Brand New E8500 EO...feels the same as my e6750...

[Tweakin]

A few things I'd like to say:

First off, it was a breeze taking this beast up to 4.1Ghz...stock voltage. Was/Did it appear to be any faster then my sons e6750@3.5...no. Should I have gotten a quad...no, but I'm reconsidering as this is going to have to go back due to the sensors being stuck.

I'm just wondering if a 6550 at 3.6 or so would seem any snappier. I remember comparing my 6750 to a q6600@3.2, and the 6750 just worked and appeared snappier in Vista. I just sold my other q6600 and have the monies to make one more jump, but I'm not going i7.

I've made my mind up...just ordered a 9550 from the egg...hopefully I will be happy...or else...., well I don't know what else.

Let the flood gates open on thoughts and opinions...

 

[sgrinavi]

q9550, with the new pricing, should cure your woes and give you some noticeable change (make sure it works on your board)

 

[spinejam]

anything over 3.4ghz should feel snappy!

 

[nyker96]

if you only doing web browsing, you not going to see much difference. but fire up a SSE4 app or x264 encoding app, i think you will see that the encoding job will be about a 1/4 faster than your 6xxx. If you got a quad, you will gain roughly twice over the performance in encoding that's where the real difference lies.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: spinejam
anything over 3.4ghz should feel snappy!

That's kinda what I've benn waiting to hear. I had the 6600 and went back to my 6750.

I would like to see 3.6 to 3.8 with a quad, which leaves the 6560 of 6550.

Thanks.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
A few things I'd like to say:

First off, it was a breeze taking this beast up to 4.1Ghz...stock voltage. Was/Did it appear to be any faster then my sons e6750@3.5...no. Should I have gotten a quad...no, but I'm reconsidering as this is going to have to go back due to the sensors being stuck.

I'm just wondering if a 6550 at 3.8 or so would seem any snappier. I remember comparing my 6750 to a q6600@3.2, and the 6750 just worked and appeared snappier in Vista. I just sold my other q6600 and have the monies to make one more jump, but I'm not going i7.

Let the flood gates open on thoughts and opinions...

You sure it is not the bios? The e8500 has issues with old bios on the mobo. I know Asus and Abit fixed it a while back.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Tweakin
A few things I'd like to say:

First off, it was a breeze taking this beast up to 4.1Ghz...stock voltage. Was/Did it appear to be any faster then my sons e6750@3.5...no. Should I have gotten a quad...no, but I'm reconsidering as this is going to have to go back due to the sensors being stuck.

I'm just wondering if a 6550 at 3.8 or so would seem any snappier. I remember comparing my 6750 to a q6600@3.2, and the 6750 just worked and appeared snappier in Vista. I just sold my other q6600 and have the monies to make one more jump, but I'm not going i7.

Let the flood gates open on thoughts and opinions...

You sure it is not the bios? The e8500 has issues with old bios on the mobo. I know Asus and Abit fixed it a while back.

The bios is the latest rev F, but I can tell it fails when I run a tet to see if the sensors move at all during a simulation...both are stuck at 0 movement.

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: nyker96
if you only doing web browsing, you not going to see much difference. but fire up a SSE4 app or x264 encoding app, i think you will see that the encoding job will be about a 1/4 faster than your 6xxx. If you got a quad, you will gain roughly twice over the performance in encoding that's where the real difference lies.

I agree with this also.

Why on earth do people continue to get Quads when all they do is use MS Paint, browse the web, and watch youtube?

anything over 3.4ghz should feel snappy!

Its all in your head.

 

[apoppin]

i just pushed my e8600 from 4.0 to 4.3 Ghz [1.38v] as i am testing it vs my new q9550s - in gaming

i haven't even got to my quad yet, but the *practical* difference in games with a GTX280 going from 4.0>4.3 is a single FPS, maybe 2 in most games i have benched [10] so far

i am looking to see the difference where games take advantage of the "extra" 2 cores
- i am hoping the new 's' spec will make it close to 4 Ghz

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: MrX8503

Originally posted by: nyker96
if you only doing web browsing, you not going to see much difference. but fire up a SSE4 app or x264 encoding app, i think you will see that the encoding job will be about a 1/4 faster than your 6xxx. If you got a quad, you will gain roughly twice over the performance in encoding that's where the real difference lies.

I agree with this also.

Why on earth do people continue to get Quads when all they do is use MS Paint, browse the web, and watch youtube?

anything over 3.4ghz should feel snappy!

Its all in your head.

I agree with you...to a point. I have always belived that for most users, there is no benefit of a quad other then more power draw. I do cause my dual's to max out often, but not that ofter. If the E8500 I just received was good, I wouldn't even be thinking about this...but since I have to send it back due to faulty sensors, I'm just rethinking again...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: MrX8503

Originally posted by: nyker96
if you only doing web browsing, you not going to see much difference. but fire up a SSE4 app or x264 encoding app, i think you will see that the encoding job will be about a 1/4 faster than your 6xxx. If you got a quad, you will gain roughly twice over the performance in encoding that's where the real difference lies.

I agree with this also.

Why on earth do people continue to get Quads when all they do is use MS Paint, browse the web, and watch youtube?

anything over 3.4ghz should feel snappy!

Its all in your head.

I agree with you...to a point. I have always belived that for most users, there is no benefit of a quad other then more power draw. I do cause my dual's to max out often, but not that ofter. If the E8500 I just received was good, I wouldn't even be thinking about this...but since I have to send it back due to faulty sensors, I'm just rethinking again...

there was a real difference in gaming when i went from my e4300@3.33Ghz>e8600@3.33Ghz .. still significant when i went to e8600 at 4.0 Ghz .. especially with CrossfireX-3 although i noted it with a single 4870. GTX280 especially benefited from my CPU OC ... but going 4.0>4.3Ghz is minor

i have photoshop and i also have dozens of excel charts open at once; but daily tasks should not be faster on a quad
- i have to explore gaming now .. to see if Quad is worthwhile over Dual

however, i am sure there is a point where the faster Dual will compensate for the "extra" 2 cores of the quad. i am going to try and look for it .. to see if i can get an idea of how much faster the Dual needs to be

 

[vj8usa]

If you want your everyday computing to "feel snappier," you might want to consider getting an SSD. With something like an E6750/E8400, I/O's usually the bottleneck for things like launching applications.

 

[apoppin]

SSD sounds like an expensive disease to treat
:Q

But .. yeah .. if you are a gamer, however, you need the CPU speed if you have a fast video card

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: apoppin
SSD sounds like an expensive disease to treat
:Q

But .. yeah .. if you are a gamer, however, you need the CPU speed if you have a fast video card

It is...best damn hobby I have ever had...been doing it since the 486...there are worst things one can waste money on...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: apoppin
SSD sounds like an expensive disease to treat
:Q

But .. yeah .. if you are a gamer, however, you need the CPU speed if you have a fast video card

It is...best damn hobby I have ever had...been doing it since the 486...there are worst things one can waste money on...

well i prefer surfing because it is physical
- but my first computer was Atari800xl

but i agree that this is an awesome hobby .. and it it even turning into more than that for me

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: apoppin
SSD sounds like an expensive disease to treat
:Q

But .. yeah .. if you are a gamer, however, you need the CPU speed if you have a fast video card

It is...best damn hobby I have ever had...been doing it since the 486...there are worst things one can waste money on...

well i prefer surfing because it is physical
- but my first computer was Atari800xl

but i agree that this is an awesome hobby .. and it it even turning into more than that for me

In my younger days, I used to ski...both water and snow. That faded as I grew older and larger...