Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How much performance gain, E8200 vs E2200?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 12, 2008 8:45:51 PM

Hi,

I'm going to build myself a nice new computer. You can see the list of items here!.
I'm choosing between the E8200 and the E2200. I want to know how much performance gain E8200 will have over E2200 once both are OC:ed? From where I'm from E8200 cost double as much as E2200. Will it be worth the price difference?
March 12, 2008 9:08:45 PM

Your link is not working.

The E8200 has the potential of OCing to great heights, but the limiting factor would be the motherboard. Most motherboards today can hit 400MHz fsb, which will give you 3.2GHz for the E8200. That would equate to roughly a 3.4GHz E2200.

If you get a better motherboard, 450Mhz should be possible, giving you 3.6GHz. Is it worth it? That's up to you to decide.
March 12, 2008 10:00:34 PM

Ok I've fixed the link.

The motherboard I'm going to use is the Gigabyte X38 DS4. Would that motherboard manage 400+fsb? Any good motherboard suggestions? But even if I get a better motherboard can't I apply 450fsb on the E2200 too and get a higher clock? Wouldn't that make E8200 look bad again?
Related resources
March 12, 2008 10:54:35 PM

yes, the that motherboard should do well over 450Mhz, perhaps even 500MHz, however I would recommend against getting that. Instead, the ASUS P5k-e Wifi is much better, since it has an abundance of OCing options making it very easy to use. It also OCs very well.

You raised the question of Ocing the E2200. The highest it can reach regardless of what fsb is around 3.4GHz. Any further will usually produce overwhelming amount of heat and requiring tons of voltage. This, like all cpus, will depend on cpu to cpu, so you could get lucky and get one that OCs past 3.4Ghz easily.

The E8400, not the E8200, has the potential of 4GHz+, thus it's safe to assume that the E8200 can also reach near those speeds, if it were not for the lower x8 multiplier. You can expect 3.6GHz, but this really depends on the motherboard's OC potential. Each mobo Ocs differently so you may get lucky and hit 500fsb.
March 13, 2008 9:23:48 AM

thanks for the reply Evilonigiri. I'm getting a X38 motherboard because I want to be able to x-fire with PCIe x16 slots at full speed, but maybe I'll get good X-fire with X16 and X4 speeds? I found an Asus P5E X38 for about 35$ more than Gigabyte X38 DS4. Would you recommend that Asus board over the Gigabyte one? I don't think I'm going to spend more money that that on the motherboard.
I'll get the E8200 over E2200. The reason why E8200 instead of E8400 is because the E8400 isn't available anywhere and some stores have E8200 in stock.
March 14, 2008 2:55:12 AM

Do you have to go with dual card solutions? What is your resolution?

I am against SLI/Crossfire because it's simply not worth it, especially at lower resolutions. A single card solution is always the best imo. I would always get ASUS over Gigabyte, but Gigabyte isn't bad either. The motherboard I will recommend above all others is the ASUS P5k-e, which has a multitude of OCing options that make it easy to work with. It is also know to hit well over 450MHz.
March 14, 2008 7:33:20 AM

I certainly does not need x-fire now as I only sit on a 19" LCD, an I didn't plan on getting two cards right away either. But I am going to get a 24" Dell towards the end if this year. As no single card solution is going to give me good performance at 1900x1200 so I though I might as well get another card and x-fire when I get the 24" monitor.
I've ordered the asus board. So I hope it can live up to expectations. BTW isn't the Asus P5E X38 just the ASUS P5k-e but in X38 instead of P35?
March 15, 2008 5:32:55 PM

I have a e8400, e8200, and e2160. the 2160 is 1mb cache, the e8200 is 6mb. the e8200 runs cooler at 3.4 than the 2160 at 3.0....my e8400 at 4.0 is cooler than the 2160. I use the p965 asus p5b-e for the e8200, and the x38 asus p5e for the e8400. get the e8200, you will love it!

the x38 mobo has pci 2.o version, both slots full 16x also. 1 single card will run a 24 lcd. thats what i have. I have used 9600gt, hd 3850 512, single card and crossfire, 8800gt, single and sli, and 8800gts512. I like the 9600gt for performance for money, and it is quiet. The 3850 was lowest performance, but nice. the 8800gt was by far the loudest and hottest, and the 8800gts 512 a good combo of price, $250 after rebate, quiet, and fastest single card setup.
March 15, 2008 5:57:00 PM

zhaf said:
I certainly does not need x-fire now as I only sit on a 19" LCD, an I didn't plan on getting two cards right away either. But I am going to get a 24" Dell towards the end if this year. As no single card solution is going to give me good performance at 1900x1200 so I though I might as well get another card and x-fire when I get the 24" monitor.
I've ordered the asus board. So I hope it can live up to expectations. BTW isn't the Asus P5E X38 just the ASUS P5k-e but in X38 instead of P35?

24in monitor will probably need dual card solutions if you want to run everything on high. As for the mobo question, probably. I'll need to read up on it.
March 15, 2008 11:27:25 PM

The average air overclock of an E2180 is 3.2GHz per www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/243437-stable-e1000-e2000-...

The average air overclock of an E8400 is 4.0GHz per www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1138241

Prey runs on an E2140 (or E2180) at 3.2GHz around 100 FPS (with 1MB cache) per www.tomshardware.co.uk/Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-E2140-ov...

Prey runs on a Wolfdate (ie E8400) at 4.0GHz around 128 FPS (with 6MB cache) per www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/pa...

The above 2 benches are comparable because Prey runs on a E6550 at 110.3 FPS on both.

Ewiz has the E2180 for $68. The E8400 is running around $230 if it were available

So is Prey running at 128 FPS on a E8400 rather then 100 FPS on a E2180
really worth the extra $162
(or more cause of the needs of higher OCing) ?
Plus many boards are fussy about an E8400, needing at least Bios updates per www.tomshardware.com/forum/247783-28-e8400-preparation-... .
If you can find an E8400 in the first place.

At first glance, an E8400 at 4.2GHz sounds great. But there are still many advantages to the E2000 series.
March 16, 2008 2:32:38 AM

Dspear, you can not base everything on one single game. What about games that are very demanding, and say the E2180 gets only 20fps but the E8400 gets 40fps? I reckon to some people, it's well worth the extra money.

Saying that, the E2xxx series is currently the best deal for cpus when OCed, giving an amazing price/performance ratio. However, it's sometimes just not up to some tasks, so it's really up to the OP to decide.
March 16, 2008 11:47:40 AM

I cited the above because that was the only objective (hopefully) comparison of the two CPUs overclocked I could find. While one benchmark is certainly limited, it does give some idea of the true performance difference. This would probably be fairly typical of games, except for ones that depend on the L2 cache (see www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/24/does_cache_size_matter/... ).

I stopped short of saying E2180 was a better processor because it's true that many users want or need top processors. My point is attempting to show the true performance and cost relationship so each reader can more accurately evaluate his individual choice. It's my opinion that too much emphasis is placed on the latest-and-greatest. Will the games you play really be that much more advanced than Prey that they bring the FPS from 100 down to the 60 needed for good play?

I would love to see a full article comparing the overclocked E2180 and E8400 on a system just sufficient to OC to 4.0GHz, with a medium and a high-level GPU. Anyone else interested in this?
March 17, 2008 2:15:09 AM

dspear said:
I stopped short of saying E2180 was a better processor because it's true that many users want or need top processors. My point is attempting to show the true performance and cost relationship so each reader can more accurately evaluate his individual choice. It's my opinion that too much emphasis is placed on the latest-and-greatest. Will the games you play really be that much more advanced than Prey that they bring the FPS from 100 down to the 60 needed for good play?

Yes, there is a game that requires a superior cpu. It's Supreme Commander where even an OC'ed Quad has trouble running it. If I took this single game and used it as a benchmark for the 4GHz E8400 and 3.2GHz E2180 using 3x8800GTX (overkill but that's to prevent gpu bottlenecking), there will be rather a large difference. I am confident that the E2160 at 3.2GHz will not even come close to the E8400 at 4GHz.

I have no proof of this of course, but I am basing this off my experience with the 3.15GHz Q6600. Towards the later part of the game when there's tons of units, I usually get around 15-20fps, which is okay for an RTS game.

I agree that it would be nice seeing an article on this. Of course, you'd need a very high level GPU (ex. 3-8800GTX) to get rid of some variables such as GPU bottlenecking.
!