E8500 or Q8400

Hey

Which Cpu has good performance?

- INTEL CORE 2 DUO E-8500 = 240 $*

- INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q-8400 = 235 $*

*Average price in Turkey.

Hey

Which Cpu has good performance?

- INTEL CORE 2 DUO E-8500 = 240 $*

- INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q-8400 = 235 $*

*Average price in Turkey.

balciarif

The E8500 is far better than the Q8400, clock for clock. If you want a Quad Core, go for a Q6600 or a Q9550. I really don't like the Q8400.

The E8500 is far better than the Q8400, clock for clock. If you want a Quad Core, go for a Q6600 or a Q9550. I really don't like the Q8400.

skapunkclarence

Which one is best performance?

[QUOTE="skapunkclarence"]

The E8500 is far better than the Q8400, clock for clock. If you want a Quad Core, go for a Q6600 or a Q9550. I really don't like the Q8400.

balciarif

For games, go with E8500. The lack of cache in Q8400 hurts its performanceMr_NoName111

Basically, for games cache, for multi-tasking cores.starwa1ker

[QUOTE="skapunkclarence"]

The E8500 is far better than the Q8400, clock for clock. If you want a Quad Core, go for a Q6600 or a Q9550. I really don't like the Q8400.

balciarif

Just because it's new doesn't mean that it's good. :P At stock speeds, the Q8400 thrashes the Q6600 in most applications. However, when overclocking, I had to raise the vcore to 1.5v, the FSB to 1.4v and the Northbridge to 1.7v in order to squeeze 3.3GHz out of the Q8400. The Q6600, as most people know, can hit 3.6GHz on air cooling (provided you get a good chip, and your motherboard isn't temperamental like a 790i or something). If you're running at stock speeds, get a Q8400. If you're looking for overclocking potential, get an E8400 (for gaming) or a Q6600 (which is both cheaper than a Q8400 and overclocks far better).

[QUOTE="Mr_NoName111"]For games, go with E8500. The lack of cache in Q8400 hurts its performancebalciarif

Take a look at the benchmarks and decide for yourself.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3559

Take a look at the benchmarks and decide for yourself.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3559

E8500KFC1000

Like for people who does intensive video edition or graphics design.starwa1ker

E8500KFC1000

Hi An E8500 is a real killer for playing games.

You can get them clocked upat 4Ghz.

[QUOTE="starwa1ker"]Like for people who does intensive video edition or graphics design.imprezawrx500

And no, the Q6600 isn´t the superior Q8x00 overtaker, it never was and never will, the cache dont help when the arcithekture is slower, clock for clock the 45nm just beats it hand down, even the Q8200 is faster than the Q6600 for most at its slower clock, surely the Q8400 is a much faster chip.

And then the VT bashing... VT is on all Q8400 chips, it always was and always will.

Im deaply concerned about peoples judgement, read benchmarks before bashing the Q8 serie. (:P sorry imprezawrx500, this post is not explict just to you, but im honestly sick of the cache bashing, it´s just not true, there are some gains in some games but it´s to small to enven get concerned about. )

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="starwa1ker"]Like for people who does intensive video edition or graphics design.swehunt

And no, the Q6600 isn´t the superior Q8x00 overtaker, it never was and never will, the cache dont help when the arcithekture is slower, clock for clock the 45nm just beats it hand down, even the Q8200 is faster than the Q6600 for most at its slower clock, surely the Q8400 is a much faster chip.

And then the VT bashing... VT is on all Q8400 chips, it always was and always will.

Im deaply concerned about peoples judgement, read benchmarks before bashing the Q8 serie. (:P sorry imprezawrx500, this post is not explict just to you, but im honestly sick of the cache bashing, it´s just not true, there are some gains in some games but it´s to small to enven get concerned about. )

You will remember that every single chip is ever so slightly different. I was simply posting my personal opinion, based on findings I made through testing and overclocking the Q8400 and the Q6600. The Q6600 Kentsfield is 65nm, yes. However, I've been able to push that thing to 3.6GHz on air, and 3.8GHz on water. The same cannot be said for the Q8400. I personally believe that the Q6600 is the best Core 2 chip Intel have ever made, and would recommend it to anyone over a Q8400 chip any day.

You will remember that every single chip is ever so slightly different. I was simply posting my personal opinion, based on findings I made through testing and overclocking the Q8400 and the Q6600. The Q6600 Kentsfield is 65nm, yes. However, I've been able to push that thing to 3.6GHz on air, and 3.8GHz on water. The same cannot be said for the Q8400. I personally believe that the Q6600 is the best Core 2 chip Intel have ever made, and would recommend it to anyone over a Q8400 chip any day.

skapunkclarence

If you didn't overclock though Q8400 still a good buy as itout performsand cheaper than the Q6600. The Q8400 at 3.4Ghz is going to be close to the 3.6Ghz Q6600 anyway.

swehunt, I have read many benchmarks. Cache greatly affects gaming performance, there is nothing wrong with this statement. Cache isn't a minor factor... Now I'm not saying double cache = double frame rate, but the difference between, say, a 4mb cache quad and a 12mb cache quad is quite significant.

q8400 does not have Intel VT, so no don't buy it. I mean my 3 year old qx6700 has it, there is no excuse :P Get a q9400 or a q6600.

q8400 does not have Intel VT, so no don't buy it. I mean my 3 year old qx6700 has it, there is no excuse :P Get a q9400 or a q6600.

JigglyWiggly_

q8400 does not have Intel VT, so no don't buy it. I mean my 3 year old qx6700 has it, there is no excuse :P Get a q9400 or a q6600.

JigglyWiggly_

Yes it does. O.o

Q8200 don´t, Q8300 have since a while ago, Q8400 have and always will... so yes it does. The first chip (Q8200) didn´t have Intels VirulitationTech, and then came the Q8300, at first it didn´t have the VT either, but intel did change this and from now on the VT is on all Q8300 chips. The Q8400 always had the VT implemented, and it always will.

Between 2*2mb 45nm and 2*6mb 45nm there is a 5% difference in the heviest games (Crysis) given the same clock on intels Core 2 Quad chips. So im quite sick of this cache lie. (tested with the Q8x00 vs. Q9x00 vs. Q9x50)

In 7 of 10 apps the slower clocked q8200 beats the Q6600, the Q8300 wins in 9 of 10 apps vs. the old hot chip, and the Q8400 wouldn´t surprice me if it was faster in evry single test you can find.

Between the Q6600 and the Q8200 it´s not an obvious win for the faster, cooler and newer chip, it´s somewhat not a great OCér, for a 2,8Ghz OC you´ll nead a FSB of 400, the multipler has the disadvantage.

Between the Q6600 and the Q8300 it´s not either a obvious win for the 45nm, sure it´s faster un OCéd but most Q8300 can´t get past the 3,5Ghz because of the 7,5 multipler, you´ll nead a good motherboad and some good ram to let it go that far, but it will if you do.

Between the Q6600 and the Q8400 it´s rly no contest, the Q8400 chips should be able to run 3,6Ghz or higher with it´s multipler of 8 , and then it´s not calculated that the Q8x00 is faster per clockcycle than the old champ.

Im not saying that the Q6600 is a bad chip, but get serious! it´s getting quite old and it has some disadvantages, it´s hot, or atleast alot hotter than the Q8x00 is. It´s 65nm tech, thats slower than the 45nm for most apps.

The only thing you can say about the Q8400 is that it has less cache, but it´s not that big of a deal, it´s 2*2 cache is only limmeting the performance by 5% in the heviest game out today vs the Q9x50 with it´s 2*6mb at same clock.

The current WR of Q8300 is over 4,2Ghz on air, so it will go far if you have the rigth motherboard and ram.

q8400 does not have Intel VT, so no don't buy it. I mean my 3 year old qx6700 has it, there is no excuse :P Get a q9400 or a q6600.

JigglyWiggly_

Hey

Which Cpu has good performance?

- INTEL CORE 2 DUO E-8500 = 240 $*

- INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q-8400 = 235 $*

*Average price in Turkey.

balciarif

Both have good performance. Q8400 being the quad core has more legs so will last longer and be the best all-rounder.

For games, go with E8500. The lack of cache in Q8400 hurts its performanceMr_NoName111

It doesn't hurt it performance. Q8400 generally is better than the Q6600 at stock.

q8400 does not have Intel VT, so no don't buy it. I mean my 3 year old qx6700 has it, there is no excuse Get a q9400 or a q6600.

JigglyWiggly_

It has VT.