E8400 to PIIX4 940

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,196
197
106
Hey,

So I've skipped the Quad-Cores for some time now, I've always stayed on Dual-Cores since they were made available (including three AMD X2 models back then) and now my E8400 which I've owned since its release. It's currently OC'ed to 3.75Ghz, I can do more with more voltage, but it already needs 1.4v for a mere 750Mhz increase to be entirely stable, just 0.05v below that and it crashes. But that's another story. I've seen the recent Phenom II X4 940 reviews, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see AMD finally back on track.

In some of the reviews I've seen it looks like that model is just on par with most of Intel's Quad offerings (Q9300, Q9550, etc), and to be honest I never expected to see such a thing happen especially at its price, which is the main interesting point to be honest. You get four Cores and it only costs about half of what it would cost me to upgrade to a current Q9650 (clocked at the same speed at stock). So it's 3.0Ghz, I've seen some nice over-clocks of up to 3.8Ghz on air, but the voltages needed for that seem so high when I'm used to my stock 1.2250v for my E8400, for instance one OC I've seen for 3.7Ghz needed 1.55v, what a shocker! But I bet that's normal for that processor.

Now, on to performance, and that's the main thing of this thread, I'm just wondering if going from my E8400 (let's consider it at stock speed) to a Phenom II 940 would be worth it, even without over-clocking involved at all. The thing is I would need to change my motherboard, and maybe my memory due to potential incompatibility issues (but I'll have to check the supported memory models and vendors lists for whatever motherboard I'd be going with just to make sure). When I ask the question myself and wonder just why I would like to go with it and leave my E8400 behind is because: 1) It's cheap for a Quad-Core, 2) Its performance is actually comparable if not actually better than the Core architecture at least in some circumstances, and 3) It's a Quad-Core, so perhaps I'd be seeing some performance improvements in my humble video and audio encoding/decoding work, and of course possibly gaming as well.

Now, of course, when looking at an Intel i7 920, it's tempting, but it costs more than $400 (Canadian), so, since I'm on a budget (if I ever make the move and go on with my system upgrade) I'd say that the extra $200 I'd be saving by going with a PIIX4 940 instead could serve in buying myself a nice AM2+ motherboard, and if I'm lucky I could keep my current DDR2 memory. But, I'm still just wondering... if it'd really be worth it, is Quad-Core really giving a substantial advantage in gaming that would justify such an upgrade for a gamer (primarily) like me, or am I just fine with my Dual-Core. I think I would have to ask if the current Phenom II architecture on which Deneb resides is actually just as efficient for single-threaded applications as Intel's Core is... is it? I'm asking this because when I think about it I realize that about 80% of my games collection are single-threaded games, and that about 70% of my various other applications are also single-threaded.

Should I instead be waiting for AM3 versions of the Phenom II models to surface and go for that instead? Or maybe wait even longer until Intel updates its i7 architecture just like they did to Core with Penryn? (although going with Intel would always cost me more, architecture refreshes or not, I think that AMD makes it clear enough now that their prices are much better than Intel's, and the performance we get for those prices would normally make any chairman at Intel rethink their pricing strategies, if I myself would be in Intel's shoes right now I'd start looking behind my train to see if AMD's isn't too close to mine on that parallel track).
 

3MDR

Junior Member
Jan 9, 2009
18
0
0
Do you have a NEED to upgrade right now? A lot of people say to go quad because it is "futureproof", a term which I hate because there is no such thing as being "future proof".

The way I see it, if you need to upgrade right now, you should upgrade. But if you are still able to do the things you want to do, then keep it. As of now, I can't imagine that a 3.75 ghz CPU is holding you back on anything. Even if you get a quad now, maybe you're "futureproof" for a year or so, but there is always going to be that "next step". If you worry about the "next step" too much, I think you'll always be unhappy.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,196
197
106
I understand that, but in the PC industry, the principle of "waiting for the next thing to come" is very problematic, since with such a philosophy I'd never end up upgrading anything since each time I'd be ready to make the move than something new would come out, and then I'd be waiting for that new thing to mature up a little (counted in months, usually), and by the time it matures up another refresh or architecture or newer and more efficient models are announced, and then I'd be tempted to wait for those... and the cycle goes on and on.

There's a point where you really need to stop and say... ok, do I really need to do this? Probably not, but if I wait until I need to then I may end up being interested by a "better model" that's supposed to come out in "just three months" for instance. But, yeah, I'm really thinking my thing right now, I don't want to make an impulsive purchase. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a Processor Demo... so I could test and see for myself if it'd be worth it or not, instead of basing my ideas on so many different reviews which all say different things.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Not even close to being worth it.....

Also, as far as the AM3 version....it will not be that much different in regards to performance.


1.5V for 3.7? Most people would need 1.4 max for 4ghz on that chip.


C2Q > PHII, so there would be no reason not to get a Q9550-Q9650 if you need the extra cores.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
future proofing? when the future arrive the item you bought is usually outdated... and you can buy something cheaper that gives you more...
you don't wait for the "next big thing", you wait until what you have NOW is too slow and you will get a decent improvement when you upgrade... the longer you wait, the cheaper and faster the upgrade is...

Anyways, why in the world would you go p2? p2 920 = Q8300, p2 940 = Q9400... in both cases the phenom chip is 5$ more expansive on the egg than its intel counterpart... and you already have an intel mobo for those Q chips... so just ebay your E8400 and buy a Q to suit your needs.

1.2250v for my E8400, for instance one OC I've seen for 3.7Ghz needed 1.55v
If your stock is 1.225 you should be able to get 3.6ghz on stock, and 3.7ghz either on stock or maybe on 1.25v.
If you need to go up to 1.55v then you are doing something wrong.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
PS... i upgraded from an E8400 to a Q6600. because i needed the cores. do you need the cores?

Ironically, I argued that the E8400 obsoleted the Q6600, because its faster in games, faster in most apps, and when you go into video editing, the improvements done on penryn + the SSE4 speed optimizations make it faster than a Q6600...
But than firefox put in "remember open tabs" and chrome came with the same ability, and chrome scales perfectly to all cores... And I love tabs, I can open hundreds of them... so I finally found something where the Q6600 demolishes the E8400... that and I also learned to OC, which works out better for the quad.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,196
197
106
Thanks for the input everyone. But I think some of you misread what I said about the 1.55v part, I was talking about the Phenom II 940 needed 1.55v for 3.7Ghz in some cases, not my E8400, I just wanted to make that clear. I think I will hold on for now and see if the next few games I buy will run correctly enough.
 

batmang

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2003
3,020
1
81
E8400 to a 940.. IMO I'd only do it if you were planning to utilize four cores. If not, don't even bother. As for voltages, 1.5v is perfectly safe for a Phenom II on a decent air setup. It needs juice to oc, thats how Phenoms are. If you look at the temps, they are fine at 1.5v. My PII 920 is running at 3.5 (2.8 stock) @ 1.42v and its sitting idle at 30c, full load around 50c. This is on a cheap Scythe Katana II heatsink with a 120mm fan. You will need 1.5+v for 3.7+. Thats usually what i'm seeing with the Phenom II's. Even at 1.55v full load temps (depending on aftermarket heatsink) will be around 50-55c.
 

SChow

Junior Member
Jan 21, 2009
11
0
0
Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, why in the world would you go p2? p2 920 = Q8300, p2 940 = Q9400... in both cases the phenom chip is 5$ more expansive on the egg than its intel counterpart... and you already have an intel mobo for those Q chips... so just ebay your E8400 and buy a Q to suit your needs.
Everything I've read says the PhII 920 == Q9300.
Phenom II X4 920: $195 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/...3472&Tpk=phenom%20920 )
Q9300: $244 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?Item=N82E16819115043 )
The 920 is ~$50 cheaper.

Phenom II X4 940: $235
Q9400: $229
Q9400 is actually ~$6 cheaper, in Canada it's $11 more.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115131
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103471

I went with the 920 because I would've had to buy a new motherboard for either, and the 920 + motherboard combos were cheaper. If you already have AM2+ or 775 though I think it's cheaper just to stick with your respective platform.

edit: switched between CAD & USD.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
you have the Q9300 as costing more money than a Q9400, which is in every way faster as it is the same chip with a higher default multi...

it is probably so expensive since it is out of stock. Updating the price on out of stock items makes no sense.

If you already have AM2+ or 775 though I think it's cheaper just to stick with your respective platform.

Words of wisdom... 5$ more or less are not comparable to the price of a new mobo.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I skimmed through the OP, so sorry if you addressed this.

But, in your case since you're on a budget, couldn't you just drop an Intel quad into your motherboard? Assuming you need the extra cores you'd save money over a new motherboard and Phenom. Or is your concern that you won't be able to overclock the Intel quad on your board to PhII levels you see?
 

zenguy

Member
Jan 23, 2009
52
0
0
It would make ZERO sense IMHO.

Based on your Sig.......

#1 - Anything not utilizing 4 cores would run much slower.
#2 - You could Get an Intel Quad which is faster for less money since you already have an X38.
#3 While the PII may hit 3.8-4.0Ghz, that does not equate to the same performance of an Intel Quad at the same 3.8-4.0Ghz. Normally the PII needs a 400-600Mhz Advantage just to stay even.

If building new, it could be a wash.
There was a post where an PII 940 vs the Q9400 new setup was about $5 different and deliver similar stock performance and there was little desire to OC.

Go which way you want.

 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Why don't you just buy a Q9550? You can get 4GHz+ with most chips, the cost is only ~$260-270 now, it is faster than the Phenom II X4 940, and it doesn't require a new motherboard. That is by far your best option.

The Phenom II 940 is decent for someone looking for a cheap build vs. a Q9400, but you are better suited spending a few more bucks for a Q9550.

Alternatively keep the E8400, it is fast enough for games, go out and buy a GTX 280 or something similar for $250-300. You will see a huge performance increase vs. almost no perf. increase going to a quad core.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,787
14,821
136
Originally posted by: SChow
Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, why in the world would you go p2? p2 920 = Q8300, p2 940 = Q9400... in both cases the phenom chip is 5$ more expansive on the egg than its intel counterpart... and you already have an intel mobo for those Q chips... so just ebay your E8400 and buy a Q to suit your needs.
Everything I've read says the PhII 920 == Q9300.
Phenom II X4 920: $195 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/...3472&Tpk=phenom%20920 )
Q9300: $244 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/...?Item=N82E16819115043 )
The 920 is ~$50 cheaper.

Phenom II X4 940: $235
Q9400: $229
Q9400 is actually ~$6 cheaper, in Canada it's $11 more.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115131
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103471

I went with the 920 because I would've had to buy a new motherboard for either, and the 920 + motherboard combos were cheaper. If you already have AM2+ or 775 though I think it's cheaper just to stick with your respective platform.

edit: switched between CAD & USD.

I just got a PH II 940, currently rock stable@3728, but my Q6600@3.3 beats it in F@H.

I just had to try it for myself, but never again soon.

The 9550@even 3.4 would crush a 940@3.8 (if you could even get there)
 

batmang

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2003
3,020
1
81
Could you do some gaming benches for me Mark? Maybe bench the Crysis demo and 3DMark 06 and Vantage if you can? I'd appreciate it!