Celeron, E2xxx, E5xxx, E7xxx, E8xxx, Q6600, Q9xxx: BENCHED

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Interesting comparison between the E5200 @ 4Ghz and the E7300 @ 3.7Ghz. It kind of makes the E5200 sound like it's not a deal. Plus, to even get 4.0Ghz, requires unsafe vcore.
 
error8

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Interesting comparison between the E5200 @ 4Ghz and the E7300 @ 3.7Ghz. It kind of makes the E5200 sound like it's not a deal. Plus, to even get 4.0Ghz, requires unsafe vcore.
Click to expand...

E7XXX sometimes require "unsafe voltage" too, for 4 ghz. Look at my sig. :p
 
CptCrunch

CptCrunch

Golden Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,877
1
0
hmm, they dont list the Q6600 @ 3ghz, the most common OC. good list of overclocks and gives a good perspective of alot of the chips
 
T

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Originally posted by: CptCrunch
hmm, they dont list the Q6600 @ 3ghz, the most common OC. good list of overclocks and gives a good perspective of alot of the chips
Click to expand...

It's in there at 2.4Ghz & 3.2Ghz, so you can just do the math to gauge it's performance at 3.0Ghz
 
Gillbot

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
the unknown

the unknown

Senior member
Dec 22, 2007
374
4
81
Originally posted by: error8
So cache is important after all.
Click to expand...
Yup, didn't think it was that much myself either.

Interesting choice of multipliers they have on all their OCs. I guess that x48 board can really push some high fsb's :D
 
VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Check out the comparisons between the E7300, E8200, both at 2.66Ghz, and the E2180 @ 3.2Ghz.

Still, the E2180 has better price/performance, if you are comparing it overclocked, against an E7300 stock.
 
N

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I think Q6600 still is a good chip for price/performance. On top of both charts. a good balance of a chip.
 
M

MyLeftNut

Senior member
Jul 22, 2007
393
0
0
All this is only significant in gaming if you're playing at low resolutions such as that in the benchmark, 1024x768 where it's more cpu dependant than gpu. I really doubt at 1680x1050 that they'll be much of a difference at all, even at 1280x1024 there won't be that significant of a difference clock for clock.

So does anyone actually play their games at 1024x768?
 
I

imported_Scoop

Senior member
Dec 10, 2007
773
0
0
lol, I always wanted to know how my CPU runs games at 1024x768 without AA. Not that I would ever play at those settings but it's always good to know irrelevant stuff!
 
Denithor

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Yeah, since they had all the various setups running how hard would it have been to re-run the benches at say 16x10 or 19x12 so we could see if there is any "real world" difference?

And what GPU was used for these tests?
 
I

iTrader

Banned
Sep 30, 2008
2
0
0
Thats awsome. I noticed GRID does use all four cores a little. I noticed big jump in performance coming from an E2180 @ 3.2ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.2ghz
 
F

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Originally posted by: jaredpace
One graph says it all. 25 different CPU speeds & L2 Cache differences also. IMO, based on this - $149 E0 E8400 is the winner for gaming.
Click to expand...

The author's purpose was actually to show overclocking potential, and cache differences are only an incidental part of that. Cinebench and a single game aren't much to go by for what we want to know... That said, either Anand or Tom's or both did cache comparisons way back when the first Core2s came out, and showed that the difference in a dozen different tests tended to be <10%.

Originally posted by: Scoop
lol, I always wanted to know how my CPU runs games at 1024x768 without AA. Not that I would ever play at those settings but it's always good to know irrelevant stuff!
Click to expand...

That's how you do it for CPU tests, so the system is CPU bound, and not GPU bound. Get your facts straight before assuming someone else is the fool.
 
I

imported_Scoop

Senior member
Dec 10, 2007
773
0
0
Originally posted by: Foxery
Originally posted by: Scoop
lol, I always wanted to know how my CPU runs games at 1024x768 without AA. Not that I would ever play at those settings but it's always good to know irrelevant stuff!
Click to expand...

That's how you do it for CPU tests, so the system is CPU bound, and not GPU bound. Get your facts straight before assuming someone else is the fool.
Click to expand...

So, maybe they could've, I don't know, run benchmarks that are relevant in real life? What was the point of this test anyway? To tell that E8400 is faster than E2180? I could've told that to them before they wasted their time on this article.
 
myocardia

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: Scoop
Originally posted by: Foxery
That's how you do it for CPU tests, so the system is CPU bound, and not GPU bound. Get your facts straight before assuming someone else is the fool.
Click to expand...

So, maybe they could've, I don't know, run benchmarks that are relevant in real life? What was the point of this test anyway?
Click to expand...

Why do you ask questions, when you just ignore the answer, then ask another slightly reworded version of the first question? Here's your answer to both questions, BTW:

Originally posted by: Foxery
That's how you do it for CPU tests, so the system is CPU bound, and not GPU bound. Get your facts straight before assuming someone else is the fool.
Click to expand...

Oh, and ask this question again, worded in any way you like, and I'll answer it the same way.;)
 
S

scruffypup

Senior member
Feb 3, 2006
371
0
0
Yes it is a decent start, however is very selective in testing and I wouldn't buy one over another just on this very limited review. Maybe that is also because I know which ones I would buy based on the build and intended usage and budget, but these limited reviews can be misleading to people sometimes.

I would like to see different resolutions and different applications to get a full sense.

Cache will make more difference with gaming, but how does it scale with resolution and with different games.

Then in conjunction with that, how the cache may or may not make a difference in other applications.

The same tests also then done with overclocking,... then I would consider it a truly worthwhile review.
 
apoppin

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Using 4870x2:
3DMark06 is 13025 with my e4300 at O/C'd 3.33Ghz
3DMark06 is 16450 with my e8600 at stock 3.33Ghz
3DMark06 is 19385 with my e8600 at O/C'd 3.99Ghz

Here are my Crysis results with the latest drivers with the video cards compared below and e8600@3.99Ghz/4GB pc8000:

Crysis GPU test 16x10 all Very High - no AA nor AF
e8600@3.99Ghz:
4870/512 - 24.23/19/30
GTX280 - 26.45/19/34
4870 X2 - 34.25/22/50

e8600@3.33Ghz:
4870/512 - 23.14/14/29
GTX280 - 25.33/18/33
4870 X2 - 33.92/18/47


the above is 16x10 .. you will not like 19x12 so much i think:


Crysis GPU test 19x12 all Very High - no AA nor AF
e8600@3.99Ghz:
4870/512 - 20.04/16/25
GTX280 - 21.78/16/28
4870 X2 - 29.80/19/41

e8600@3.33Ghz:
4870/512 - 19.11/13/25
GTX280 - can't find 'em
4870 X2 -can't find 'em

EDIT: All of the above is average/minimum/maximum

oops .. hang on .. i got the rest of the 3.33 figures also
. . . somewhere; it's late and i am really tired :eek:

but you get the picture .. the cache does make a difference as well as the .66Ghz OC from 3.33 to 3.99 Ghz
rose.gif
 
ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,833
20,432
146
Originally posted by: error8
So cache is important after all.
Click to expand...

After going from an E6600 to an E2180, I found this out also. Majority of the time I don't notice, but while doing anything with video there's a big diff..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom