the FX 8150/8350 vs the i5 750/i7 920/980
Ok yeah I agree, I'll add that to my list. Keep an eye out.
@@jims_junk Will do, thanks.
I was just testing overclocked E8600 vs i7-860 and no, it was not an upgrade back in the day, that's why most of people stayed with core 2 architecture until like 2012 or even more. In some CPU or RAM tests, you see a difference, but in real gaming tests, highly clocked Core 2 Duo has still more FPS than even overclocked i7-860. Ofcourse Q9550 with no OC is pretty bad choice for gaming back in the day, games didn't need 4 cores until like 2015.
Also, first generation of turbo boost technology acts weird, it's better to OC it manualy to fixed frequency to get better performance.
What I really want (but it's hard to find one for good price) is Core 2 Extreme edition with unlocked multiplier. It's pretty easy to OC E8600 to like 4 GHz, but it's not that easy to do it with Core 2Q CPUs that are available because they have mostly much lower multiplier which makes overclocking not that simple. I'd like to see how would C2Q be doing against first gen Core i if it was running on 4 GHz stable or even more.
The test would be fair, if both CPUs were clocked to 3GHz. It would be interesting to see the performance difference.
And graphics intensive tasks maybe slower on core 2 Quad, because the MCH would only support up to PCI Express x16 1.0, while Core i5 750 have PCI Express x16 2.0
Hey, could you find a FX 4200 and test it against with other FX cpus? I heard it was 4M/4T instead of 2M/4T
In this very specific instance I would love to know how a lower end similarly specced Xeon like the L5420 would fare, specially now that they can be bought for cheap and easily modifiable in place of a C2Q. Hope you get better!
I agree. I do plan on doing that
The first-gen Core i processors were pretty underwhelming compared to the later Core 2 models. The real excitement started with the first high-performance platform, LGA 1366 with the X58 chipset. This setup could handle up to two Nehalem chips (6 cores and 12 threads each) on the new QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) architecture, eliminating bottlenecks for system devices and peripherals. Two 771 Core 2 / Xeons couldn't have matched the massive performance boost from both the new architecture and QPI (note a 771/775 can be bottlenecked by just using 2 GPUs or a consumer grade RAID-0 HDD arrangement). Meanwhile, the consumer platform (1156) only saw a proper release at 45nm and a disappointing 32nm Clarkdale with no quad-core chips.
Later on, the 1155 consumer platform made a big splash with SATA3, PCIe 3.0, and USB 3.0. These were significant upgrades over their 2.0 versions, especially for USB (selected Sandy Bridge boards only, and later norm on Ivy Bridge).
Hey man got a great idea for a video...... maybe a decent idea... why don't you compare Core 2 Duo E8400 and E6850. Both run at 3.00 GHz.....
Will you?
Sure. Not sure when cuz I have a few things I'm working on and gotta pickup a 6850. Those are two different generation duos and I've wanted to compare generations. So that'll defiantly work. Thanks!!!
@@jims_junk you're welcome bro! 👍
I'm looking to "upgrade" my old office PCs with the quad since the dual core in them are tooo slow. And after watching this, if it can run crisis, it can very well do spreadsheets, I suppose.
LOL. That's one way of looking at it.
Lol difference even in ur tests is HUGE, and u keep saying its not that big deal, i wish now CPU's gens got same % different in power.
the FSB is the real bottleneck of late core 2 quads, not IPC or lack of instructions.
execution cores are fast with OC, but the connection between them and memory is painfully slow.
Highly overclocked Core 2 Duo beats even i7-860 in gaming tests, ofcourse I mean games from that time, not today games. I don't know anyone who upgraded to first gen or core i architecture and now I know why when I am testing it, it was not worthy.
Oh, so you have a Lenovo M58?
Give it to me.
2.8ghz on the quad? what did not know anybody that was running a quad or dual at stock, 3.2 at least but ofter 3.4 or even 3.6. this is not realistic scenario to what we hw enthusiasts ie us hanging on hw forums ran at just like the content creator said at the end.
Hw enthusiasts wouldn't have ran the i5-750S at stock 2.4GHz either, or even bought the lower TDP S-variant. The regular i5-750 had 2.8GHz all-core turbo and of course hw enthusiasts would have ran them at 4GHz or above
I think someone with core 2 quad money would have also had i7 money. Interesting comparison though
Thing is many didn't want to spend the money for the minor upgrade. They'd rather wait for something better or an AMD. Wasn't just me, it was all over the forums at the time.
make IPC comparison pls
IPC?
Your running oem boards, the 775 board is only pcie ver 1.1 where the 1156 is pcie ver 2.0 so cant really compare the cpu performance based off gfx, maybe try using decent motherboard rather than the oem junk your using here, also find a pcie version 1.1 gpu to show gfx performance leveling out the playing field, yeah the 1156 will kill the 775 chip in 2d benches as its a gen higher, just like a 13900k will be better than a 12900k, try using a p45 chipset 775 board rather than the q45 oem junk your using here.