• 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.

New Intel Processors Announced

Vertigo1 said:
No. Contrary to what some of the quad-core zealots will tell you, Windows will not feel any more responsive nor will the above programs multi-task any better.

A quad is only of any use if you're doing very computationally intensive tasks, such as video encoding or 3D rendering. Some games are supposed to take advantage of more than two cores but, in all but a very few games, the gains over a similarly clocked dual are slight.

As for the futureproofing or "may as well, it's hardly any more for a quad" arguments, bear in mind that you'll have trouble clocking the quad to the same speed as a dual, will have more heat to get rid of requiring more expensive and/or noisy cooling and will consume more power. If you don't need the extra cores, why incur these penalties?
Click to expand...

thx some good points there, definatly leaning on the E8400 ;)
 
prosser13 said:
Me?

http://www.ocxtreme.org/forumenus/showthread.php?t=2277

No, I'm really not :/
Click to expand...

Biggest load of hot air I have read (briefly I might add in a long time)... The guy claims orthos stable @ 4.9 but in his screeny he is running at 445FSB or something certainly not high enough for 4.9Ghz...

All he has is an unvalidated screen shot of 4.9ghz and a superpi screen shot with no CPUz or anything to prove it was his Pi run...

Nothing in that thread that really proves anything
 
if you play games like supreme comander quad core is a big bonus. The game is ment to be a lot smoother on quads. Gamse like alan wake are beign programed to run quads. More and moer things are going to be needing them. You dont need em now but future games will support them.
 
No idea on the stock cooler front as these chips run pretty cool, but 4Ghz should certainly be achievable on better air cooling like an AF7 or better, I'm not sure if 'extreme' cooling measures will even be needed for these chips' top clocks...
 
Lightnix said:
No idea on the stock cooler front as these chips run pretty cool, but 4Ghz should certainly be achievable on better air cooling like an AF7 or better, I'm not sure if 'extreme' cooling measures will even be needed for these chips' top clocks...
Click to expand...

if 4ghz is the best these chips can do on air then they are not really worth the price over current chips.

if it were more like 4.5 on top air and common, then yes.. but 4ghz, no.
 
Pneumonic said:
Biggest load of hot air I have read (briefly I might add in a long time)... The guy claims orthos stable @ 4.9 but in his screeny he is running at 445FSB or something certainly not high enough for 4.9Ghz...

All he has is an unvalidated screen shot of 4.9ghz and a superpi screen shot with no CPUz or anything to prove it was his Pi run...

Nothing in that thread that really proves anything
Click to expand...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=168399

They are still good none-the-less
 
i could be wrong but when the G0 steppings came out and the nda was up on the sunday didnt a few places including ocuk sell them a few days early?
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
if 4ghz is the best these chips can do on air then they are not really worth the price over current chips.

if it were more like 4.5 on top air and common, then yes.. but 4ghz, no.
Click to expand...

Freezer 7's are hardly 'top air', they go for £10-15, they're just better than the stock cooler is what I'm getting at. Things like Tuniq Towers may well achieve 4.3+ but there's no way of knowing. Then there's the fact that they are faster than conroe clock for clock. I mean, a 4Ghz 8400 should easily be twice as fast as a 2.3Ghz 6550.

Also: I don't believe G0 actually had an NDA as opposed to how quickly shops could get them in stock as they weren't exactly a huge 'thing' like a whole new line of CPUs.
 
cliffy said:
Check out this thread over at XS. Seems that the retail E8500 rocks but the E8400 is not so good:(. Thioughts over there seem to suggest that the E8500 are higher binned chips which makes them worth the extra cash.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=172882
Click to expand...

Something stinks, i think maybe very little amount of retail chips will get good clocks.. so maybe its too much of a gamble

ES samples, as usual were much better.
 
Fancy new processors... I'm unimpressed. My £100 E4300 from almost a year ago runs perfectly at 3.2GHz on a 1422MHz FSB (9x356). Give me faster hard drives, better software, cheaper high-res displays etc... the last thing I need is more CPU power.
 
clv101 said:
Fancy new processors... I'm unimpressed. My £100 E4300 from almost a year ago runs perfectly at 3.2GHz on a 1422MHz FSB (9x356). Give me faster hard drives, better software, cheaper high-res displays etc... the last thing I need is more CPU power.
Click to expand...

You're a paradox. An overclocker who doesn't want more CPU power.

Come on, you know you want some of that 4Ghz+ goodness :D
 
I think im going to let the test pilots have a go overclocking these chips before I get one,might even wait for one off the 1066/800mhz 3 meg cache ones
 
Since i'm looking to build a new comp (running a Pentium 4 atm), was wondering how the E8400 will rank compared to a current Q6600?

Am i right in saying that for applications that use quad core, the Q6600 will outperform the E8400, but for gaming etc the E8400 will come out on top?

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom