Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Utmost

[email protected] 3.2 to 2500K stock and OC comparisons

Recommended Posts

I upgraded to the 2500K from my q9300 and I have an SSD for my boot drive and apps now. Here are the scores.

 

Heaven v1 q9300 @ 3.2 : 970

 

Had to DL v2.5 for the 2500K stock : 888

4.7 : 896

 

All runs had settings of Shaders = high

Tess = extreme

Anistropy = 4

AA = 4

 

So yah, performance tanked with the upgrade, and got a paltry 3 tenths of a FPS better going from 3.3 to 4.7. On to Futuremark stuffs

 

 

3Dmark06:

 

q9300: 16839

2500K stock: 26012

2500K @ 4.7: 31457

 

Ok finally not utterly pissed anymore, but still wondering if this is worth the 500$.

 

 

3DmarkVantage:

 

q9300: 22287

2500K stock: 22964

2500K @ 4.7: 24470

 

Need feedback on this please.

 

 

3Dmark11:

 

q9300: 2888

2500K stock: 5830

2500K @ 4.7: 5919

 

Well the upgrade helped alot in this benchmark, but the OC seems useless, also at that 4.7 I'm still well below what looked to be average.

I'll run a cinebench here too and post that

 

Cinebench 11.5

 

q9300: 3.82

2500K @ 4.7: 7.37

 

better indeed.

Edited by Utmost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I upgraded to the 2500K from my q9300 and I have an SSD for my boot drive and apps now. Here are the scores.

 

Heaven v1 q9300 @ 3.2 : 970

 

Had to DL v2.5 for the 2500K stock : 888

4.7 : 896

 

All runs had settings of Shaders = high

Tess = extreme

Anistropy = 4

AA = 4

 

So yah, performance tanked with the upgrade, and got a paltry 3 tenths of a FPS better going from 3.3 to 4.7. On to Futuremark stuffs

IIRC scores between versions aren't comparable, especially not from v1 to version 2.5. It's entirely likely you would have seen a much lower score with your Q9300 on version 2.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about that Waco, thx for the post. Makes me feel a bit better. Think the other numbers look decent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about that Waco, thx for the post. Makes me feel a bit better. Think the other numbers look decent?

They do to me! I wish my CPU could clock anywhere near that...I'm stuck barely 200 MHz over your stock speed and mine is nowhere near as fast at the same clock speed. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...