this is true, i havent even got a clue what a wolfdale is, or what any of intels new cpus are, and i cant be bothered to find out. I just buy whatever is the most expensive i can afford at the time
-
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.
Wolfdale Ramblings. . .
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
- Status
this is true, i havent even got a clue what a wolfdale is, or what any of intels new cpus are, and i cant be bothered to find out. I just buy whatever is the most expensive i can afford at the time
Associate
E8400 vs E2160 'Bundle'
Which basket makes more sense to you?
If you think the E8400 then state your reasons, try and keep them as real world as possible (i.e *not* better Super-PI times or increase your frame rate from 180fps to 240fps).
If you prefere the E2160 bundle also state your reasons why?
Which basket makes more sense to you?
If you think the E8400 then state your reasons, try and keep them as real world as possible (i.e *not* better Super-PI times or increase your frame rate from 180fps to 240fps).
If you prefere the E2160 bundle also state your reasons why?
E8400 vs E2160 'Bundle'
Which basket makes more sense to you?
If you think the E8400 then state your reasons, try and keep them as real world as possible (i.e *not* better Super-PI times or increase your frame rate from 180fps to 240fps).
If you prefere the E2160 bundle also state your reasons why?
Anyone who already has a mobo , ram and is upgrading from a 65nm part then the wolfdale.
If you are buying a system from scratch and are on a tight budget then the latter one would make more sense.
Its that simple really.
Yeah. ^^
It seems like you are trying to highlight that buying the E8400 could net you a whole system. That to me is not a question but manipulation (joke, before I get reported again).
To me it would have to be the E8400 as I've already got the main ingredients to run it. If I were buying from scratch then it would only matter if I had a budget. Trying to save money then it would be the E2160 bundle.
I would get the E8400 and a different motherboard and RAM over the E2160 bundle though. I only bought this E2180 as a stopgap but I'm waiting for a few weeks to change over to the Wofldale as 3.5Ghz is all I'm getting out of this CPU and I will have a lot more fun with the Wolfdale.
It seems like you are trying to highlight that buying the E8400 could net you a whole system. That to me is not a question but manipulation (joke, before I get reported again).
To me it would have to be the E8400 as I've already got the main ingredients to run it. If I were buying from scratch then it would only matter if I had a budget. Trying to save money then it would be the E2160 bundle.
I would get the E8400 and a different motherboard and RAM over the E2160 bundle though. I only bought this E2180 as a stopgap but I'm waiting for a few weeks to change over to the Wofldale as 3.5Ghz is all I'm getting out of this CPU and I will have a lot more fun with the Wolfdale.
Last edited:
Soldato
grrr why have they uped the price of these new wolf cpu's 
(and every other thing i keep tabs on) are they spying on my basket or summot
(and every other thing i keep tabs on) are they spying on my basket or summot 
Yup that's getting expensive now although I'm sure people will pay it for the latest *wonder* chip
Soldato
got my e8400 for faster cad and matlab processing... and has made a huge impact from my old amd turion MT-37
Soldato
E8400 vs E2160 'Bundle'
Which basket makes more sense to you?
If you think the E8400 then state your reasons, try and keep them as real world as possible (i.e *not* better Super-PI times or increase your frame rate from 180fps to 240fps).
If you prefere the E2160 bundle also state your reasons why?
well... if moneys hard for you then the e2160 bundle would be good (i wouldn't suggest that exact board but the one i would chooose costs the same so no worry there) that bundle 'if i brought it' i would want it oc'ed to at least 3ghz so i would add a freezer 7 to that basket
(just to be safe as i have no previous oc experience )the 8400 is good enough on stock value so no oc required 'in my opinion'
, so no freezer 7 needed... again; 'in my opinion' so it varies from person to person, my vote goes to the 8400
Associate
Interesting comparison BigWayne, but its all about diminishing returns. The e2140 (or there abouts) has always been the best value chip in a £ per MHz. From there you pay more and more for smaller jumps.
Difficult time to build a £800-1000 PC. Would you go quad, get a 8200, wait for a 8400/8500 or drop an e2xx0 chip in there?
Quad - lots of money on 'old' tech
8200 - with an 8x multi, you'll need 500MHz FSB on the mobo to get 4GHz
8400/8500 - stock is scarce, and prices are high
e2xx0 - Possible bottleneck for a premium system.
Difficult time to build a £800-1000 PC. Would you go quad, get a 8200, wait for a 8400/8500 or drop an e2xx0 chip in there?
Quad - lots of money on 'old' tech
8200 - with an 8x multi, you'll need 500MHz FSB on the mobo to get 4GHz
8400/8500 - stock is scarce, and prices are high
e2xx0 - Possible bottleneck for a premium system.
I am looking for some 'real world' descriptions of why and how the money is better spent on an E8400. Once you deal with people outside the forums who don't know much about computers I can't think of any good way to convey why they should spend an extra £100 on the new tech.
I suppose if you take away the overclocking and just run the chips the way INTEL designed them at stock speeds then an E8400 (3000MHz/6MB/1333MHz-FSB) really does perform a lot better than an E2160 (1800MHz/1MB/800MHz-FSB).
I dare say it wouldn't be too hard to make an E2160 perform better than a *stock* E8400 but not sure how much clockspeed can make up for the Wolfs 6MB of cache.
I think I answered my own question there, once you take overclocking out the equation everything makes a lot more sense!
I think another area I am a bit fuzzy on it onboard cache, would like to see which games/bench/applications etc really thrive on the added cache of the E8400? I think Super-PI does right? not sure what else?
Associate
My E8400 at stock is appreciably quicker than my E2180 was at 3.2.
The cache does make a difference, as you say, with Super PI. But, I've done some tests with the Crysis benchmark and although it hasn't made much difference to the average or max framerates, the minimum framerates are approx 8 to 10fps higher. Playing the game, there certainly seemed to be less stuttering moments. The only unknown in all this is how much difference the motherboard has made, as I changed to this budget P31 to ensure Wolfdale compatability. The old 650i board was no slouch though, and still had 16x pcie lanes, and looking through my old 3dmark06 scores, they were comparable to the new setup in graphics performance. But, that aside, I'm assuming the extra performance is down to the cache, but can't say for sure.
I also do a lot of batch processing of 4mb JPG's in Paintshop Pro X2, and again although the E2180 did a sterling job, the E8400 at stock is about 20% faster than the E2180 at 3.2.
A little more scientific test is the Custom PC Media Benchmark, which is a video encoding, photo editing and multi tasking test. An E2140 I had running at 3Ghz scored 932 points, and an E4400 I had at 3.4Ghz scored 1028. The E8400 at 3Ghz scores 1197, and at 3.8Ghz it scores 1395 points. I did have a G0 Q6600 CPU for a time, but it wouldn't overclock in my N650i board, but at stock that scored 1068.
Overall then, it would appear to be about 22% faster than a E2***/E4*** chip at the same speed, in that benchmark. At stock, my E8400 is 12% faster than the Q6600 at stock, although probably to be expected given the extra clock speed of the Wolfdale.
The above are just my ramblings of course, so nobody get upset!
My thoughts at the moment are, ok, it's faster at photo editing than any other chip I've had, which is probably the main use for my CPU other than gaming. But, lets be honest, my life hasn't changed because of the few minutes I've saved processing a few photos!!
But, I've got a pc that now it's overclocked is about 30% faster at most things than anything I've had before, so for me that's worth the cash.
To be fair, if the quad had overclocked on my old board, then I probably wouldn't have tried this E8400, but I enjoy trying new stuff, so why not?!
The cache does make a difference, as you say, with Super PI. But, I've done some tests with the Crysis benchmark and although it hasn't made much difference to the average or max framerates, the minimum framerates are approx 8 to 10fps higher. Playing the game, there certainly seemed to be less stuttering moments. The only unknown in all this is how much difference the motherboard has made, as I changed to this budget P31 to ensure Wolfdale compatability. The old 650i board was no slouch though, and still had 16x pcie lanes, and looking through my old 3dmark06 scores, they were comparable to the new setup in graphics performance. But, that aside, I'm assuming the extra performance is down to the cache, but can't say for sure.
I also do a lot of batch processing of 4mb JPG's in Paintshop Pro X2, and again although the E2180 did a sterling job, the E8400 at stock is about 20% faster than the E2180 at 3.2.
A little more scientific test is the Custom PC Media Benchmark, which is a video encoding, photo editing and multi tasking test. An E2140 I had running at 3Ghz scored 932 points, and an E4400 I had at 3.4Ghz scored 1028. The E8400 at 3Ghz scores 1197, and at 3.8Ghz it scores 1395 points. I did have a G0 Q6600 CPU for a time, but it wouldn't overclock in my N650i board, but at stock that scored 1068.
Overall then, it would appear to be about 22% faster than a E2***/E4*** chip at the same speed, in that benchmark. At stock, my E8400 is 12% faster than the Q6600 at stock, although probably to be expected given the extra clock speed of the Wolfdale.
The above are just my ramblings of course, so nobody get upset!
My thoughts at the moment are, ok, it's faster at photo editing than any other chip I've had, which is probably the main use for my CPU other than gaming. But, lets be honest, my life hasn't changed because of the few minutes I've saved processing a few photos!!
But, I've got a pc that now it's overclocked is about 30% faster at most things than anything I've had before, so for me that's worth the cash.
To be fair, if the quad had overclocked on my old board, then I probably wouldn't have tried this E8400, but I enjoy trying new stuff, so why not?!
Last edited:
Associate
I think a comparison was done between a 3.4GHz e2160 and a stock e6850 and the e2160 pulled ahead in some places, but the e6850 (at 3GHz I think) was ahead in SuperPi.
Associate
My E8400 at stock is appreciably quicker than my E2180 was at 3.2.
The cache does make a difference, as you say, with Super PI. But, I've done some tests with the Crysis benchmark and although it hasn't made much difference to the average or max framerates, the minimum framerates are approx 8 to 10fps higher. Playing the game, there certainly seemed to be less stuttering moments. The only unknown in all this is how much difference the motherboard has made, as I changed to this budget P31 to ensure Wolfdale compatability. The old 650i board was no slouch though, and still had 16x pcie lanes, and looking through my old 3dmark06 scores, they were comparable to the new setup in graphics performance. But, that aside, I'm assuming the extra performance is down to the cache, but can't say for sure.
I also do a lot of batch processing of 4mb JPG's in Paintshop Pro X2, and again although the E2180 did a sterling job, the E8400 at stock is about 20% faster than the E2180 at 3.2.
A little more scientific test is the Custom PC Media Benchmark, which is a video encoding, photo editing and multi tasking test. An E2140 I had running at 3Ghz scored 932 points, and an E4400 I had at 3.4Ghz scored 1028. The E8400 at 3Ghz scores 1197, and at 3.8Ghz it scores 1395 points. I did have a G0 Q6600 CPU for a time, but it wouldn't overclock in my N650i board, but at stock that scored 1068.
Overall then, it would appear to be about 22% faster than a E2***/E4*** chip at the same speed, in that benchmark. At stock, my E8400 is 12% faster than the Q6600 at stock, although probably to be expected given the extra clock speed of the Wolfdale.
The above are just my ramblings of course, so nobody get upset!
My thoughts at the moment are, ok, it's faster at photo editing than any other chip I've had, which is probably the main use for my CPU other than gaming. But, lets be honest, my life hasn't changed because of the few minutes I've saved processing a few photos!!
But, I've got a pc that now it's overclocked is about 30% faster at most things than anything I've had before, so for me that's worth the cash.
To be fair, if the quad had overclocked on my old board, then I probably wouldn't have tried this E8400, but I enjoy trying new stuff, so why not?!
I kind of went the other way, I to had a 650i board that couldn’t get my Q6600 G0 over 3ghz. I stuck with the quad and grabbed a more modern board which could overclock it. You wouldn’t think a new board could net you an extra 1000MHz but it did!
I found stuff like applying multi threaded filters to high res images in photoshop completed in pretty much half the time as my old E6600 did at 3.8GHz, everyday stuff like archiving and compressing large files just happen faster with a quad. Also I find it quite dandy being able to rip, encode and burn two dvds at once with two drives and each program utilising 2 core each. For raw encoding and editing a 4Ghz qaud is just untouchable imo, but it’s surprising how much faster it is in everyday use.
Soldato
That's business.
My build has gone from £430 to £470.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,738
- Status