Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wolfdale E8200, E8400, and E8500 Review

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2008 5:21:47 PM

nice find thanx
January 7, 2008 5:32:45 PM

wow, may have to buy a e8500
Related resources
January 7, 2008 5:42:30 PM

I want one.
January 7, 2008 5:45:18 PM

The e8400 is likely the sweet spot.

Only $20 more than the E8200 and $80 Less than the E8500 but clocked only 0.16Ghz less.

I wish they had OC'd that one as well.
However, there may be wide variation in the OC speed of these chips.
I was surprised that the two chips hit such different levels despite being identical chips on identical steppings with only default speeds different.

Binning may play some role. The E8200 only hit about 3.3Ghz on stock voltage which is not much over the 3.16Ghz of the E8500. I suspect Intel likely tests with a mild OC so this one got bumped down the lower bin.

My next CPU will likely be the E8400, but we will see.
January 7, 2008 6:38:23 PM

zenmaster said:
My next CPU will likely be the E8400, but we will see.


If there are no new Yorkies in 2 wks, I'll be rite behind you, and I mean that in the most respectful, hetrosexual way posible! :bounce: 
January 7, 2008 6:38:50 PM

Yes I too really enjoyed that article! Xbit labs has been late on many things lately, but every now and then they get to be the heroes =)

I also pointed out there, the lack of E8400 OC results, but no doubt it will be very close to the E8500, since the only difference is the 9 to 9.5 multi. It is definitely the sweet spot in pricing. Pretty cool how they easily got to a 4.3ghz OC lol.
All in all, what an excellent product. Definitely lived up to the expectations.

In the article they mention these chips will be for sale in just a few days? I hope that is true, I got my $ ready!
January 7, 2008 6:39:07 PM

i had my heart set on a quad core for my next upgrade.... but now i'm not so sure....
January 7, 2008 6:40:10 PM

E84 + no volt OC 3.4Ghz = Happy Chopper
January 7, 2008 6:43:59 PM

happy spuddyt 2 :) 
January 7, 2008 7:04:30 PM

Good lord Intell is releasing so many new chips....me thinks I will have to take a class just to become familiar with them all.
January 7, 2008 7:08:52 PM

Man, check out that power consumption!



Spot the odd one out. ;) 
January 7, 2008 7:20:59 PM

so the E8400 is gonna be good at overclocking? guess im going for that one.
January 7, 2008 7:27:10 PM

makotech222 said:
so the E8400 is gonna be good at overclocking? guess im going for that one.


I figure its gona be pretty close to the E85's OC figures, maybe 100-200MHz below, seting per setting.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2008 7:36:18 PM

The Q6600 and the E6x50s are more than powerful for todays needs. I would save some money and just get a Nehalm by end of 08.
January 7, 2008 7:38:43 PM

That's amazing. 10-15% performance improvement, lower heat, lower power consumption, and all at no extra expense compared to their 65nm counterparts. :bounce: 
January 7, 2008 7:39:33 PM

Shadow703793 said:
The Q6600 and the E6x50s are more than powerful for todays needs. I would save some money and just get a Nehalm by end of 08.


That's the best advice if you can wait. I've got a Pentium D on its last legs that is just hankerin for the trash heap. I'll go 45nm now and 32nm when it comes out.
January 7, 2008 7:52:45 PM

Same here. I have an Intel Pentium 4. Crashing, stuff at 1fps, fan bearings going. I just don't want to fix it anymore.
January 7, 2008 8:11:52 PM

drysocks said:
Same here. I have an Intel Pentium 4. Crashing, stuff at 1fps, fan bearings going. I just don't want to fix it anymore.


fortunately my P-D is not crashing (fingers crosed) but it's kinda like trying to keep up with Valentino Rossi when your on a chinese pocketbike. I need lots more scroti. :lol: 
January 7, 2008 8:52:36 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
That's the best advice if you can wait. I've got a Pentium D on its last legs that is just hankerin for the trash heap. I'll go 45nm now and 32nm when it comes out.


Pentium D's are still way more than powerful enough for most applications if they're overclocked. I have my D920 running at 4.3ghz (and has been for way over a year) and it's still a stonkingly good system. Show that to anyone 5 years ago and they'd burn you at the stake for witchcraft!
January 8, 2008 12:34:56 AM

Q6600 or E8500...someone make the choice for me...
January 8, 2008 12:39:15 AM

I vote for Wolfie for President.

Quantumsheep, you're absolutely right, but I have 1GB RAM, running Vista Biz, usually have three or four apps runing includng Photoshop, it's not worth upgrading my memory, the mobo is a Lenovo so I'm not even sure if it will OC at all, so it's best to just retire it...
January 8, 2008 1:17:21 AM

Even if the 8200 only goes to 3.2 on stock volts, that should be mind-numbingly fast enough for me, coming from a Northwood P4.

I'm scrapping the P35 and E2160 and getting a X38 and E8200.

January 8, 2008 1:55:00 AM

Wow, only 30W at 3.0ghz? I'm sold.
January 8, 2008 2:25:18 AM

So what can we expect the mark-up to look like, and how fast will they sell out?
January 8, 2008 2:27:38 AM

My guess is a 15%-20% markup over the 1K price and more than suficient supply. Intel is not about to start doing paper launches with these chips. Theyre too importnt.
January 8, 2008 2:40:55 AM

well hopefully AMD pulls something out of it's hat that can keep them out of hot water. However unlikely it is.
January 8, 2008 3:56:35 AM

Hate to break it to you, but they're already in hot water. Personally, though, I hope they dig themselves out of this hole. Competition is a good thing. Hell, not that long ago, in the heyday of FX, AMD dominated. I mean we're talking, what, three years ago?

Even though I have a penchant for Intel goods, I'd love to see AMD make it through this and get back to the top again, or at least get themselves in a position where they can compete. The day when Intel is the only provider of consumer chips will be a sad one...let's hope it never arrives.
January 8, 2008 5:25:52 AM

Actually, it was even more recently. Until the introduction of the Core2Duo in July 2006, AMD dominated. The Pentium D was like a two in one device. CPU/Space Heater. So its only been the last year and a half that Intel has managed to outperform AMD. The current performance gap probably rivals the gap during the K6-2 and K6-III days.
January 8, 2008 3:33:19 PM

Quote:
i had my heart set on a quad core for my next upgrade.... but now i'm not so sure....



If the Yorkies don't get released by the end of the month I might do the same, don't think my tired old Athlon64 can last until March. Gotta love those E8500 benchies..w00t!! :bounce: 
January 8, 2008 3:54:56 PM

Has an OCed E8500 been pitted against an OCed Q6600? Given how much current games depend on the GPU, I can't imagine there would be a huge performance difference between these two CPUs, as far as games are concerned.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2008 4:16:56 PM

Hmmm... I know I have a Q6.... But that article shows well over 4Ghz on air shouldn't be a problem. Oh lordy, how my e~peen is beginning to ache... :lol: 

Of course... A Quad at 4Ghz would be sweet too... <Evil Grin>
January 8, 2008 4:23:59 PM

repeat after me....YOU WILL NEVER KEEP UP, YOU WILL NEVER KEEP UP! :D 

Very impressive...should be fun to play with.

As someone aptly pointed out...an E6600 above 3.2ghz has more power than a 8800GTX can use! I always get get a kick out reading posts for people stressing over very high C2D OC wihile still running a 7600GT for gaming!
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2008 4:54:37 PM

Craxbax maybe those folks do alot of other things with there machines that benefit from a really fast cpu besides gaming. There are plenty of folks that just play older gamers that those cards run just fine. It comes down to building machines for what you want to get from them. A generald all around fast system that plays some games casually or a actual pure gaming system.

January 8, 2008 10:41:02 PM

For me, I game, and that's it. I had to make a choice last night: get a Q6600 now, or get an E8500 later. I went with the Q6600. Realistically, a nice OC on a Q6600 will last just as long as a nice OC on an E8500 for gaming purposes.

I can only imagine that an E8500 will outperform a Q6600 by 2 or so FPS max, if at all. Neither will bottleneck for at least two years, probably longer (especially in the case of the Q6600 because of the added cores).
January 8, 2008 10:43:30 PM

Congrats on your new purchase JJ! I'd been siting on the same fence but I've decided to wait it out. Still, I think youll be perfectly happy with your Quad!

AMD4Li... sorry... I don't know what got into me... :) 
January 8, 2008 10:47:32 PM

jjblanche said:
For me, I game, and that's it. I had to make a choice last night: get a Q6600 now, or get an E8500 later. I went with the Q6600. Realistically, a nice OC on a Q6600 will last just as long as a nice OC on an E8500 for gaming purposes.

I can only imagine that an E8500 will outperform a Q6600 by 2 or so FPS max, if at all. Neither will bottleneck for at least two years, probably longer (especially in the case of the Q6600 because of the added cores).



Check my sig.. I don't think most games will be using that much hardware anytime soon. Q6600 is just fine.
January 8, 2008 10:59:03 PM

WOW cnumartyr...I dont think I've ever seen a Q6600 OC that high. What is your voltage and temps? What CPU cooler are you running? I picked up a Gigabyte X38...do you think that will be a good match for a Q6600 OC?
January 8, 2008 11:10:35 PM

jjblanche said:
WOW cnumartyr...I dont think I've ever seen a Q6600 OC that high. What is your voltage and temps? What CPU cooler are you running? I picked up a Gigabyte X38...do you think that will be a good match for a Q6600 OC?



To be fair that's just my benchmarking OC... I run 3.6 GHz for daily stuff. The 3.9 isn't 100% Prime Stable.

I "only" score 16.4k 3D Mark 06 with my "gaming" OC. Temps were high on the 3.9 GHz with 100% load so I don't run it all that much. Cooler is just a Thermalright Ultra 120X. That board is just fine btw.



January 10, 2008 12:41:12 PM

someguy7 said:
Craxbax maybe those folks do alot of other things with there machines that benefit from a really fast cpu besides gaming. There are plenty of folks that just play older gamers that those cards run just fine. It comes down to building machines for what you want to get from them. A generald all around fast system that plays some games casually or a actual pure gaming system.


Well then a quad would be a better choice for most of what they may do, wouldn't it? :ouch:  The argument favored by the dually fanboys is always more FPS in games.

As I have always maintained...if you are happy with your cpu choice then you have the right one for you. I enjoy funnin' with peeps that demand everyone should conform to their world view...they are easy to upset! Seems I chummed another to the surface! :kaola: 

Peas bro!
January 30, 2009 4:19:12 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
E84 + no volt OC 3.4Ghz = Happy Chopper

I got my E6420 no volt OC at 3.36 GHz. Yeah, 65mn Conroe does have its nominal voltage higher though. But nonetheless I seem to have a good batch. :ange: 
January 30, 2009 5:21:33 PM

HOLY NECRO BATMAN!!!!
January 31, 2009 11:55:23 AM

I'll take that as a compliment :D 
!