E8200, worth it with only DDR2-800?


No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
I have been putting together some parts to build a couple of rigs. I have two P35-DS3R mobos, 4 x 1GB SuperTalent DDR2-667, and 5 x 1GB HP Micron DDR2-667. Both sets of RAM will supposedly OC to DDR2-800 speeds at 2.0v or thereabouts.

I'm looking for best bang for buck. I was originally thinking of getting one or more quad-cores, but as my budget won't allow for that at the moment, I was thinking of other low-cost alternatives to finish the builds.

One possibility is a pair of E2140 CPUs, 1.6Ghz, 8x multi. With DDR2-800, that would allow for 8x400, or 3.2Ghz max out of those.

Another possibility, if I wait, is the E8200 mentioned here. It has 2.66Ghz, FSB 1333, which is 8x333. With DDR2-800, that would also allow for 8x400, or 3.2Ghz max. But it would be a 45nm Wolfdale chip, with SSE4 and whatever 10% increase in speed over a Conroe.

The E2140 would cost me $60 ea. The E8200 would cost me $163 ea, and I'd have to wait for them to be released.

The other possibility is to spend more $$$ on better RAM (DDR2-800, OC to DDR2-1000?), so that I could OC the E8200 to 8x500, or 4Ghz, which should be possible on those chips.

Would it be worth it, to spend the extra money on the CPU and RAM, and to wait, in order to achieve 4Ghz (+10% and SSE4) rather than 3.2Ghz? Would that extra speed get me anywhere, as I would probably be GPU-limited long before being CPU-limited, even with the E2140. Besides gaming, I also do distributed computing too.

Looking even further out into the future, if I ever did pick up a cheap 45nm quad-core, wouldn't I need faster RAM to OC it anyways, as it would likely have a default FSB of 1333, or possibly 1600? Did I make a mistake buying cheap DDR2-667, limiting my future options? Or should I wait until Q6600s get cheap, and then pick one up. (When they hit $150-ish or so.)


Golden Member
Jul 16, 2006
My Corsair VS667 overclocks to DDR2-1000 5-5-5-15 @ 2.0V, if you can get similar mileage out of your DDR2-667 you're good to go.

If you're looking for the best bang for buck, the E21x0 series is it. They hit 3GHz fairly regularly, and for $60 you can't really complain.

The E8200 will be much better of course, but you'll definitely want your RAM to be up to speed, so to speak. The 45nm process should yield relatively easy overclocks to 4GHz, maybe it would be worth the extra $20 to get the E8400 instead for the 9x multiplier.

If I were in your shoes, I'd probably get the E2140 now as a stopgap, and push the RAM to see how high it will go. Once the 45nm stuff comes out, you can always sell the E2140 for a small loss, and upgrade to an E8200 or E8400 knowing full well what your RAM is capable of.


Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
I think before you start assuming that your ram tops out at 800mhz, you should test it out first and then make your buying decision.

My DDR2 PC5400 (675mhz) went to 1000mhz at 5-5-5-15 timings at 2.1V => pic


Golden Member
Dec 4, 2006
ram these days is crazy stuff but I've run different benchies with various speeds and difference in actual performance when ram is the only factor adjusted seemed to be paltry in comparison to processor speed increases. This has held true for Intel chips for some time now and I can say at least with AMD's 939 (don't have much AM2 experience) memory speed did play a nice factor in performance. Intel being penalized for not having the memory controller on die.

I've ran my memory at DDR2-667 CAS3 (T1 & 2) / DDR2-800 CAS3 & 4 (T2) / DDR2-1000 CAS5 / DDR2-1066 / 1100 and 1200 - truth be told my system was being held back by cpu bandwidth rather than memory performance. I could do everest or other bench memory testing and pull higher scores but when it came down to raw performance (game bench marking) DDR2-667 CAS3 was usually just as high performing (with in 3% of) DDR2-1000 at CAS5. This was based on leaving everything the same but the memory ratio's. I honestly wouldn't worry about that memory you have but focus on the cpu more (scores really jumped with an extra

looking at your OC plan you intend on having the Ram/FSB ratio at 1:1 (this can be changed for performance sake) giving you a possible higher headway on cpu while still keeping the memory "low"

- above and all if you need something now pick up a proven available product that is far less expensive than a product that you can't buy just yet. Performance is less with that E2140 (its an Allendale core with 1 meg shared cache) I'd look to the how cache intensive the applications will be as a factor

I'd love to see 4.0ghz on all the new chips but I'm not holding my breath on that one.


Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
For gaming and F@H/R@H/whatever the processor cache will have a large enough impact to make it worth waiting for, unless you want to buy/resell a pair of e2140 chips just as a stop-gap measure.

If you read the HP memory rebate thread in the hot deals forum you will find that many people report getting that cheap stuff to over 900MHz speeds so I doubt you will find that to be a limiting factor in your OC. The e8200/e8400 chips should be awesome overclockers and with the 6MB of cache they are ready to crunch some serious numbers.

Of course, there is always the Q6600 if you are impatient...


Nov 13, 2007
you have exactly the same ram as i do, they do 900 no problem. the point is why wait for two months? those wolfdales will probably be expensive anyway whereas nothing can beat the 2140 for price/performance , just don't expect all of them to do 400x8


No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
I bought the two E2140s, I'll have to see how they OC. Hopefully they will do at least 3.2 stable. Not sure if I want to keep the stock heatsinks, or use a pair of Hyper TX2 units, I have some on order. If I can handle 3.2Ghz on a stock heatsink at at least under 75C, I will.