• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My E8400 seems fast enough, can't seem to justify an upgrade

U

unseengundam101

Senior member
My main computer currently is an Intel Core 2 E8400. I have been wanting to upgrade to a Nehalem core i7 860 or better, ever since it came out 1 year+ ago. Problem is every time I seriously think about upgrading to a new CPU/MB, I can't seem to justify the need for it. My E8400 seems idle most of time when I am using. Now I did use do some video transcoding for my handheld since can't handle 720P. But I quickly realized the best, quickest and fastest, solution to that would be buy handheld device that plays back 720P! 🙂 Other than that I really can't thinking of anything I do that uses 100% of my CPU.

That said, I have a lot of other areas that could use upgrades. I keep on running of storage space, and what I really should do is build a 4 TB+ Raid10 for my videos. Also, potentially getting adding a SSD and more memory would be helpful. Getting a faster CPU is probably last thing that would have any affect on my computer usage. So I guess I should hang on to my E8400 for a long time?
 
Are you OCing it? If not put on a $35 cooler and try to take it to 4.0Ghz. Well that is if your MB is adjustable.
 
I usual follow the simple rule of:

If it can do what you want, as fast as you want, you don't need to upgrade.
If it can't do what you want, as fast as you want, then you need to upgrade.
 
If this makes it any simpler, my e8400 with an SSD feels ever bit as fast as my i7-860 with an SSD in everyday use. Newer games run faster on the 860, and encoding would too (I don't do much of that other than MP3s).

But it sounds like you have a huge quanity of videos, so if you're actually creating those yourself, you will probably benefit from a quad core. Otherwise you'll benefit much, much more from an SSD. It makes a huge difference.
 
I think if you OC that cpu to 3,6+ it's more than enough for daily usage and packs enough punch in games that you probably just need to get faster gpu (gtx460/1gb, hd6850/6870s) not more cpu. save the cash and get a SSD would really make your system much faster and responsive.
 
If you do transcoding, wait for Sandy Bridge. While you may not want to use it's built in graphics engine to drive your display, with the right drivers, the graphics engine can be used to do hardware accelerated video transcoding.
 
Last edited:
nyker96 said:
I think if you OC that cpu to 3,6+ it's more than enough for daily usage and packs enough punch in games that you probably just need to get faster gpu (gtx460/1gb, hd6850/6870s) not more cpu. save the cash and get a SSD would really make your system much faster and responsive.
Click to expand...

I actually did think about overclocking since I do have nice heatsink and decent MB. But, just doesn't seem like I need it at all. Note, I hardly play any extreme games. I am running Linux with windows only as virtual machine. If I was still gamer, I would bought a new computer long ago!
 
Termie said:
If this makes it any simpler, my e8400 with an SSD feels ever bit as fast as my i7-860 with an SSD in everyday use. Newer games run faster on the 860, and encoding would too (I don't do much of that other than MP3s).

But it sounds like you have a huge quanity of videos, so if you're actually creating those yourself, you will probably benefit from a quad core. Otherwise you'll benefit much, much more from an SSD. It makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

This is actually nice info. Seriously, 80% of time I am using my computer for web browsing and word processing.

As far as trans-coding goes, I am very sure I don't need a new CPU/MB for this. I usually just download the videos and then trans-code them. I it not too much of big deal since it doesn't take too long (5 mins -10 mins) per video and I just kick of script trans-code them automatically. As mentioned, buying a 720P capable handheld will completely eliminate all my work in area.
 
BBMW said:
If you do transcoding, with for Sandy Bridge. While you may not want to use it's built in graphics engine to drive your display, with the right drivers, the graphics engine can be used to do hardware accelerated video transcoding.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think will just wait for Sandy Bridge. I might even wait 1 year+ for the 22 nm shirk of Sandy Bridge.
 
I have a E8400 and I feel the same way. I wish it was faster when encoding video, but that is it. I thinking that this system will last till about the time Windows 8/whatever cpu comes next is released.
 
Sell the E8xxx and buy a used quadcore to tide you over. Price difference shouldn't be much. I think its worth 20-30 bucks to enjoy something for a few months. If that dents you, upgrading your pc should be the least of your worries.
 
God Mode said:
Sell the E8xxx and buy a used quadcore to tide you over. Price difference shouldn't be much. I think its worth 20-30 bucks to enjoy something for a few months. If that dents you, upgrading your pc should be the least of your worries.
Click to expand...


Why bother? an E8400 is still VERY close to the fastest dual available. If he doesn't do much that'll benefit from a quad, then he should just stick with it (and OC mildly)
 
maniac5999 said:
Why bother? an E8400 is still VERY close to the fastest dual available. If he doesn't do much that'll benefit from a quad, then he should just stick with it (and OC mildly)
Click to expand...

From what I read regarding the thread, they want faster speed when encoding. A dualcore isn't going to be faster at encoding things compared to a quadcore. Also, IMO quadcores will keep their value better than holding onto a dualcore EOL E8xxx chip.
 
Microcenter has some amazing deals on Core2Quad processors if you've got access. Otherwise I wouldn't bother upgrading until Sandy Bridge, or possibly even Ivy Bridge based on what information you gave us.
 
I have an E8400 @ 4Ghz right now, and that's plenty fast for all the games I play. Don't do any encoding, so no need for a quad core yet. Get a SSD next, that'll be a huge jump in performance.
 
Microcenter has the Q9300 for $99 bucks which is a pretty sweet deal if you want a quad core. I decided I'm just going to stick with my E8500 clocked at 4 ghz for now and wait for the next generation.
 
thegimp03 said:
Microcenter has the Q9300 for $99 bucks which is a pretty sweet deal if you want a quad core. I decided I'm just going to stick with my E8500 clocked at 4 ghz for now and wait for the next generation.
Click to expand...

If OP is near a MC, this is perfect for a free upgrade. E8400 used on ebay sell for minimum $100ish (check completed sales), so effectively the cost up upgrading is zero. The Q9300 isn't an epic 12mb L2 chip like the 9450/9550, but overclocked it will still be far more capable than a dual-core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top