E8400 Vs E8500

RichieM · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:14

Has anyone done a comparison between the two?
I trying to decide wether to buy a 400 today or wait for a 500 :confused:

melbourne720 · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:18

Is a x.5 multi extra going to make that much difference?

RichieM · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:25

melbourne720 said:
Is a x.5 multi extra going to make that much difference?

Thats what I'm thinking!

Tooks · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:32

You can't discuss competitor pricing on here bud, even if you don't mention where!

Anyway, I decided that the extra cash for an 8500 over an 8400 wasn't worth it for the 0.5 multi and the 160mhz stock speed increase, so went for the 8400.

It will still hopefully overclock well, and end up where an 8500 would have been anyway.

Topitoff · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:36

E8400 = Today, E8500 = Later

E8400 ~ 4Ghz; E8500 ~ 4.5Ghz

E8400 -> £60 -> E8500

Your choice

RichieM · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:38

sry edited

I've put off putting together a new system until the new chips were out, and had planned on getting the E8500 (thinking the launch would go smoothly :rolleyes:

) but now as they aren't about (I wanna order stuff today

) looks like I'll have to go for E8400

VoG · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:38

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.

Ice Tea · 23 Jan 2008 at 09:55

Topitoff said:
E8400 -> £60 -> E8500

Your choice

£60 ?

Did you leave a 1 off the front

HeX · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:01

Ice Tea said:
£60 ?

Did you leave a 1 off the front

Difference in price.

Tooks · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:10

Topitoff said:
E8400 = Today, E8500 = Later

E8400 ~ 4Ghz; E8500 ~ 4.5Ghz

E8400 -> £60 -> E8500

Your choice

Why do you say the 8500 will do .5Ghz more than an 8400?

If an E8400 was at 4Ghz, then the FSB would be 444. (444x9=4000).

So, if an E8500 was also at 444FSB, then it would be running at 4.2Ghz, not 4.5Ghz. That's a difference of 200Mhz, not 500Mhz.

So, unless the E8500 allows a higher FSB?....

Or is the E8500 better silicon, or is this what people are actually achieving with the 2 chips?

Ice Tea · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:13

HeX said:
Difference in price.

Thanks

easyrider · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:15

The 8500 has a higher multi so therefore the mobo becomes less of a limitation when clocking.

Tooks · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:19

But as the maths above demonstrates, that's hardly a lot is it? £60 worth?

Topitoff · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:25

Tooks said:
Why do you say the 8500 will do .5Ghz more than an 8400?

If an E8400 was at 4Ghz, then the FSB would be 444. (444x9=4000).

So, if an E8500 was also at 444FSB, then it would be running at 4.2Ghz, not 4.5Ghz. That's a difference of 200Mhz, not 500Mhz.

So, unless the E8500 allows a higher FSB?....

Or is the E8500 better silicon, or is this what people are actually achieving with the 2 chips?

They say intel have been speed binning the chips

wellibob · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:25

9.5 , and E8500 just sounds better .

Pellay · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:27

Benchmarks

There's a good set of benchmarks on xbits comparing the E8 and E6 series, maybe that'll be a deciding factor?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale.html

Tooks · 23 Jan 2008 at 10:28

Topitoff said:
They say intel have been speed binning the chips

If that's the case, then that would be something!

It just seems a big step in price to the next chip. Mind you, that's always been the case I suppose. Q6600 to Q6700 for instance...

helmutcheese · 24 Jan 2008 at 12:48

If you go and read dozens of threads on XS, you can see Intel seem to be keeping the better samples for the E8500's they all clock well and some of the E8400's not so well.

easyrider · 24 Jan 2008 at 16:20

If you have the money why limit your overclock by FSB

helmutcheese · 24 Jan 2008 at 16:30

Thats true but not all Mobo's will do the .5 Multi's AFAIK (Im used of them on older AMD Rigs).