bit-tech.net

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200

Comments 1 to 25 of 39

Reply
genesisofthesith 7th April 2008, 09:01 Quote
Nice article, the only question left would be how would the processors compare when overclocked?

The q6600 can be had for £140, and has the same 9x multi as the e8400, features 2 extra cores and is cheaper. Whilst it may lack the wolfdales architectural improvements, and won't overclock quite as high, with both chips at their max overclocks (which for cheaper boards will likely be similar due to fsb bottlenecks) the q6600 may prove a better price:performance proposition.

The article really drives home however that despite us all feeling that we 'need' quads, the applications can't yet truly take advantage, and a dual core can offer similar performance or a lot less (cost, power and heat).
Panos 7th April 2008, 09:33 Quote
Great article, but the lack of the new B3 Phenoms raise eyebrows.
Instead the use of B2 which are problematic is common to bash AMD?

The market has the B3s in stock, and they are magnificent.
In a broad test like this they should be included. (and the tri-core ones).

Thank you.
oasked 7th April 2008, 09:40 Quote
No mention of stock shortages?
notatoad 7th April 2008, 09:47 Quote
awww, my poor e4300 isn't looking so hot anymore. oh well.

also, shouldn't this have a hardware tag rather than news?
[cibyr] 7th April 2008, 09:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by oasked
No mention of stock shortages?
Just what I was going to say. The E8xxx series would be great, if you could find them anywhere (let alone at the specified prices!). I've been on the waiting list for an E8400 for well over a month now, and apparently the situation isn't much better in the rest of the world...
salesman 7th April 2008, 10:03 Quote
I would like to know the benchmarks of the new Q9300 Q9450 and the Q9550( yorkfields), and how the compare to the e8200 e8400 and the e8500.(wolfdales). And also why is there a stock shortage which likely cause a price increase supply demand.
Mo_ 7th April 2008, 10:34 Quote
Great Review - It looks like im getting the E8400 :)
notatoad 7th April 2008, 10:37 Quote
if you can't find the e8xxx series, try the xeon equivalents. ncix has had decent stock of those for a while, other stores (in North America anyways) should too.
Hiren 7th April 2008, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by genesisofthesith
Nice article, the only question left would be how would the processors compare when overclocked?

The q6600 can be had for £140, and has the same 9x multi as the e8400, features 2 extra cores and is cheaper. Whilst it may lack the wolfdales architectural improvements, and won't overclock quite as high, with both chips at their max overclocks (which for cheaper boards will likely be similar due to fsb bottlenecks) the q6600 may prove a better price:performance proposition.

The article really drives home however that despite us all feeling that we 'need' quads, the applications can't yet truly take advantage, and a dual core can offer similar performance or a lot less (cost, power and heat).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
The Q6600 retails for about £140 - it's 2.4GHz, 1066MHz FSB and has less cache per core.
The E8400 retails for about £125 - it's 600MHz faster at 3GHz, it's 1333MHz FSB and has more cache per core. It's also far lower power = lower heat so a more capable overhead for overclocking. The Wolfdales do have architectural improvements and additional SSE instructions - the Wolfies will do 4GHz which is only 444MHz FSB: Most P35 boards will do that and it's only a 33 percent increase in FSB rather than a 66 percent one from a Q6600.

In games you still need MHz, memory bandwidth and cache predominantly, rather than four cores. It'll change with Nehalem because of the internal crossbar and L3 cache acting as a snoop filter - this won't use the FSB for core to core traffic on quads making them a much better solution.

The Q6600 is a fantastic chip and great value, but so is the E8400 imo. Personally I'd go for the E8400 but a Q6600 is still an excellent purchase.

EDIT: Damnit Hiren!! Leaving yourself logged in.

Stock shortages should pan out eventually as Intel increases capacity. It's a hard factor to quantify because quite a few places I looked last night said "in stock" :?

Panos - I'm saving the B3s for a later article this week - they are currently being tested to compare with all these CPUs.

We don't yet have any Q9000 series as they are as rare as hens teeth. At least the E8000 range comes and goes quite regularly. I don't expect prices to fluctuate much even when stock increases, that is, unless Intel drops its prices which I really don't expect either.

We will test overclocking on a retail chip at a later date. We've got an E8500 engineering sample here which doesn't necessarily represent real world. That and I didn't have time :o
r4tch3t 7th April 2008, 11:22 Quote
Hmm, I may have to get a 8200 to tide me over till Nehalem then, good performance, low(ish) cost.
EDIT: What's better for re-encoding DVDs, DivX or x264, quality wise. I have a small collection and its growing and want them all in digital form.
yakyb 7th April 2008, 11:25 Quote
phenom looked surprisingly good really

im happy with my q6600 though
notatoad 7th April 2008, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiren
We don't yet have any Q9000 series as they are as rare as hens teeth. At least the E8000 range comes and goes quite regularly.

they must swap the stock between the sides of the ocean. q9xxx are all over the place over here, stores have them on weekly specials to try and move them. e8xxx are impossible to find, and if they do come in they sell out within hours.
Bindibadgi 7th April 2008, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
phenom looked surprisingly good really

im happy with my q6600 though

Because I decided to test the Intel boards with DDR2 so they have less memory bandwidth but it's more user applicable at a mainstream level. The Phenoms "Turbo" mode helps and we're also this time comparing to CPUs of equivalent cost, rather than "best each company has to offer".

I still think the Q6600 is a better purchase, especially after you overclock it.

ST - yea I couldn't find hardly any E8000s for US prices :S :(
[USRF]Obiwan 7th April 2008, 12:36 Quote
Is there also a quoadcore like version of the E8400, since i am both a gamer and a heavy app/video editing user. I'm looking for a good processor upgrade. I dont want a Q6600, its getting old and to get the best out of it, i must do heavy overclocking what results into more power consumption.

any ideas
oasked 7th April 2008, 12:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
Is there also a quoadcore like version of the E8400, since i am both a gamer and a heavy app/video editing user. I'm looking for a good processor upgrade. I dont want a Q6600, its getting old and to get the best out of it, i must do heavy overclocking what results into more power consumption.

any ideas

Q9450. Good luck finding stock though.
Bindibadgi 7th April 2008, 12:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by oasked
Q9450. Good luck finding stock though.

The Q9450 has a 1333MHz FSB and a lower multiplier so the Q6600 will still likely be a better option if you weight in overclocking and the chip cost too :)
phuzz 7th April 2008, 13:34 Quote
Was going to get an E8200, but it was out of stock everywhere, and then I found an E8400 at Dabs for £15 more....
Out of the box, with no voltage or owt it's happy at 3.6GHz, not really played with it yet but I had a few errors in Source games at 3.8 with no extra voltage.
Nice chips though, and the OEM heatsink that comes with them is literally half the hight of the older Intel heatsink.
wharrad 7th April 2008, 13:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r4tch3t
Hmm, I may have to get a 8200 to tide me over till Nehalem then, good performance, low(ish) cost.
EDIT: What's better for re-encoding DVDs, DivX or x264, quality wise. I have a small collection and its growing and want them all in digital form.

Off topic sorry :) But yeah, just went through that dilema, here's what I believe is the bottom line.

DivX = More compatibility with lower quality
X264 = Less compatibility with higher quality

Choose x264 now, because I see the compatibility issue just because it's a new codec and will catch up to DivX in time - does anyone reallllly use stand alone divx players? Also, you might want to consider that x264 takes longer to encode, but I'm of the opinion you only do that once per DVD in your collection, so it's not an issue.



And yes, might be time to upgrade from the old E6700 sitting here (oh that feels weird to call it old) - love the 10x multiplier though, makes overclocking just that little bit easier
adamc 7th April 2008, 14:41 Quote
q6600 ftw... still
naokaji 7th April 2008, 14:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
The Q9450 has a 1333MHz FSB and a lower multiplier so the Q6600 will still likely be a better option if you weight in overclocking and the chip cost too :)

I dont think the overclocking is the deal killer, but the price, how much less do you need to overclock it to get the same speed as a q6600 due to more cache and other improvements? Q6600 usually does around 3,6 Ghz (assuming good aircooling), so if the Q9450 could keep up at lets say around 3,4 Ghz that would mean 425 fsb which is possible on a good board. but then you look at the price, the Q6600 is like 150£ less... and the Q9300 comes with cut down cache and a 7 (arggh) mutli.
so yes I agree, Q6600 still wins (or 8400 for gaming).
Bindibadgi 7th April 2008, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
I dont think the overclocking is the deal killer, but the price, how much less do you need to overclock it to get the same speed as a q6600 due to more cache and other improvements? Q6600 usually does around 3,6 Ghz (assuming good aircooling), so if the Q9450 could keep up at lets say around 3,4 Ghz that would mean 425 fsb which is possible on a good board. but then you look at the price, the Q6600 is like 150£ less... and the Q9300 comes with cut down cache and a 7 (arggh) mutli.
so yes I agree, Q6600 still wins (or 8400 for gaming).

Yea it's all down to price :):)
E.E.L. Ambiense 7th April 2008, 15:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by genesisofthesith
The article really drives home however that despite us all feeling that we 'need' quads, the applications can't yet truly take advantage, and a dual core can offer similar performance or a lot less (cost, power and heat).

Which is why I'm still running a C2D. I just don't see the need TBH for quad right now. But I will eventually go to it.
DXR_13KE 7th April 2008, 15:27 Quote
the charts remember me when AMD cpus were the bomb... but now the graphs are reversed.... well, thats evolution.

i do hope AMD does something good and quick.
Jipa 7th April 2008, 17:07 Quote
No wonder then it proved impossible for me to get my hands on a E8400...
wuyanxu 7th April 2008, 17:16 Quote
e8400 seems very, very attractive.

but would it be a down grade if i go from q6600 to a e8400?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums