-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
E8400 vs Q6600 vs Q8200
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 488
E8400/8500 + decent after market cooler
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 416
tbh what do u use your pc for? when will u next be upgrading ?
old debate. You need to be specific with what you use your pc for.
I went from a 3ghz 4200+ x2 to a q6600 as I do lots of video encoding.
Difference was amazing in games as well.
So ignoring the old dual vs quad arguement (search these forums for many opinions on which is best) i would say the following:
If dual is best for you get the E8400. If going quad then the choice is more difficult.
The 45nm quads are about 10% quicker clock per clock over the old q6600. However, they have reduced the cache in the q8200 which in some applications cancels the speed difference.
However, the q8200 should run cooler and maybe get to a higher overclock potentially but the q8200 has a very low multiplier (7) compared to the 9 of the q6600 so you need high end fast memory and a very good mobo to get to high clocks.
eg on a q6600, 3.6Ghz is easy as it's just 9 x 400 (assuming you get a q6600 capable of 3.6Ghz as not all do) and your memory will run at just 800 (pc6400) speed and all mobos do 400fsb no problem.
on a q8200 you would need 7 x 514Mhz which would mean your mobo would need to be exceptional to handle 513Mhz and your memory would need to be able to 1028Mhz (pc8500).
So you may only get to 3.1/3.2Ghz max with a q8200 due to mobo/mem limitations even if the cpu could do 4Ghz.
Lastly the q8200 is a lot more money than the q6600. IMO it is overpriced for the performance and the overclocking limitation. It should really not be any more money than a q6600.
Of course if you are not overclocking then the answer is different again
As much as it galls me to recommend all technology, if you will use a quad then the q6600 is still the vfm cpu to buy. If gaming the E8400 is the best bang for buck in that range
I went from a 3ghz 4200+ x2 to a q6600 as I do lots of video encoding.
Difference was amazing in games as well.
So ignoring the old dual vs quad arguement (search these forums for many opinions on which is best) i would say the following:
If dual is best for you get the E8400. If going quad then the choice is more difficult.
The 45nm quads are about 10% quicker clock per clock over the old q6600. However, they have reduced the cache in the q8200 which in some applications cancels the speed difference.
However, the q8200 should run cooler and maybe get to a higher overclock potentially but the q8200 has a very low multiplier (7) compared to the 9 of the q6600 so you need high end fast memory and a very good mobo to get to high clocks.
eg on a q6600, 3.6Ghz is easy as it's just 9 x 400 (assuming you get a q6600 capable of 3.6Ghz as not all do) and your memory will run at just 800 (pc6400) speed and all mobos do 400fsb no problem.
on a q8200 you would need 7 x 514Mhz which would mean your mobo would need to be exceptional to handle 513Mhz and your memory would need to be able to 1028Mhz (pc8500).
So you may only get to 3.1/3.2Ghz max with a q8200 due to mobo/mem limitations even if the cpu could do 4Ghz.
Lastly the q8200 is a lot more money than the q6600. IMO it is overpriced for the performance and the overclocking limitation. It should really not be any more money than a q6600.
Of course if you are not overclocking then the answer is different again
As much as it galls me to recommend all technology, if you will use a quad then the q6600 is still the vfm cpu to buy. If gaming the E8400 is the best bang for buck in that range
Last edited:
Okay good points there, I got a board that can support up to 1333 FSB (P5E3) and memory that matches that speed.(1333mhz) That is why I want a 1333mhz FSB CPU.
As for what do I do with the machine?
Well honestly surfing net, playing media, watching tv, dvd creating, extracting files (winrar) that is pretty much the lot. Maybe I am missing something.
As for what do I do with the machine?
Well honestly surfing net, playing media, watching tv, dvd creating, extracting files (winrar) that is pretty much the lot. Maybe I am missing something.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 416
so you do the basic pc stuff then, do u ever decode dvds etc or play games, If your going for a future proof upgrade get the quad
I got a HD camera and at the moment when I create a DVD it takes around 8 hours on my 2gb xp3200 machine it takes the mick really does.
So I do decode movies indeed
could I expect a massive improvement even with e8400?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 416
yeh u will see a major improvement but a quad will be quicker if u oc it. I went from q6600 to a e8500 and saw the performance drop hence me going for a newer 45nm quad
And without going overboard all (99.999999%) q6600 do 3Ghz (1333fsb) which would be perfect for you setup. Just set the fsb to 333Mhz and don't change anything else in bios.
The q6600 runs at 9 x 266 (2.4Ghz) at stock hence the quad pumped effective fsb of 1066. You just change that from 266 to 333 in bios and it's sorted.
As for overclocking the q6600, 3Ghz is easy but with reasonable cooling you should be able to get 3.2/3.3Ghz without too many problems and very little effort.
And a 3Ghz q6600 will scream through video encoding. I can encode a 90 min movie in 36 mins with my quad (although you will be slower at just 3Ghz)
The q6600 runs at 9 x 266 (2.4Ghz) at stock hence the quad pumped effective fsb of 1066. You just change that from 266 to 333 in bios and it's sorted.
As for overclocking the q6600, 3Ghz is easy but with reasonable cooling you should be able to get 3.2/3.3Ghz without too many problems and very little effort.
And a 3Ghz q6600 will scream through video encoding. I can encode a 90 min movie in 36 mins with my quad (although you will be slower at just 3Ghz)
Last edited:
well if you get good chip u can do 3ghz at stock voltages. if u know basics of overclocking and it is ok chip u should be able to get 3.4 easily. after 3.4 it is a bit of challenge but if u know what u doing and chip is good u can even reach 3.6 / 3.8 even 4. i can do 4ghz on mine but not comfortable with power consumtion
so no point in buying this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-211-IN
that would be a waste if I can overclock to around 3ghz!
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-211-IN
that would be a waste if I can overclock to around 3ghz!
