E2160 to E8400

tornadog

Golden Member
Aug 6, 2003
1,222
0
76
I only use my pc for gaming. I was running my E2160 @ 3Ghz(stock Voltage=1.325V). Now I am getting a E8400 since many ppl said my PC was cpu limited. Will I see a reasonable difference with this new CPU?
 

polarbear6

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2008
1,161
1
0
well to get started wid some descent cooling and stuff the E8400 will surely kickoff to a sweet 3.8ghz speed thats like 26% more processing power and added to that this oc i think should bring some change in u ram speed too
so i think the change should be significant

i just saying that cause i also own a e8400 and i take pride in what ever i OWN hahah still all the best
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,453
22
81
do you really NEED .8ghz speed increase to play video games? I can't see where your C2D is really going to limit you gaming wise. especially with the video card that your rig link says you've got.

tbh, it just seems like waste of money to me. but hey, it's your dough.
 

vj8usa

Senior member
Dec 19, 2005
975
0
0
What games are you feeling your CPU hold you back in? I've got an E2160@3GHz, and no game I've tried is slow enough to be unplayable. GTA4 can slow down a good bit at times, but it's still manageable. I plan on waiting a while until the 45nm quads become really cheap, and then upgrading to one of those - I figure the difference between an E2160 and a 3+GHz quad will be a lot more useful in the future than E2160->E8400.
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
76
This is the only benchmark i can find that compares all three processors overclocked to their maximums....

GRID 1024 x 768 (So as not to be GPU limited)
All cpus in the same X48 / 4GB / Vista SP1 setup

E8400 @ 4.3g = 107 FPS ---100%
Q6600 @ 3.7g = 95 FPS ----89%
E2180 @ 3.2g = 65 FPS ----61%
E8400 @ 3.1g = 80 FPS ----75%
Q6600 @ 2.4g = 71 FPS ----66%
E2180 @ 2.0g = 43 FPS ----40%

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...rs_overclocked/?page=3

Advantages in gaming over an E2160 you're seeing are:

IPC improvements with 45nm penryn vs. 65nm conroe
Performance relative to L2 Cache size differences
Overclocking headroom
Number of cores
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I think E8xxx@ about 4ghz will be noticeably faster on most office apps and much faster than 2xxx in games.
 

geoffry

Senior member
Sep 3, 2007
599
0
76
Originally posted by: jaredpace
This is the only benchmark i can find that compares all three processors overclocked to their maximums....

GRID 1024 x 768 (So as not to be GPU limited)
All cpus in the same X48 / 4GB / Vista SP1 setup

E8400 @ 4.3g = 107 FPS ---100%
Q6600 @ 3.7g = 95 FPS ----89%
E2180 @ 3.2g = 65 FPS ----61%
E8400 @ 3.1g = 80 FPS ----75%
Q6600 @ 2.4g = 71 FPS ----66%
E2180 @ 2.0g = 43 FPS ----40%

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...rs_overclocked/?page=3

Advantages in gaming over an E2160 you're seeing are:

IPC improvements with 45nm penryn vs. 65nm conroe
Performance relative to L2 Cache size differences
Overclocking headroom
Number of cores

I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.

The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Even at stock speed there should be a noticeable difference. Overclock to 3.6 or so, and you'll see a big difference (and thats a kind of modest OC for e8x00)

To those doubting that he's CPU limited, my 3.5gHz e7200 was bottlenecking my 8800GT in WoW. Just a thought
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
76
Originally posted by: geoffry


I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.

The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.

Yes the games do love cache, and eat up higher overclocks too:

[24''-27"] 1920 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF max in-game settings

clock-for-clock
Average FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 79%
Minimum FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 80%

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4

It really depends on how gpu-limited the situation is. 1920 x 1200 Crysis "Very High" would probably average the same FPS from a stock Athlon x2 5200+ as it would from a 4.5ghz QX9650 if the gpu power was a single 9800gtx or equivalent. Only difference would be the minimum framerates on the x2 5200 would dip about 5 times lower. My 2cents.


 

geoffry

Senior member
Sep 3, 2007
599
0
76
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: geoffry


I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.

The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.

Yes the games do love cache, and eat up higher overclocks too:

[24''-27"] 1920 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF max in-game settings

clock-for-clock
Average FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 79%
Minimum FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 80%

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4

It really depends on how gpu-limited the situation is. 1920 x 1200 Crysis "Very High" would probably average the same FPS from a stock Athlon x2 5200+ as it would from a 4.5ghz QX9650 if the gpu power was a single 9800gtx or equivalent. Only difference would be the minimum framerates on the x2 5200 would dip about 5 times lower. My 2cents.

Yes, it definitely depends on the game.

I checked out that GTA 4 benchy...sick. And I think Flight Sim X is really CPU limited too.

But on that Cod 4 cache comparison, the e2180 is respectable at stock settings, kick it up to 3 ghz and its probably atleast at 60 fps, if not more...and in that case any extra FPS means nothing.


And to yh125d, what were your FPS using your e7200 at 3.5? I've never played WoW and have not looked into it at all so I don't know how CPU dependent it is.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Originally posted by: geoffry
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: geoffry


I know they do reviews with the resolutions way down to make the CPU difference bigger but no one plays at that resolution...my guess would place the difference at the resolution he would play on his 22" at maybe 10% max.

The biggest improvement is probably the much larger cache as games love cache size from what I've seen.

Yes the games do love cache, and eat up higher overclocks too:

[24''-27"] 1920 x 1200 4xAA 16xAF max in-game settings

clock-for-clock
Average FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 79%
Minimum FPS:
E8400 = 100%
E2180 = 80%

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4

It really depends on how gpu-limited the situation is. 1920 x 1200 Crysis "Very High" would probably average the same FPS from a stock Athlon x2 5200+ as it would from a 4.5ghz QX9650 if the gpu power was a single 9800gtx or equivalent. Only difference would be the minimum framerates on the x2 5200 would dip about 5 times lower. My 2cents.

Yes, it definitely depends on the game.

I checked out that GTA 4 benchy...sick. And I think Flight Sim X is really CPU limited too.

But on that Cod 4 cache comparison, the e2180 is respectable at stock settings, kick it up to 3 ghz and its probably atleast at 60 fps, if not more...and in that case any extra FPS means nothing.


And to yh125d, what were your FPS using your e7200 at 3.5? I've never played WoW and have not looked into it at all so I don't know how CPU dependent it is.

19x10 res full max settings with shadows 16x AA would get me 35-40 in the city being very stuttery any about 80% cpu utilization. If I backed it doen to 16x10, 4x AA and no dynamic shadows, I'd get like 40 steady with the same cpu utilization
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: nyker96
I think E8xxx@ about 4ghz will be noticeably faster on most office apps and much faster than 2xxx in games.

Noticeably faster in most office apps? I call shenanigans on that ;)

I'm not aware of any common office apps that are remotely cpu intensive, my Q6600 bobbles along at absolutely minimal CPU usage while speedstepped down to 1.6Ghz using Office 2007 and firefox.

You might think you can feel more 'snap' (I think, entirely subjectively, that my Q6600 is 'snappier' than my GF's E8500 around the desktop, despite a considerable clock deficit), but I would have thought a SSD would be even more effective at providing that 'snap' (and that even less so with Vista and Superfetch caching).
 

Face2Face

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2001
4,100
215
106
I went from e2180 @ 3.2GHz to e6850 @ 3.6GHz> Big upgrade when it comes to games, not so much when you are tooling around in windows. I didn't pay much for the e6850 and thought the cache upgrade from 1mb to 4mb would make a difference and it did. I personally would go for the q6600 over the e8400 or e8500> ........I play a lot of GTA4 and a quad would help.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY