E8400 Vs E8500

Lightnix · 24 Jan 2008 at 16:54

Well, the highest stable FSB you're likely to get is around 500MHz, right? (correct me if I'm wrong of course, but even up to 1000MHz the difference is only 500MHz, so no help there)

500x9.5 = 4750MHz
500x9 = 4500MHz

250MHz difference for £60. Yay, sign me up.

helmutcheese · 24 Jan 2008 at 17:48

Most will be lucky to even get 500FSB.

Some Mobos inc the new MSI NF7 and X48 can do 580FSB.

The higher the multi the better and dont forget about the possibility that its true Intel keep better samples for the E8500.

weescott · 24 Jan 2008 at 18:07

You are talking anywhere between 4.2 and 4.6 stable with the E8500 depending on your cooling. 490FSB was the sweet spot for me.

PCZ · 25 Jan 2008 at 08:39

You have to consider FSB restraints.
I wanted one of these new chips for my gaming PC.
This happens to be a 680i with SLI.

I want to keep the SLI setup so i have to work within the FSB restraints of that board.

450mhz FSB is the max whilst maintaining stability.
Can push higher for benches but for 24/7 450mhz is the most i will go to.

For me that ruled out the 8400.

MoRT489 · 25 Jan 2008 at 11:31

VoG said:
depends how good the rest of your kit is really, if your mobo or ram aren't good enough to push the 8400 to it's limit, then the 8500 might be a better bet just to take the strain off your ram & mobo.

Would an 8400 be limited by Geil PC6400 ULL and P35 DS3R?

Topitoff · 25 Jan 2008 at 11:57

creed said:
Would an 8400 be limited by Geil PC6400 ULL and P35 DS3R?

Mobo- unlikely as most P35s will easily do 500+

RAM - more than a possibility, generally the cheap PC6400 C4 will do 450 but above that it's the luck of how good the sticks are. I have 2 OCZ XTC C4 kits; one only just makes 450, the other 470. Used Ballistix to get the best out of the E8400.

wellibob · 25 Jan 2008 at 14:15

As with everything, different chips, offer different options, its choice.... how much you pay is on the user. As to which is best, is experience if you ask me !

synixx · 25 Jan 2008 at 17:06

not worth it imo. but 'm a bargain basement kind of guy. i was missing the clearance section, until i realised there was an amazing sale on. shame i had no money though

Lightnix · 25 Jan 2008 at 17:32

As for the motherboard being the limiting factor...

Well, the lower the FSB limit, the lower the gap between the two chips will be if you do some very simple maths.

Difference in total clockspeed of the E8400 and E8500 based on FSB speeds:

333 it's 160MHz (stock, 3 vs. 3.16)
400 it's 200MHz (3.6 vs. 3.8)
450 it's 225MHz (4.05 vs. 4.275)
500 it's 250MHz (4.5 vs. 4.75)

So surely those with higher FSB motherboards should be more interested in the E8500 than those with weaker boards?

Reality|Bites · 25 Jan 2008 at 17:35

I've had my E8400 up to 4.3Ghz bench stable(Orthos lasted 5mins) with 1.42v
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9324541

I can post at 4.4Ghz but not very stable, I think my motherboard is letting me down.

Vertigo · 25 Jan 2008 at 17:40

PCZ said:
450mhz FSB is the max whilst maintaining stability.
Can push higher for benches but for 24/7 450mhz is the most i will go to.

For me that ruled out the 8400.

So 45% more cost for 6% more speed - yeah that makes sense :confused:

Kirth Gersen · 25 Jan 2008 at 18:42

Appreciate some help. I have been trying to figure what the best solution would be for running an E8xxx with the kit in my sig. The E2160 is an L2 revision and my current FSB wall is only 371 Mhz.

I would like to achieve something like a stable 4.2-4.4 clock as cost effectively as possible.

So with an E8500 thats an FSB range of 442 to 463
and with an E8400 thats an FSB range of 467 to 489

Will the PC2 6400 Geil be a limiting factor? Should I get PC2 8500? I see two options.

1. Get an E8500 and see what the Geil will do.
2. Get an E8400 and upgrade the RAM (with 2 Ghz Ballistix at c£60) that works out at about the cost of the above. Or would this be pointless as the board will be the limiting factor).

Thoughts?

Topitoff said:
My thoughts:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10967211&postcount=26

Vimes · 25 Jan 2008 at 19:06

Will the PC2 6400 Geil be a limiting factor? Should I get PC2 8500? I see two options.

Why not just try and overclock your memory now to see what it will be capable of achieving without having to spend any money....?
The same could apply by testing the board as well.

Doing the above will at least give you an informed choice regarding both.

Kirth Gersen · 25 Jan 2008 at 19:14

Vimes said:
Why not just try and overclock your memory now to see what it will be capable of achieving without having to spend any money....?
The same could apply by testing the board as well.

Doing the above will at least give you an informed choice regarding both.

goes away and some research...

I'll be back!

Kirth Gersen · 25 Jan 2008 at 21:17

OK had a quick check and its not looking good - though that could be my cack handed oc ability.

First I wound down the multiplier to 6 and loosened memory timings to 5,5,5,18 and went with a 1:1 divider. I then tweaked the FSB up and hit a wall of 371

. However, isn't the wall a combination of mobo and CPU, ie it would be higher with a faster CPU?

Second, I wound down the FSB to my normal stable 333Mhz and upped the Memory multiplier. On this board you get set multipliers eg 2x, 2.4x, 2.5x then a jump to 3x. It was fine on 2.5x (833Mhz), but wouldn't post on 3x. So with 833 translating to 416 on a 1:1 divider, that's not much cop is it?

Vertigo · 25 Jan 2008 at 21:37

How are you lot overclocking if you can't monitor temps properly!?

Topitoff · 25 Jan 2008 at 21:54

Vertigo1 said:
How are you lot overclocking if you can't monitor temps properly!?

Core temp works for me but gives high readings, though not tooo high for me to worry when OCing. Anyway just adds a little bit of pressure to the OCing; "will I roast it?"

PCZ · 25 Jan 2008 at 21:56

Vertigo1

The difference in price between the 2 chips is not that great.
60 quid relative to the cost of the rest of the computer is nothing.

The 8500 is better silicon.
You have a much better chance of hitting high stable clocks with them.

My plan worked out by the way and i have 450x9.5 prime stable.
Not suicide speed 24/7 speed.

If you want the best you have to pay extra it's a fact of life.

Vertigo · 25 Jan 2008 at 22:08

PCZ said:
The 8500 is better silicon.
You have a much better chance of hitting high stable clocks with them.

That's a gross assumption with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

The only way the E8500 would be predictably "better silicon" than the E8400 is if Intel were testing and speed-binning them, in which case none of the E8400s would be clocking passed 3Ghz as they'd have been binned as E8500s.

At the end of the day, you can spend your money any way you choose but it's still 45% more money for only 6% more speed and no guarantee that the chip will overclock any better. Just not VFM in my book.

Lightnix · 25 Jan 2008 at 22:08

The 8500 is better silicon.

Supposedly the E4400 should've been better silicon than the E4300... Didn't quite pan out that way, though. You don't know what, if any, tests Intel does relative to overclocking. That's a nice £60 gamble on something completely uncertain and possibly not even worth considering. There's a decent chance that the binning is only done at certain voltages, and that different chips may scale with more voltage better than others. You just don't know.

Think of it this way, £60 is enough for another 4GB of RAM. A decent upgrade to a graphics card. Better cooling. A better motherboard. More storage... It goes on. All for the sake of a 200MHz difference?

Edit: Also, Intel could, if there were demand for it, bolster up a few chips that would've been sold as E8400's and market them and sell them for the same price as the E8500's. We all know the E8400 is far more than capable of a .16GHz overclock on stock voltage, no reason Intel can't do it.