E8400 or E8500

[kschaffner]

Hi everyone well I just bought all of my other components however, since both the e8400 and e8500 are out of stock everywhere I was wondering which one would be better to get. I have the money for both but I was just wondering if the e8500 had any benefits over the e8400. Thanks, Kschaffner

 

[covert24]

8400. end of story.

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by: covert24
8400. end of story.

^What he said. You can save the money for basically the same speed chip, and put that extra cash into a beefier videocard, or a bigger HDD, you get the idea.

 

[imported_Scoop]

If you got the money for both, I'd say it's pretty obvious? Anyone buying the E8500 isn't low on cash that's for sure.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: kschaffner
Hi everyone well I just bought all of my other components however, since both the e8400 and e8500 are out of stock everywhere I was wondering which one would be better to get. I have the money for both but I was just wondering if the e8500 had any benefits over the e8400. Thanks, Kschaffner

E8400. But...

Forget that, buy the E3110 since some stores still don't know they are REALLY an E8400 just with better shipping voltages!

Excaliburpc.com had them Monday for $229. I got it for my dad when it was $219 over the weekend. I got my own (just arrived) before that at ewiz.com ($209! incl shipping!) but they are out.

http://www.circuitremix.com/in...?q=node/122&page=0%2C2
e3110 review! E8400 could come at up to 1.36 out of the box. E3110 will be 1.225 max supposedly. That's a far better binning over the desktop model! Take the server version! It's cheaper AND as a bonus better binned chips with lower voltage. Check out the heatsink it ships with. A half pint with no copper, just aluminum. That right there tells you Intel knows they're better. I love the screenshot, check out the size of the thermalright compared to the motherboard etc. It's huge...ROFL. That's what you get when you buy the best I guess. The e8400 can cost you $300+ right now, and you can't get them anyway for the most part. You can still find the e3110 when I looked Monday Excalibur still had 90+.

 

[tallman45]

Problem is if you wait a month which is not unrealistic, you will not know if your other components are working or were DOA and it will be gharder to return the longer you wait

I cannot imagine Intel NOT distributing the E8500 first now that they have done a test market run of the E8400 and seen how fast it sold out

No vendor will stock both, they know the E8500 will never be purchased if the E8400 is in stock

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: tallman45


Problem is if you wait a month which is not unrealistic, you will not know if your other components are working or were DOA and it will be gharder to return the longer you wait

I cannot imagine Intel NOT distributing the E8500 first now that they have done a test market run of the E8400 and seen how fast it sold out

No vendor will stock both, they know the E8500 will never be purchased if the E8400 is in stock

Which is exactly why I'd order one from Excaliberpc.com, why wait for a month to get it.
http://www.excaliberpc.com/Int...artinfo-id-584805.html

There were only 97 if memory serves when I ordered my 2nd e3110. They have went up...LOL Now shows 107. Still $229 also!

http://www.circuitremix.com/in...?q=node/122&page=0%2C2

Allstarshop.com has them too for $239

 

[boomhower]

I don't buy that the 3110 is a better binned version. Most of the users I have seen from the first couple of batches had chips that ran hotter than their desktop counterparts. I don't think that is a trait, just a bad batch of silicon. I believe it just shows that they are not binned and are just packaged different. The cooler than came with my E8400 was a pure aluminum copperless POS. But I never intended to use it so it doesn't matter.

I say screw both of them and get a quad. I switched from an E8400 to a Q6600 and couldn't be happier. I get better overall system performance with my quad at 3.2 than I did with my dual. Most games show diminishing returns past 3.0. Overall system performance is just that much better with the quad. I will never go back to a dual.

 

[kschaffner]

I understand where you all are coming from I would just prefer the c2d version over the xeon. As for the quad I don't do any video editing, mp3 encoding, or photoshopping I just mainly game and do work/school work on it. I will take all notes into consideration. I however work at a computer store so I can borrow a 775 proc from there until I decide what proc I want.

Thanks,
Kschaffner

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: boomhower
I don't buy that the 3110 is a better binned version. Most of the users I have seen from the first couple of batches had chips that ran hotter than their desktop counterparts. I don't think that is a trait, just a bad batch of silicon. I believe it just shows that they are not binned and are just packaged different. The cooler than came with my E8400 was a pure aluminum copperless POS. But I never intended to use it so it doesn't matter.

I say screw both of them and get a quad. I switched from an E8400 to a Q6600 and couldn't be happier. I get better overall system performance with my quad at 3.2 than I did with my dual. Most games show diminishing returns past 3.0. Overall system performance is just that much better with the quad. I will never go back to a dual.

Unless you're running serious processing apps (ones that recognize quad that is) that isn't true.
The volts on a shipping E8400 can go up to 1.35, where a E3110 is 1.225 worst case shipping voltage. Maybe you don't think that's better binning but I do. Read the circuitremix review. I don't see most people undervolting their E8400 cpu to 1.197 and hitting 3.7ghz. That's a retail box he's not an ES chip so it's not special. Most E8400's I see take 1.3v+ to hit that. Check the overclocking thread at ocforums.com for both E8400 and E3110. There are 800 posts between them and the voltages at stock/OC/stable are all listed in their posts which is better than I see at most sites. It's EXTREMELY detailed.

[EDITED TO FIX LINKS]
Dual core sucks?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html
See pages 4 and 5.
If you take the numbers from both pages to get Q6600 vs. E8500 it's an E8500 domination for games. Are those 20%+ victories I see for dual core? i'm going to round up/down to nears fps here:
Quake4 Q=126 E=158
HALF2 Q=145 E=185
Crysis Q=55 E=72
UT3 Q=154 E=157
Worldinconflict Q=72 E=91

For apps I'll give you Cinema 3d, and 3D Studiomax but that's about it. Who uses these at home? Or any other like them? Who can afford them at home...LOL.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...transistors/page7.html
Itunes, Lame, Divx, Clonedvd2, Pinnacle Studio all E8500 victories. For home Dual is just better in 95% of the cases. You overclocked your Q6600 to 3.2. Did you just leave your E8400 at default or something? 3.6ghz should have been automatic. Granted if games ever go quad it will be better. But I don't see this yet. Don't forget you pay for that Q6600 power consumption for 3yrs or so, so it's costing you money to lose in most apps/games. That kinda Sucks. @ load the difference from E8500 vs. Q6600 is 77 watts! Add that up for 3yrs. Q9300 still might not sway me based on perf (5% gain over Q6600), but watts is much better.

 

[v8envy]

Got a 404 on those links, but is that a stock *2.4*ghz quad vs a 3+ ghz dual core? Yes, if you don't OC for today's games a dual core CPU > 2.6 ghz is faster than one < 2.6 ghz. Even a single core > 2.6 ghz would look faster on some benchmarks.

But this is an enthusiast forum. Nobody here would leave a Q6600 at 2.4 ghz. Compare a 3.2 ghz Q6600 to say a 3.7 ghz E8XXX and the difference shrink to squat.

Also, if you think you can tell the difference between 126 and 158 fps or even 72 to 91 fps... That table shows better benchmarking, to be sure. But either CPU is plenty to enjoy the games listed at full throttle. Quad can also be doing more work (encoding, ripping, downloading, virus checking) while you play with little to no impact.

Quad > dual, even today.

 

[jdoggg12]

E8xx will be much cooler and cheaper to run than the Q6600. That might be a consideration for some.

 

[dino26]

I am very happy with my e8400@3.8ghz (1.3625v)

 

[boomhower]

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: boomhower
I don't buy that the 3110 is a better binned version. Most of the users I have seen from the first couple of batches had chips that ran hotter than their desktop counterparts. I don't think that is a trait, just a bad batch of silicon. I believe it just shows that they are not binned and are just packaged different. The cooler than came with my E8400 was a pure aluminum copperless POS. But I never intended to use it so it doesn't matter.

I say screw both of them and get a quad. I switched from an E8400 to a Q6600 and couldn't be happier. I get better overall system performance with my quad at 3.2 than I did with my dual. Most games show diminishing returns past 3.0. Overall system performance is just that much better with the quad. I will never go back to a dual.

Unless you're running serious processing apps (ones that recognize quad that is) that isn't true.
The volts on a shipping E8400 can go up to 1.35, where a E3110 is 1.225 worst case shipping voltage. Maybe you don't think that's better binning but I do. Read the circuitremix review. I don't see most people undervolting their E8400 cpu to 1.197 and hitting 3.7ghz. That's a retail box he's not an ES chip so it's not special. Most E8400's I see take 1.3v+ to hit that. Check the overclocking thread at ocforums.com for both E8400 and E3110. There are 800 posts between them and the voltages at stock/OC/stable are all listed in their posts which is better than I see at most sites. It's EXTREMELY detailed.

Dual core sucks?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9300_4.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...core2quad-q9300_5.html

If you take the numbers from both pages to get Q6600 vs. E8500 it's an E8500 domination for games. Are those 20%+ victories I see for dual core? i'm going to round up/down to nears fps here:
Quake4 Q=126 E=158
HALF2 Q=145 E=185
Crysis Q=55 E=72
UT3 Q=154 E=157
Worldinconflict Q=72 E=91

For apps I'll give you Cinema 3d, and 3D Studiomax but that's about it. Who uses these at home? Or any other like them? Who can afford them at home...LOL.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...transistors/page7.html
Itunes, Lame, Divx, Clonedvd2, Pinnacle Studio all E8500 victories. For home Dual is just better in 95% of the cases. You overclocked your Q6600 to 3.2. Did you just leave your E8400 at default or something? 3.6ghz should have been automatic. Granted if games ever go quad it will be better. But I don't see this yet. Don't forget you pay for that Q6600 power consumption for 3yrs or so, so it's costing you money to lose in most apps/games. That kinda Sucks. @ load the difference from E8500 vs. Q6600 is 77 watts! Add that up for 3yrs. Q9300 still might not sway me based on perf (5% gain over Q6600), but watts is much better.

I am sorry but you can't tell me which processor performed better for me. I had the E8400 clocked at 4Ghz. In everyday usability the quad feels better. Vista does a pretty darn good job at farming out tasks to specific cores, so even if a program doesn't take advantage of all cores there is still a benefit. I also do a good bit of encoding so the quad makes a big difference there. In that link you provided there is no way they used codecs that take advantage of quads and produces those results. Anyone who has a quad will use a codec that takes advantage of it.

For a pure gaming machine a dual will provide the best performance, I have never stated otherwise. Will a quad give a user an overall better experience, very well could. It is a choice each person has to make. I am not, and have never been, someone who says that quads are the best thing since sliced bread. They have their purpose as do duals.

As far as power consumption, I think I can afford. At full load that is less than most light bulbs use. I think I can float that kind of cash. Not to mention I think my computer may be at full tilt load a couple of hours a week tops. Short of folding or encoding there is not much that will put you computer at full load, granted I am not a big gamer so I cannot attest to the amount that they use.

I am well aware of ocforums. I frequent there a good bit more than any other forum and have been a member for four years now.

 

[djnsmith7]

Both of my 8400's OC pretty well, granted the MB's play a role in that. As long as you have a quality MB, you should be able to see some nice results from the 8400.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Got a 404 on those links, but is that a stock *2.4*ghz quad vs a 3+ ghz dual core? Yes, if you don't OC for today's games a dual core CPU > 2.6 ghz is faster than one < 2.6 ghz. Even a single core > 2.6 ghz would look faster on some benchmarks.

But this is an enthusiast forum. Nobody here would leave a Q6600 at 2.4 ghz. Compare a 3.2 ghz Q6600 to say a 3.7 ghz E8XXX and the difference shrink to squat.

Also, if you think you can tell the difference between 126 and 158 fps or even 72 to 91 fps... That table shows better benchmarking, to be sure. But either CPU is plenty to enjoy the games listed at full throttle. Quad can also be doing more work (encoding, ripping, downloading, virus checking) while you play with little to no impact.

Quad > dual, even today.

You're right about the 404. I don't get it but I'll post to their main page for the article. It's page 4/5 in the article:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html

Tomshardware works fine.

Those are NOT minimums. Those are AVG's. You will hit dramatically lower in some spots in games. Also if this is an ENTHUSIAST forum (I agree) why would we shoot for LOWER scoring losers? Is that your excuse for recommending a losing chip? Anyone who would tell someone to take a 20%+ performance hit almost across the board in games is being foolish, if the guys intended purpose is gaming at all. You're shafting forum users by telling them to take a hit just because you can't see it in the app/game they tested. I submit to you that ALL our cpus will be slow eventually in everything (not counting the minimums I mentioned, those are here today!) and when you have to upgrade because of jerking slide shows the guy with 25% left in reserve will just LAUGH AT YOU!

Difference shrinks to squat at 3.2 Q6600 vs 3.7ghz E8500? Arguably OFF anyway because E8500's hit 4ghz+ (anands own article shows a 700mhz+ spread not 500). Take another look at the link above from xbit! They took their cpus to max which was 4.3ghz for E8500 and 3.6 for Q6600. They got the same thing! A Q6600 loss by a HUGE margin. But never mind that. Also note at default the spread is only 760mhz and deficits are 23% on avg in games. So you're telling us that a 260mhz (what's that 7% of 3.2ghz vs. 3.7ghz?? roughly) difference will magically make up 23% performance? You must have flunked math.

Come back with proof, not opinions and half-wit math please. This is an enthusiast forum but I stand up and ask you to all ignore performance here...LOL. What the...I don't know anyone that virus scans their pc while playing a game. I don't know anyone that downloads while playing WOW etc online (your ping goes to crap!) I'd say the same for ripping/encoding. While I'd do all of these things while browsing/office apps, I'd do none while playing a game.

 

[TheJian]

Boomhower,

So you're trying to tell me Tomshardware and xbitlabs are stupid? They don't know how to benchmark after like 10yrs of doing it? People would destroy them for that.

If you read ocforums you wouldn't have stated the first few batches run hot. That OCforums thread agrees you get the same mhz, but at lower volts/heat. Their results speak for themselves. You got links to a bunch of hot ones?

Intel's own page for SLAPL says you could get a E8400@1.36v. Their page for SLAPM says worst you will get is 1.225v for E3110. I call that better binning. Unless you're telling me lower volts is worse? and runs hotter? There's a reason why server chips have lower volts. It's HEAT. They have to survive in a 1u/2u rack. Your desktop chip with higher volts would just crash or die with a server's heat profile. Can you get a bad server chip? Sure but I'll take a bet every day that I'll get a chip that will run with the same mhz as a desktop with less volts. I'll win more than I lose. The worst you can get is 1.225! IF you'd like the links:
http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLAPL
http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLAPM

I'm glad you like your quad. I admit multitasking could/should be better on them (in some cases). But don't point all people down quad roads when in a ton of stuff it's useless or outright gets killed (games, even photoshop CS3 ignores quad). Also, just because you can ignore a 75watt bulb for 3yrs don't assume we all can. You talk like you only pay for it for a day. NOPE. IT's 24x7 for my pc as I'm downloading all the time. Open an account on an unlimited secure news server and you'll never shut your pc down again...ROFL. Also it's still a LOT at IDLE! 40watts/Idle is nothing to sneeze at either! While I upgrade to the next great thing a LOT, most will live with this decision for a few years at least.
I.E. A 50watt bulb for 20hrs a day x 30days=30kwh. x 12 months = 360kwh x national avg in march 2006 of 9.86 cents/kwh=$35.5/year. And you don't IDLE all year. Now x that by 3yrs and you get a free 500GB HD over the life of that cpu! A lot of people would like that. Note that states vary. CA was 12c, NY 15c, CA in 2001 summer was 20c! That's double my figures.

Sorry for the long post people. Math sucks. Extrapolate a little bit so I don't have to keep doing this.

 

[boomhower]

Dang calm down a little bit. You don't need to argue in every post, it is possible to carry on a conversation in a more civilized manor. As I have stated in reference to the heat issue I have not read every post and it was referencing some of the early birds and that it did not represent the whole. Here is an example from a thread here to the results of an encoding benchmark that is obviously very well optimized for quads. Link That is far from the end all but just an example. Yes I am very well aware that it is user supplied results so take it with a grain of salt.

If the energy costs are that important to you or another user then by all means go for the dual. Just using you math lets say ~$100 to ~$150 over three years, I think I can float that. That is not an amount of money that is going to influence my CPU buying decision. But it is something to keep in mind for potential buyers, it is an added cost over the life of the system.

Just out of curiosity what is your system?

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: boomhower
Dang calm down a little bit. You don't need to argue in every post, it is possible to carry on a conversation in a more civilized manor. As I have stated in reference to the heat issue I have not read every post and it was referencing some of the early birds and that it did not represent the whole. Here is an example from a thread here to the results of an encoding benchmark that is obviously very well optimized for quads. Link That is far from the end all but just an example. Yes I am very well aware that it is user supplied results so take it with a grain of salt.

If the energy costs are that important to you or another user then by all means go for the dual. Just using you math lets say ~$100 to ~$150 over three years, I think I can float that. That is not an amount of money that is going to influence my CPU buying decision. But it is something to keep in mind for potential buyers, it is an added cost over the life of the system.

Just out of curiosity what is your system?

Calm down? What was uncivilized regarding what I said? I don't see any swear words, no name calling, made no references to you personally, nothing derogatory etc. If you think pointing out discrepancies in somebody's post vs. known data available to us all is a personal attack perhaps more homework should be done before saying such things. If someone has info that I haven't found I ask them for it. I don't see the harm in that either. If they're right, and come with the data to prove it - I learned something new. I may not fit the situation I gave with regards to watts, but am fully aware it exists for others. Most people looking for the best bang for buck are doing it to save money. It goes without saying that IF I was rich I'd own a $1000 chip I think we all would.

If you're talking about the post to v8envy: People coughing up words like enthusiast shouldn't be telling people to ignore performance in the same post. :roll: If you don't have some sort of facts to back up stuff like that you shouldn't say it. "Quad > Dual even today"?? With the evidence I gave (and could keep pointing out on every hardware site out there) how can you even say stuff like that? I think I was pretty polite/conservative and nowhere near the smackdown comments like that should get. I really don't see how someone can argue with the benchmarks. While the benchmark itself may slant data towards X company the scores themselves are not lies. Do the benchmarks fit every situation for all people. No. In your case you like the quad for what you do. Since you say it was better for you and you have used the other side of the coin (e8400) I don't expect you're lying about liking it. My problem was the blanket statement that everyone will like it and could afford to own it.

 

[TheJian]

Oops...Forgot:
My specs:
Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum case
Enermax 465 (left my PC Power & Cooling 425w in Oregon on accident...OMFG!)
Gigabyte P35-DS3R
E4300@3ghz (stock fan)
MSI 8800GT OC 512MB (wrnty sucks but the OC is great and I wont own it in a year..)
ADATA (ADQVE1B16K CL5) 2x2GB (800) + Crucial 2x1GB Ballistix (CL4 DDR2 800)
Seagate 500 (external)/2x320(1 External)/3x300 (1 External)/250 all sata (except one ext)
Pioneer DVR108/Toshiba 1712 DVD/Asus 48x CDRW (not hooked up only 2 eides on board)
Audigy 2
Edimax Wireless N (awesome card I might add, Dlink N/Linksys N sucks - RAlink Rocks)
Dell 24in LCD.
XP/Vista

My Koolance Exos (300watt block) isn't hooked up right now because the Stock fan did so well with my E4300. But that will change now that I just got my E3110. I have to order a kit for Intel though as I had it on an A64 X2 3800 before. Thanks for reminding me, in the excitement of getting the two E3110's (got dad one) I forgot to order the kits for our Koolance systems... The Asus CDRW is just in case I have to hook it up for clones (safedisc/securom etc). But I haven't done that in a while, pretty useless these days. Not a big fan of Adata but at $73 I couldn't help it (no rebate, just sale!). It hits 950 easy @5-5-5-15 (more than I need). The 8800GT is really quiet which is why I bought knowing the warranty sucks (+performance is excellent). I have a Dell i9300 (6800GT, it actually plays games :shocked, and an A64 3200+ server I'm finishing up if I get time this weekend. Regarding the HD's ...Yes, I know...I have space issues...ROFL. That's about it.


[EDIT] Forgot the Klipsch V2-400's. Best speakers I've ever heard for PC music. In games I prefer my dad's Logitech Z560's. Much more bass boom, I can't believe the bass on them. But I play more music and the Klipsch kill in that area. To be honest you could go deaf easily with either.

 

[boomhower]

Originally posted by: TheJian
[

My problem was the blanket statement that everyone will like it and could afford to own it.

I have never said everyone would like it. Although I do struggle with the thought of finding many people would be disappointed with a quad but I am sure there are some. Definitely the heat issue could be a deal breaker for some. Yes I will make the blanket statement that everyone can afford(that is considering an E8400, at most sites the Q is actually cheaper right now. If you are on here and planning to buy a $200-$300 CPU and the supporting hardware for a new system and cannot afford another $5 on your light bill then you have your priorities seriously screwed up.

It seems we agree on most points here and we can just agree to disagree on the others.

 

[Big Lar]

Newegg has the E3110 in stock now/shrug.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819117165

Larry

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: Big Lar
Newegg has the E3110 in stock now/shrug.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819117165

Larry

Shows OOS to me :shrug:

 

[kschaffner]

ok so what is the difference between the e8400 and the e3110?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: kschaffner
Hi everyone well I just bought all of my other components however, since both the e8400 and e8500 are out of stock everywhere I was wondering which one would be better to get. I have the money for both but I was just wondering if the e8500 had any benefits over the e8400. Thanks, Kschaffner

E8400. But...

Forget that, buy the E3110 since some stores still don't know they are REALLY an E8400 just with better shipping voltages!

This statement holds a VERY VERY big YMMV tag. [Your millage may vary] Your vid is luck of the draw, the only gaurentee you have is that the chip will run @ its designed specs, as for overclocking, a Xeon will not gaurentee you a better overclock, nor will a QX or X processor.

Originally posted by: kschaffner
ok so what is the difference between the e8400 and the e3110?

almost nothing. Maybe and just maybe the xeons might be bin'd higher for stress reasons, but that be very small if any.

There basically the same chip, get whatever is cheaper is my 2 cents.

Originally posted by: boomhower
If you are on here and planning to buy a $200-$300 CPU and the supporting hardware for a new system and cannot afford another $5 on your light bill then you have your priorities seriously screwed up.

It seems we agree on most points here and we can just agree to disagree on the others.

LOL... i have no comment for this....