E8400 vs. X2 4200+

[magreen]

I don't want to get off topic but WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE AMOUNT OF BUTTER THEY PUT ON POPCORN AT MOVIES?!!

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: magreen
Umm... 5 additional MB doesn't need to be fetched from the HDD? You're talking about systems with 2000 MB of memory to keep things from being fetch from the hdd. That's not what cache is useful for.

Hmmm, so cache is not meant to store data that no longer resides in memory ?

I always thought that anything that is often used but not in memory is kept in L2 cache

If it is not designed to hold often used data than what does it hold ?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: drebo
but benchmarking a 3.0ghz brand new CPU against a 2.2ghz low end processor from last generation isn't exactly fair.

Of course it wasn't meant to be fair. It's just showing you what performance increase you'll get in certain applications. High resolution gaming benchmarks show that videocard still continues to be the limiting component in a lot of games.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I call bullshit on nemesis his post.

you will run out of space if you keep calling bullshit on nemesis' posts. let him post his fantasies and just ignore them.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: magreen
Umm... 5 additional MB doesn't need to be fetched from the HDD? You're talking about systems with 2000 MB of memory to keep things from being fetch from the hdd. That's not what cache is useful for.

Hmmm, so cache is not meant to store data that no longer resides in memory ?

No, cache is used to hold data that the CPU is working on right now, or in the next few/last few milliseconds, which is very, very far from what your original post said. And magreen is right, RAM's purpose is to keep from having to go to the hard drive, if what the CPU needs doesn't happen to reside in either L1 or L2 cache.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Nemesis, just because the 'best of the best' game at low res doens't mean the majority of people do. I don't care what John Wendel games at, most of us game with atleast some eye candy on, I game with as much eye candy on that I can get away and still have good frame rates.

Also, with the P4, the big problem with them wasn't that the A64's had better average frame rates at low res, but I remember the P4's had terrible minimum frame rates compared to the A64's. If a P4 had 50fps average and the A64 had a 60fps average, that doesn't sound like that much of a difference, but if those same systems minimum frame rates were 25 on the A64 and 10 on the P4, that's a performance issue. I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass, but I do remember seeing reviews where the minimum frame rate differences between the two architectures was very dramatic.

I'd like to see minimum frame rate benchmarks, I'd be curious to see the differnce between an A64 and a C2D.

RE: Minimum framerates. I don't attribute it to P4 being horribly slow at minimum framerates, it's just a slower gaming CPU overall, which inevitably leads to lower minimum framerates.

P4 vs A64:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1854726,00.asp

A64 X2 vs C2D:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1997005,00.asp

As always, the faster CPU has the higher minimum AND average framerates.

 

[lopri]

More than anything, P4 was HOT. I wouldn't say its performance was horrible (although A64 felt a lot snappier in general) and I wouldn't talk about power consumption. But the heat was a serious issue for me. I don't buy an after-market HSF if I were to build a system for someone else. But with P4, the stock HSF just didn't cut it. (especially Pentium D's) I have no idea how Intel got away with such furnaces and the sh*tty stock HSF at that time. Without even overclocking, I experienced many heat-related issues - especially coupled with 4 sticks of RAM and high-end GPUs. Or small-to-medium tower cases. After-market HSF was kind of a must with P4-PD. On the other hand, X2's stock HSF was great and handled overclocking quite well, too. Especially when overclocked under stock vCore.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Right, so in conclusion:

Overclock your X2 4200+ for all its worth (within reason) and wait it out because it isn't worth it right now to justify an upgrade if gaming is the primary/only concern considering the GPU is still the major bottleneck.

In fact I really think you could ride out an overclocked X2 4200+ until Nehalem or at least a sub $200 or even sub $150 C2Q. If gaming was my only concern I could more than live with my 2.6GHz Opteron 165 that I got when it debuted what now seems like forever ago... socket 939 nForce 4...pretty amazing longevity...

 

[northy84]

why even compare a 50 doller part to a 200 doller part. i wanna know how badly the 8400 spanks my 6000+ at 3.2 GHz .

i also dissagree that GPU is not "the" major bottleneck. newer games need high horsepower CPU's just as much as they need a juicy GPU.
eg. in crysis with single 2900xt i score a measly 20 fps average with crossfire enabled that goes up to 30. but when i overclock from 3.0 - 3.2 i get another 5 fps everywhere. now thats getting into acceptable!! (thats with every option at "high" wish i could play on "very high")

so yeea like bunny said overclock all ur 4200+'s, cuz after all if they go poof its only 50 bones to replace it

 

[Tempered81]

cpu horsepower definitely helps multi gpu setups scale. I would like to see 4400x2 vs. e8400 with overclocks on both cpus pushing multi-gpu high res games. this is where 4ghz would show a big advantage over 3ghz.

 

[northy84]

can a 4400 X2 hit 3.0? and still i wonder why you wanna see a 60 doller cpu this time compared toa 200 doller cpu.honestly its closer match for my CPU to compare to a e8400

4400X2 stoxk speed is 2.2
4200 " " " " 2.1
6000+ and e8400 both have stock speeds of 3.0 so if you wanna see how much better 45NM vs 65nm and core vs A64 then compare those CPU's.

im pretty sure that doller for doller the E8400 is still not even a good comparison VS a 6000+.... but thats for the rich ppl wiht lots of time ont heir hands ti figure out and us ppl with just time to ponder about.

(so come on rich ppl do sum benchies of a 6000+ 6400+ vs e8400)

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: northy84
can a 4400 X2 hit 3.0? and still i wonder why you wanna see a 60 doller cpu this time compared toa 200 doller cpu.honestly its closer match for my CPU to compare to a e8400

4400X2 stoxk speed is 2.2
4200 " " " " 2.1
6000+ and e8400 both have stock speeds of 3.0 so if you wanna see how much better 45NM vs 65nm and core vs A64 then compare those CPU's.

im pretty sure that doller for doller the E8400 is still not even a good comparison VS a 6000+.... but thats for the rich ppl wiht lots of time ont heir hands ti figure out and us ppl with just time to ponder about.

(so come on rich ppl do sum benchies of a 6000+ 6400+ vs e8400)

I think the OPs point was not to compare a $60 CPU to a $200 CPU, but rather to illustrate the differences one can expect when upgrading from an X2 4200+ to an E8400. In most cases, you get close to double the performance.

As for an X2 6000+ vs E8400, if the E8400 wasn't price gouged to hell it would actually be the better value IMO. It's nearly 40% faster overall according to Xbitlabs's "Contemporary Dual-Core Processors Shootout"

 

[nerp]

My sig.. IMHO, #2 is still a kick butt box and with a beefy video card is still a gaming beast.

#1 is sexier, yes.

 

[Penth]

I'm still on an X2 @ 2.4GHz. I'm waiting till the Nehalem and hopefully by then the GPUs will let me play games at 2560x1600 else I'm stuck waiting on a faster GPU.

 

[myocardia]

Umm, anyone wanting to game on a 30" monitor, without lowering the resolution, should be running multiple video cards, preferably either Tri-SLI or quad Xfire.

 

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
In fact I really think you could ride out an overclocked X2 4200+ until Nehalem or at least a sub $200 or even sub $150 C2Q.

Uh q6600s are available for $199 now.

And, paired with a $70 MoBo and a top flight air cooler, can be run at 3.6GHz all day long.

(Speaking from personal experience here).