How good is Core 2 Quad?

Say for example I pair an intel core 2 quad cpu with a high end graphics card like a gtx 960 and also 8gb ram. Would this still be good enough to play modern games like mgsv or the witcher 3 at 30fps 1080p at the higher graphics settings?

Generally speaking, yes the old Core 2 Quad CPUs are still viable for playing games. Games that are CPU intensive will not run as good as PCs with more modern Intel CPUs.

Core 2 Quad CPUs are definitely better than the 1st generation AMD FX-81xx Bulldozer CPUs and should be comparable to AMD's FX-83xx 2nd generation Piledriver CPUs that many gamers are still using.

I have to disagree there.
I had a and eventhough it was (and still is) a great CPU, it was hard to play with high resolution and definition with some games. Like Verdun or PlanetSide2. Also, it would be hard to surf the net while encoding with Handbrake. Even worse when downloading stuffs on some newsgroups, the CPU would go up in smoke and I wouldn't be able to do anything till the download was done.
I changed to a FX 8370 and games are full rez and with no lags, and I can encode and do other things at the same time now. I have enjoyed my Q6600 for many years, but the FX is a real change now for me, and it didn't cost me much

Low may be possible still, for a C2Q.

i have a q6600 paired with an r9-270 and it will play games a couple years old easily at 1080p and generally gets over 30 fps. for instance need for speed most wanted (the old one) with maxed settings gets about 50-55 fps at 1080p. the kids play a lot of shooters on it and they are not complaining. sure they turn down settings here and there but it'll do 1080p at 30+ fps easily. up it to a 960 or so and it should do even better.

not bad for such an old cpu. not the final answer but good enough for now until you can upgrade

Generally speaking, yes the old Core 2 Quad CPUs are still viable for playing games. Games that are CPU intensive will not run as good as PCs with more modern Intel CPUs.

Core 2 Quad CPUs are definitely better than the 1st generation AMD FX-81xx Bulldozer CPUs and should be comparable to AMD's FX-83xx 2nd generation Piledriver CPUs that many gamers are still using.

Generally speaking, yes the old Core 2 Quad CPUs are still viable for playing games. Games that are CPU intensive will not run as good as PCs with more modern Intel CPUs.

Core 2 Quad CPUs are definitely better than the 1st generation AMD FX-81xx Bulldozer CPUs and should be comparable to AMD's FX-83xx 2nd generation Piledriver CPUs that many gamers are still using.

I have to disagree there.
I had a and eventhough it was (and still is) a great CPU, it was hard to play with high resolution and definition with some games. Like Verdun or PlanetSide2. Also, it would be hard to surf the net while encoding with Handbrake. Even worse when downloading stuffs on some newsgroups, the CPU would go up in smoke and I wouldn't be able to do anything till the download was done.
I changed to a FX 8370 and games are full rez and with no lags, and I can encode and do other things at the same time now. I have enjoyed my Q6600 for many years, but the FX is a real change now for me, and it didn't cost me much

where do you see a FX 83XX in your graph?

Most games cannot use more than 4 threads. In low thread situations, FX 8370 wouldn't be much different than an FX 4350 or 6350. FX's issue has always been weak single threaded performance. Take skyrim for instance.

A stock C2Q is definitely going to be a good deal slower. The only reason that FX was better, for you, was the way higher clock speed. In most titles, a 4ghz C2Q would actually still beat an FX 8370. The difference being a 4ghz C2Q is a rare breed. Mine always topped out around 3.6ghz.

I still disagree. My Q6600 was at 3.2Ghz and I can tell you that it wasn't a tad slower when running games. I have Skyrim and it wouldn't play with utlra settings as it does now. I play Verdun and I would have to lower the settings to have decent framerates. X-Com2 would lag too. Here, we're not talking 800Mhz slower, the difference was 6 years of technology.
Not talking about encoding or working on pictures of course. Not even when I'm downloading stuffs from newsgroups, the Q6600 would be burning like hell and I wouldn't be able to do anything till the download was done.

Not talking about encoding or working on pictures of course. Not even when I'm downloading stuffs from newsgroups, the Q6600 would be burning like hell and I wouldn't be able to do anything till the download was done.

Then something must be wrong with your set up.

With my Q9450 I was able to play Fallout 3 and Skyrim at 1920x1200 resolution with high settings while encoding a batch of DVD movies at 720p resolution using XviD codec. or Blu-Ray movie at 1080p using the x.264 codec (slow as hell though). I could also download at the same time; downloading is not CPU intensive at all. Sure, those games would perform better if I did not encode video while playing those games, but I was still getting better than 35 FPS while gaming... except indoors in certain areas in Fallout 3 which were known for poor FPS performance even when not encoding videos.

I could never play AND encode at the same time. Handbrake would push my CPU to its limit, normal. Up to 100% during the process, leaving me with nothing to play. Can't see how it could be different on any config though. I run it at "normal" settings, so VidCoder (now that's what I'm using) is taking what it needs to encode. I guess I could play at the same time, but encoding takes CPU time a lot, so...
Downloading was CPU intensive because of Avast. I had to disable it when downloading, all the packets being checked, my Q6600 would go way up. Less without Avast on, but still.
Now with my FX, things are a bit different, but I like to encode when just surfing, not playing, I don't want to miss a shot

Generally speaking, yes the old Core 2 Quad CPUs are still viable for playing games. Games that are CPU intensive will not run as good as PCs with more modern Intel CPUs.

Core 2 Quad CPUs are definitely better than the 1st generation AMD FX-81xx Bulldozer CPUs and should be comparable to AMD's FX-83xx 2nd generation Piledriver CPUs that many gamers are still using.

I have to disagree there.
I had a and eventhough it was (and still is) a great CPU, it was hard to play with high resolution and definition with some games. Like Verdun or PlanetSide2. Also, it would be hard to surf the net while encoding with Handbrake. Even worse when downloading stuffs on some newsgroups, the CPU would go up in smoke and I wouldn't be able to do anything till the download was done.
I changed to a FX 8370 and games are full rez and with no lags, and I can encode and do other things at the same time now. I have enjoyed my Q6600 for many years, but the FX is a real change now for me, and it didn't cost me much

I also had a Q6600 for a few years and i´m using a FX 8320 right now.
I can confirm the huge increase in performance i got from the change. (and it´s "just" the 8320)
Sure the new Mainboard and the better Ram take part, but also my good old C2Q just went too old.
The FX CPU´s are great and they were just ahead of time at release. (->multithreading)

No. Definitely no. Now is 2017 and no way. Any C2Q today cant even hold 75 frames in Dota 2 stable. With fastest graphics card.

I was running CSGO on a 20 dolla engy sample B53 PII lol unlocked to quad @ 3.2 got 60 fps @ 1080 p with no drops dont see why a core 2 wont. But yeah this isnt a modern game engine

This thread is over a year old. Please do not necro old threads. /closed