E8400, Available for sale and not a single benchmark!.

[taltamir]

I don't get it. it is available for sale and there is not a single benchmark about it.
Anand didn't benchmark it.
HardOCP didn't benchmark it.
Tom's hardware didn't benchmark it.

So... anyone got some good benchmarks for this processor yet?

 

[Qutlass]

NDA we're not aware of that they are holding onto at this time? Other site jumped the gun by a couple weeks. Should be a flood of em soon.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Since the release of the QX9650 in november there have been countless reviews comparing the 45nm penryn to current C2D's at various clocks. Yes the E8XXX chips are new but the performance of the die is well tested.

If memory serves me, penryn has about a 5-6% avg. performance increase over C2D's clock for clock, more in apps that utilize SSE4 instructions. And they overclock higher than current chips by a nice margin.

 

[Avalon]

Anand has an article on the QX9650 and on Wolfdale in general...
I've got my E8400 coming in via two shipping from Mwave ($209), so I'll be benching it for sure.

 

[taltamir]

ah... so that's why.

Well I was wondering since this is actually one die package vs a two die package. I figured there might be some significant differences that are worth looking for.

I found a few reviews in other languages, and one in english. But I expected every single review site to review the new wolfdales, not assume they are the same as the 4 core 2 die versions.
Oh well. I already decided to buy .

too bad I missed the mark, they came out at 180 which was the MSRP, but now the lowest I can find is 209$. With gouge egg and others selling at 230$ for the e8400

 

[Xvys]

I haven't heard a peep about these new processors. No press release, no media launch. No reviews of the retail cpu's, I would have thought all the major websites would have articles and tests ready to publish on Monday? I guess this is the best kept secret around...

 

[SorryImLate]

I just saw on PCclub.com that they only carry the E8500 right now and its sold out at a price $309. Lots of mark up

 

[Tempered81]

basically you can look at a benchmark of a dual core C2D e6xxx 4mb when its running at 3000mhz. You can say oh, that videogame is at 75fps! (or that xvid encode took 60 seconds!) so then if you can clock to 4000mhz (do the math in ur head) then that video game might be 100fps ( or the xvid encode say 45 seconds) then just tack on the 5-6% clock for clock... which would make your videogame run at 106 fps (or your xvid encode take 42 seconds)

not saying particular games and apps scale linearly like they have in this example, only that the performance of the processor does. So then the advantage of the 45nm wolfdales is that 4.0ghz is easily achievable, while diffficult on a 6750 or so. plus you add on the 2mb cache (which generates a good bit of the 5-6% average clock-for-clock increase in performance) and you can see the obvious increased performance results. so given this, take a look at a c2d review from back when, OR reference tomshardware guide's cpu charts and compare it to various intel models or amd. not saying this is correct, or easy to see, and I agree an e8400 retail review is needed, but fairly soon toms will add that chip to the interactive cpu charts.

I'm awaiting a review or chart myself. get to it! I would like to see how it scales at 4.5ghz also!


*WARNING: THEORETICAL BENCHMARKS*
edit: Say you want to compare a q6600 to a e8400 in games:

Quake IV comparison e8400 vs. older c2d's
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-wolfdale_7.html#sect0

e6850 (3000mhz 4mb) = 145.35 fps
e8400 (3000mhz 6mb) = 155.23 fps
% difference = 6.4%

Now assume they scaled literally (Quake IV again):
http://www23.tomshardware.com/...6&model2=882&chart=424

e6850 (3000mhz 4mb) =128.00 fps
qx6850 (3000mhz 8mb quad core) = 132.80 fps
% difference = 3.6%

Say a core2duo e6850 (3000mhz) runs a particular map/resolution/setting of Quake IV at 100 FPS, then in that same map/resolution/setting we have accordingly:

e6850 @ 3.0ghz = 100 fps

q6600 @ 2.4ghz = 82.92 fps
q6600 @ 3.6ghz = 124.38 fps

e8400 @ 2.4ghz = 85.12 fps
e8400 @ 3.6ghz = 127.68 fps
e8400 @ 4.5ghz = 159.62 fps

Thus, given this data you may expect this type of game performance in Quake 4 out of an OC'd q6600 vs. an OC'd e8400:

e8400 (4500mhz 6mb) = 159.62 fps
q6600 (3600mhz 8mb) = 124.38 fps

or -

e8400 (3000mhz 6mb) = 106.40 fps
q6600 (3000mhz 8mb) = 103.60 fps

or - about a 2.7% increase clock-for-clock over the q6600 in QUAKE 4!

If you overclock more or less than each of these speeds, expect gaming performance to increase or decrease accordingly. I expect when we see the e8400 listed in tomshardware's cpu charts that we will be able to see a ~22% increase in performance over the Q6600(stock) in the Quake4 "THG timedemo" benchmark. The q6600 clocks in at 110 fps, and when its listed, the e8400 will clock in at 136.2 fps if I am right. Make sure to check that link when toms has it listed in the cpu charts:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/...6&model2=882&chart=424

 

[taltamir]

heh, indeed xvys. I suddenly see two threads by anandtech users saying the managed to OC their e8400 like crazy... and one thread mentioning that its being price gouged at the egg... until that I didn't even know it was out (i thought it will be months yet until it comes out)...
A secret indeed