E4300 -> E8400?

[icey_haj]

Hi,

Just joined the forums.

I have an E4300@3Ghz, and was considering getting a E8400. Would it be worth it? would i notice a difference at stock speeds?

 

[Phunky]

I've moved from a [email protected] to a [email protected] and tbh i dont see much of a difference if anything for now the only thing thats doing me better is the extra cache.

But in the long run this Quad should do better than my sweat little E4300 !

 

[hbunny]

On balance, you probably won't see enough difference to warrant the price of the upgrade, but that's only my opinion.

If you play games, consider a graphics card upgrade first. Or don't, as I've just noticed your signature - doh!

 

[icey_haj]

Thanks for the replies. I have one more question. I have a pre-built pc which with a E6600@stock and that loads vista 32bit quite fast. however the one that i built, with a E4300@3ghz, takes quite a long time to load vista 32. i also got the WD 500GB (AAKS). i cant understand why the boot up time is sooo long.

 

[-iceblade^]

maybe cache??? dunno... maybe your drive may be having issues??? my 320GB AAKS died last night, so i'm wondering if yours might not be having the same sort of issue

 

[bluntslide]

take the e6600 out of the pre built machine and swap it for the e4300, free upgrade!

 

[icey_haj]

take the e6600 out of the pre built machine and swap it for the e4300, free upgrade!

lol, good idea.

 

[icey_haj]

maybe cache??? dunno... maybe your drive may be having issues??? my 320GB AAKS died last night, so i'm wondering if yours might not be having the same sort of issue

my harddrive is working fine in windows, no issues there...... i was thinking it maybe the cache myself, could anybody confirm?

 

[hbunny]

I don't see cache being significant in the loading time for the OS. It's hard to say what it could be. And what do you mean by "it takes a long time to load"? Is it from power-on to the log-in screen? From power-on to the PC being usable?

I ask my XP x64 box would boot into windows quickly, but took another 2 minutes to be usable (sodding ATI CCC performing poorly).

Besides both boxes having Vista 32bit, are they completely different in hardware? Crap performing device drivers or other dross that likes to load at the start - Adobe quick start, iTunes dross, the list is endless...

Hard drive is also a suspect. Do you have any tools to measure the hard drive performance?

 

[steve258]

The E8400 should be 10% or so faster at stock than the E4300 at 3Ghz. When overclocked the difference is even bigger.

Having said that I moved from E4300 3.1Ghz to Q6600 3.375Ghz and although the difference is there it's nothing to shout about.

Regarding faster boot up it should have very little implication to the cache size it's a lot more independent to the amount of drivers and software you have installed on your build.

 

[icey_haj]

thanks for the help guys

 

[mks2005]

Unless you perform CPU intensive tasks on a regular basis, it would be a pointless waste of money. Even then, I'm not sure I could justify the extra money relative to the gains in performance.