>core 2 quad CPUs are still usable in 2017

>>62147417
>tfw core 2 double CPU in chinkpad
I don't know the specifics of replacing it so I'm sticking with TempleOS atm.

My ultra low-voltage Core 2 Duo laptop is still usable in 2017 for 90% of what I need. For the rest, a Sandy/Ivy Bridge is more than enough to suit all my needs, including virtualization and gaming.

File: 1481333019385.jpg (146KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1080x1349px

E8400 master race reporting in

>>62147466
How's your overclock? My e8200 running stable at 3200 (400fsb x 8) with 1.15 voltage, going to bite the bullet on cheap xeon e5450 later this year (that will run at about 3.6 @ 1.2v stable on my shitty motherboard).

File: 1486652626616.gif (2MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x600px

>>62147417
>There are still Intel Atom PCs and laptops being sold with worse performance than a Core 2 Quad.

File: iec19a.png (40KB, 403x402px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 403x402px

Who else /x3470/ here?

>>62147820
i7 870 my dude, don't think my motherboard supports xeons otherwise I would've went for that.

>>62147449
I've still got just a CD in my T60. Works just fine for how I want to use it.

>>62147417
I see your core 2, which is my main processor, and raise you an AMD Athlon single core from 2002.
There is literally no need to update a modern processor ever, and the proof is we are in 2017 and they are marketing W10 tablets with 1GHZ micros and 2 GB of RAM. Same story with phones. Hell they are mounting dual core Celerons in budget laptops.

>>62148288
New CPUs are needed to deal with the increasing levels of bloat.

I've seen netbooks not even 5 years old struggle with Outlook. How pathetic is that?

>>62147417
If you're not installing gentoo, ancient processors still work.

>>62148351
You mean faster processors instead of newer. Newer != faster. Single core performance is not much better than 20 years ago and in some cases its worse (most mobile processors suck).
>Outlook
just don't use bloatware. Its bad.

>>62147820
>6.5GHz
okay.jpg

>>62148458
>Single core performance is not much better than 20 years ago

That is not true and you know it.

>>62148458
>newer!=faster

Only to a certain degree. Newer programs benefit from the newer, more efficient instruction sets that the newer processors support. Old programs won't benefit much, but being what's faster and what's not, old processors are losing out because of instruction set support.

>most mobile processors suck
Intel's Atom line prioritizes battery life over performance. That's why they mostly suck for anything other than media consumption, basic productivity, and web browsing, and ARM is a different architecture, vastly different from x86-64.

>>62148582
Yes it is, because there are crappy processors sold today brand new that are worse than a normal processor from the early 2000s.
Especially in mobility.

>>62148704
Dude I own a Pentium 4 524 which was near top of the line in consumer CPU back when it was released. It doesn't stand a chance against my 2013 shitposting machine which has a Haswell CELERON.

>>62148704
Give us a source you fucking nigger, because everyone thinks you're full of shit right now

>>62147417
Absolutely. I have one connected with my TV and I use it to watch HEVC movies.

>>62148692
I have an Atom netbook that doesn't even have X11 on it, and the battery last fucking forever.

>>62148704
Buuuuuullshit the Celeron in my cheap-ass HP Stream would run circles around the P4 HT in my old Dell Dimension.

>>62147466
How /g/ would convince pic related to let you gently cuddle her without mention Apple's products?

File: quad.png (31KB, 400x403px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x403px

q6600 reporting. downgraded to this till my motherboard comes back from rma. pretty comfy considering its age.

>>62148915
Now run cinebench

File: cin.png (12KB, 337x199px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 337x199px

>>62148964
already have. this overclock was achieved last year for fun.