Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Overclocking Intel's Wolfdale E8000

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2008 10:14:21 AM

We look at the 45-nm Core 2 Duo E8000's overclocking potential. We also focus on power consumption, simulating real-world applications with SysMark 2007. Wolfdale truly breaks performance-per-watt records.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/index.html
a c 126 à CPUs
February 19, 2008 11:40:42 AM

An OC to 4.2GHz is not that bad for a first generation 45nm. They also forgot that it uses the new HK/MG which does lower power consumption and increase performance.

Overall the Penryn series shows to be promising. I am sure as well that after the nect few revisions we will see better OC'ing abilities as well as even better performance per watt ratios.
February 19, 2008 12:14:14 PM

Just out of curiosity since I know very little about overclocking. Around what kind of voltage increase do you start damaging the processor and the board? Seems like a .25 v increase on the processor would do a number on it over the course of its life.
Related resources
a c 126 à CPUs
February 19, 2008 12:34:24 PM

compy386 said:
Just out of curiosity since I know very little about overclocking. Around what kind of voltage increase do you start damaging the processor and the board? Seems like a .25 v increase on the processor would do a number on it over the course of its life.


As long as it stays within its voltage arena provided by the CPU vendor its fine.

For instance, the Q6600 G0 will run on as little as .95v and will be fine with as high as 1.5v. Of course the latter will kill the CPU much faster. But I OC'ed my Q6600 to 3GHz on air on the stock voltage of 1.25v.
February 19, 2008 1:16:15 PM

Actually, there are several other points that weren't mentioned that show the advantage of a quad over a dual core. ie. The yorkie is only at 3.2ghz yet is still very close to the the wolfie at 4.2ghz. Any quad comparison with dual core at the same ghz will best the dual core. Why not show a 9450 or 9550 OC'd compared with an 8400/8500? Also in most cases where the dual core beats the quad even at stock speeds the real world results are not visible. (ie FPS at 100+) This is not to say the wolfies are a poor choice; rather only that if you can afford the quad you are getting more for your money across a much broader spectrum and really suffering no real world performance loss in the areas the OC'd wolfie bests the quad. That even applies to the Q6600 in most cases. If the Q6600 drops into the low $200 (US) it is a no brainer choice over a smiliarly priced 8400.
February 19, 2008 1:16:26 PM

Intel's 45-nm technology is amazing stuff.
February 19, 2008 2:12:13 PM

Waspy said:
Intel's 45-nm technology is amazing stuff.


indeed!
February 19, 2008 4:07:13 PM

The E8000's may as well be celerons as they simply loss against the Q6600. Stock for stock or OC for OC the quads are the fastest so Intel better be ready for a sub $250 price for E8000's. One only needs note that the stock Q6600 beats the OC'ed E8000 at 3.8GHz on a few benchmarks to see the Q6600 can well over power the dual in quad optimized programs.
February 19, 2008 4:49:49 PM

Craxbax said:
Actually, there are several other points that weren't mentioned that show the advantage of a quad over a dual core. ie. The yorkie is only at 3.2ghz yet is still very close to the the wolfie at 4.2ghz. Any quad comparison with dual core at the same ghz will best the dual core. Why not show a 9450 or 9550 OC'd compared with an 8400/8500? Also in most cases where the dual core beats the quad even at stock speeds the real world results are not visible. (ie FPS at 100+) This is not to say the wolfies are a poor choice; rather only that if you can afford the quad you are getting more for your money across a much broader spectrum and really suffering no real world performance loss in the areas the OC'd wolfie bests the quad. That even applies to the Q6600 in most cases. If the Q6600 drops into the low $200 (US) it is a no brainer choice over a smiliarly priced 8400.


First off I think that this article shouldnt and wasnt addressing Quad vs. dual! We know that a quad will best a dual any day off the week or 9 times out of 10.

The bottom line is that there are no 45nm Quads available right now besides the high end. Of course a $1200 is going to outperform and run laps around a $220 proc.

I myself bought a E8400 for several reasons. 1st: No 45nm quads available yet 2nd: super low power consumption compared to Q6600 (I really dont think the Q6600 o'cd to 3.6 is that much better than o'c 4ghz E8400... it only bests it by a mere 5% in most benches and for the $50 savings I couldnt go wrong 3rd: I wanted the E8400 over E8500 because it's almost $100 cheaper and I couldnt even find a E8500 online. Besides the E8500 is only 2-5% faster... that's not enough to justify a $100.

Bottom line is Intel came out with a good product... this puts them well ahead of AMD in the performance/price standpoint and also energy consumption. Conroe was long live but now penryn will be the next best thing. Quad's arent available yet because there simply isnt a market for them yet in the mainstream desktop. I work for a corporation called the US Gov and it doesnt buy Quad's (I'm talking millions of computers not your one sitting on the desk at home) it buys Pentium D's if that... In fact in my whole building here we have one desktop that is a dual core X2 and all the others are still Pentium 4 single cores.

Intel is wise in it's marketing strategy. They will have the market by 10-20$ in the desktop (dont know about server and mobile) for at least another 18 months guaranteed.
February 19, 2008 5:35:46 PM

Craxbax said:
Actually, there are several other points that weren't mentioned that show the advantage of a quad over a dual core. ie. The yorkie is only at 3.2ghz yet is still very close to the the wolfie at 4.2ghz. Any quad comparison with dual core at the same ghz will best the dual core. Why not show a 9450 or 9550 OC'd compared with an 8400/8500? Also in most cases where the dual core beats the quad even at stock speeds the real world results are not visible. (ie FPS at 100+) This is not to say the wolfies are a poor choice; rather only that if you can afford the quad you are getting more for your money across a much broader spectrum and really suffering no real world performance loss in the areas the OC'd wolfie bests the quad. That even applies to the Q6600 in most cases. If the Q6600 drops into the low $200 (US) it is a no brainer choice over a smiliarly priced 8400.


Bottom line: If you use quad-optimized programs quite a bit, get the Q6600. If all you do is game and browse the web, get the Wolfdale as for those programs it's faster per clock, overclocks higher, uses less power, comes with SSE4, and on top of all that it's cheaper. It's really a no-brainer. Few games will be significantly quad-core optimized for at least another year or two, so when they are just drop in a quad which will be down to $150 or less by then.
February 19, 2008 5:38:17 PM

Quite some amazing feats, especially since the E8400@4.2 tends to beat the stock Q6600.

I'm interested in what MrsBytch, Thunderman or even BaronMatrix would say when they read it.
February 19, 2008 5:48:58 PM

elbert said:
The E8000's may as well be celerons as they simply loss against the Q6600. Stock for stock or OC for OC the quads are the fastest so Intel better be ready for a sub $250 price for E8000's. One only needs note that the stock Q6600 beats the OC'ed E8000 at 3.8GHz on a few benchmarks to see the Q6600 can well over power the dual in quad optimized programs.


So now all dual cores may as well be Celerons in your view? :lol: 

Nevermind that 1/2 the benchmarks show the E8x00 in the lead. ;) 
February 19, 2008 6:06:57 PM

Some temperature info would have been nice alongside the power consumption... some data other than the (mostly) obvious claim that temps stayed low... feels like the 8GB in Vista x64 article in that respect.

-mcg
February 19, 2008 6:09:32 PM

ritesh_laud said:
Bottom line: If you use quad-optimized programs quite a bit, get the Q6600. If all you do is game and browse the web, get the Wolfdale as for those programs it's faster per clock, overclocks higher, uses less power, comes with SSE4, and on top of all that it's cheaper. It's really a no-brainer. Few games will be significantly quad-core optimized for at least another year or two, so when they are just drop in a quad which will be down to $150 or less by then.


Ok, regarding this whole dual-core vs. quad core discussion.

Have I missed something or..

Everytime there is talk about the usefullness of a quad-core processor, people always talk about multi-core optimized applications.
Same thing can be seen in all the benchmarks, from for example tomshardware.. (With focus on how fast you can render a scene, or encode some mp3)
What about multi-core optimized operating systems?
I really don't care about running one single application really fast. I'm interested in running several application without them interfering with each other. Yes i'm talking about multi-tasking. And each application can very well be single threaded. But I want them to be distributed on the avalable cores, and run simultainiously.

So if i'm running a file download, watching a video, and browsing in a lot of tabs. (and having anti-virus, and other stuff in the background) How well does this perform?
I guess a lot of this is up to the operating system, as much as the CPU..

So does anyone know of any test that has focused on this aspect of utilizing a serveral core CPU?
Perhaps comparing dual-core with quad-core, on both XP and Vista.

Thanks in advance
February 19, 2008 6:11:22 PM

elbert said:
The E8000's may as well be celerons as they simply loss against the Q6600. Stock for stock or OC for OC the quads are the fastest so Intel better be ready for a sub $250 price for E8000's. One only needs note that the stock Q6600 beats the OC'ed E8000 at 3.8GHz on a few benchmarks to see the Q6600 can well over power the dual in quad optimized programs.


And many programs are not quad optimized.

While the Q6600 is great for somethings, the E8xxx series is better for others.

The $250 price you are seeing is not Intel's price, but rather due to excessive demand. You could buy the processor for as low as $189 (MicroCenter) for the first week or so after release.

I expect the price to float down again in a couple months as stock repopulates.

Personally, I would nearly always suggest the Q6600 at near equal prices, but if there is a $60-$70 price difference the Exxxx may be better.
February 19, 2008 6:22:25 PM

No, it wasn't about quad vs. dual per se but they made the comparison. It really is about hyping the E8000s and a lot of peeps don't mind jumping on the band wagon because it suits their world view. Look at all the data. They are not comparing the maxed out E8000s against maxed out quads of any stripe because they would simply be less than sensational. The other aspect is that performance gains on existing software is largely meaningless. Claiming quads are pointless for gaming ignores that people run a lot more apps simultaneously with the gaming and quads help keep the minimum frame rates up.

So gamers answer this question for yourselves: What is better higher max/average frame rates or minmum frame rates. All the quad FPS avg/max rates are well above visual differences compared to dual cores. What they needed to show is what happens on the typical home system with all the extra apps running as what the minimum frame rates are. There is an observable difference as many who have had both will attest to.

You don't need a E8400 to game or browse the web so your logic falls short of your argument there also. The Yorkies will be here soon enough and within a year dual core will be budget system cpus regardless of how well they OC. The Celeron comparison may be more appropriate than you wish. Quit hyping the E8400 and dogging people who chose the quads and I won't call you on your BS.
February 19, 2008 8:17:13 PM

All this stuff about performance per watt.. then you add SLI or even single 8800 video cards, and is the processor power savings really all that significant?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Would you accept less performance if it meant less power consumption?
February 19, 2008 8:28:40 PM

jalek said:
All this stuff about performance per watt.. then you add SLI or even single 8800 video cards, and is the processor power savings really all that significant?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Would you accept less performance if it meant less power consumption?


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...


The power savings aren't insignificant, especially compared to a Phenom.
February 19, 2008 8:28:42 PM

Craxbax said:
Claiming quads are pointless for gaming ignores that people run a lot more apps simultaneously with the gaming and quads help keep the minimum frame rates up


Yammer on all you want but you can't change the simple facts that all the benchmarking sites out there are proving: that the Wolfdale delivers more frames in today's games and COSTS LESS than a C2Q. And will likely do so for another year or more. And can hit 4 GHz on air, which the C2Q more than likely can't. And uses less power. And offers SSE4. So why are you advocating that gamers SPEND MORE for a slower processor? Use your head.

Who ever said that quads are pointless for gaming? Any C2Q paired with a top end GPU is more than powerful enough for just about any game currently out there. The only point being made here is that with the Wolfdale you get more frames for less cash. And that could very well make a difference in recent games like Crysis that bring even top-flight systems to their knees.

And having multiple apps open while running a game means next to nothing for CPUs unless those apps are actually DOING something, like Folding or rendering. Gamers in that situation need to get a quad. And that is certainly less than 10% of gamers out there.
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2008 9:38:35 PM

According to the CHARTS, (toms and others) the DUAL is the SUPERIOR cpu for gaming. Only one-two games actually benefit from quad cpus. gee, surpise, surprise...not.
Now if more companies spend MONEY to code in multi cpus, then it might be good idea for quads, other then that, dual is the way to do (obviously the Duals stomp the crap out of the quads in most games).
February 19, 2008 10:21:37 PM

Quote:
However, extreme overclocking attempts require extreme measures to squeeze out a few more megahertz, which is the reason why hardcore enthusiasts worldwide have continued to remove the heat spreader once in awhile.

:lol:  This is funny, they claim to be "preforming an extreme OCing attempts" yet they're using only a Zalman air cooler. You've got to be kidding me!!!

With my Q6600 and the same Zalman cooler, I was only able to hit 3.2GHz (1.50V) with full stability, but after upgrading to the Thermalright 120 Ultra Extreme (TRUE) I attained full stability at 3.85GHz (1.575V) and I can bench 90% of benchmarks at over 4.0GHz (1.60V). But, I don't even consider my OCing "extreme"....and no, I have not removed my heat-spreader.

compy386 said:
Just out of curiosity since I know very little about overclocking. Around what kind of voltage increase do you start damaging the processor and the board? Seems like a .25 v increase on the processor would do a number on it over the course of its life.


I've already seen results of people stable on air with up to about 1.6V and on extreme cooling with over 1.85V. I'm not reccommending it, I'm just saying these processors can handle A LOT!
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2008 12:29:59 AM

miahallen said:
Quote:
However, extreme overclocking attempts require extreme measures to squeeze out a few more megahertz, which is the reason why hardcore enthusiasts worldwide have continued to remove the heat spreader once in awhile.

:lol:  This is funny, they claim to be "preforming an extreme OCing attempts" yet they're using only a Zalman air cooler. You've got to be kidding me!!!

They never claimed anythig, nor did they say they removed the heatspreader.
a c 126 à CPUs
February 20, 2008 12:56:13 AM



Thanks, those are nice. And even the difference from the Q6600 to the Phenom is more than I expected. And the Q9300 looks pretty nice on power consumption.

ritesh_laud said:
Yammer on all you want but you can't change the simple facts that all the benchmarking sites out there are proving: that the Wolfdale delivers more frames in today's games and COSTS LESS than a C2Q. And will likely do so for another year or more. And can hit 4 GHz on air, which the C2Q more than likely can't. And uses less power. And offers SSE4. So why are you advocating that gamers SPEND MORE for a slower processor? Use your head.

Who ever said that quads are pointless for gaming? Any C2Q paired with a top end GPU is more than powerful enough for just about any game currently out there. The only point being made here is that with the Wolfdale you get more frames for less cash. And that could very well make a difference in recent games like Crysis that bring even top-flight systems to their knees.

And having multiple apps open while running a game means next to nothing for CPUs unless those apps are actually DOING something, like Folding or rendering. Gamers in that situation need to get a quad. And that is certainly less than 10% of gamers out there.


I agree but I like saying I have a quad core OC'ed to 3GHz. Plus in the future I wont have to buy a new CPU and hopefully this will last until the 32nm shrink of Nehalem aka Westmire. That way I can upgrade the 2 things I really want such as to 4GB memory when I go 64 bit and the GPU when ATI releases R700, which hopefully is very fast compared to the R600. That will benefit gaming more than the CPU.
February 20, 2008 1:08:10 AM

ritesh_laud said:
Yammer on all you want but you can't change the simple facts that all the benchmarking sites out there are proving: that the Wolfdale delivers more frames in today's games and COSTS LESS than a C2Q. And will likely do so for another year or more. And can hit 4 GHz on air, which the C2Q more than likely can't. And uses less power. And offers SSE4. So why are you advocating that gamers SPEND MORE for a slower processor? Use your head.

Who ever said that quads are pointless for gaming? Any C2Q paired with a top end GPU is more than powerful enough for just about any game currently out there. The only point being made here is that with the Wolfdale you get more frames for less cash. And that could very well make a difference in recent games like Crysis that bring even top-flight systems to their knees.

And having multiple apps open while running a game means next to nothing for CPUs unless those apps are actually DOING something, like Folding or rendering. Gamers in that situation need to get a quad. And that is certainly less than 10% of gamers out there.


LOL No...use your head. Again you can't see past what your told and you miss the point!
February 20, 2008 4:20:42 AM

dude14 said:
Ok, regarding this whole dual-core vs. quad core discussion.

Have I missed something or..

Everytime there is talk about the usefullness of a quad-core processor, people always talk about multi-core optimized applications.
Same thing can be seen in all the benchmarks, from for example tomshardware.. (With focus on how fast you can render a scene, or encode some mp3)
What about multi-core optimized operating systems?
I really don't care about running one single application really fast. I'm interested in running several application without them interfering with each other. Yes i'm talking about multi-tasking. And each application can very well be single threaded. But I want them to be distributed on the avalable cores, and run simultainiously.

So if i'm running a file download, watching a video, and browsing in a lot of tabs. (and having anti-virus, and other stuff in the background) How well does this perform?
I guess a lot of this is up to the operating system, as much as the CPU..

So does anyone know of any test that has focused on this aspect of utilizing a serveral core CPU?
Perhaps comparing dual-core with quad-core, on both XP and Vista.

Thanks in advance


They need to focus on that, but I haven't seen many multitasking articles since dual core first arrived. My wife needs a quad, or at least a triple core, and she'll get one in April. She downloads anime, uploads and downloads modder related files, all the while posting on The Elder Scrolls boards, playing games or watching anime. So, she needs more cores than 2, even without considering her 3D and graphics programs.

Me, I just play games and post, and not at the same time. So I only need 2 cores right now. Still, I think a B3 Phenom or a Q6600 is a good deal for futureproofing. That's because I expect more games to be like Supreme Commander and use well over 2 cores. I expect that by holiday 2008.

So choose a Wolfie over a Kentsfield if you want to upgrade in a year. If you want your CPU to last 2-3 years (regardless of whether you overclock), then get a quad this spring. Intel is doing their fans a disservice by going extreme edition with 45nm quads. They create the market by availability, because apps and games will be coded to match what's in the mainstream.


a b à CPUs
February 20, 2008 4:38:31 AM

I am getting sick of people saying you need a quad core to download movies, upload stuff, browse the web with I dont care how many tabs you got open all while doing the very cpu demanding task of watching a video(sarcasm). All of that combined at the same time plus anti-virus running in the backround wont even come close to even stressing my old single core p4 2.8 northwood in a older machine I got.

You guys have got to be using some really crappy apps to do those things if it bogs down any cpu from the last 4 or so years.

Once you add the 3D apps and graphic programs or games thats different. Those things actually use alot of cpu power will the rest of that stuff wouldnt even faze a old single core athlon or pent4.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2008 6:22:29 AM

Spybot SD bogged my 3700 down real bad, but it's not very resource friendly. I think AVG was pretty bad too, but not as bad as Spybot. My E6600 runs both at the same time and I wouldn't even know it.
February 20, 2008 7:05:29 AM

ritesh_laud said:
Yammer on all you want but you can't change the simple facts that all the benchmarking sites out there are proving: that the Wolfdale delivers more frames in today's games and COSTS LESS than a C2Q. And will likely do so for another year or more. And can hit 4 GHz on air, which the C2Q more than likely can't. hat could very well make a difference in recent games like Crysis that bring even top-flight systems to their knees.

And having multiple apps open while running a game means next to nothing for CPUs unless those apps are actually DOING something, like Folding or rendering. Gamers in that situation need to get a quad. And that is certainly less than 10% of gamers out there.


Amen brother!

Why are people having a hard time excepting that the little $220 wolfie can hang with the big boys (Quads). Dont be mad because I saved more money than you (and not on my car insurance... on my computer)... and can overclock higher than you!

Bottom line is: money doesnt grow on trees! Unless you still get breast fed with mommy's milk. Well in that case... maybe you shouldnt be getting any cpu! You'd invest in diapers. Anyway, why pay 350 for Q9450 when you can get an E8400 for 220? Do the math... and besides the former isnt even available.


a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2008 7:09:48 AM

Some people actually do have a use for more cores. All you people ever think about is games.
February 20, 2008 10:06:51 AM

epsilon84 said:
So now all dual cores may as well be Celerons in your view? :lol: 

Nevermind that 1/2 the benchmarks show the E8x00 in the lead. ;) 

Never mind those show them in the lead are overclocks v/s stock.
February 20, 2008 10:15:39 AM

zenmaster said:
And many programs are not quad optimized.

While the Q6600 is great for somethings, the E8xxx series is better for others.

The $250 price you are seeing is not Intel's price, but rather due to excessive demand. You could buy the processor for as low as $189 (MicroCenter) for the first week or so after release.

I expect the price to float down again in a couple months as stock repopulates.

Personally, I would nearly always suggest the Q6600 at near equal prices, but if there is a $60-$70 price difference the Exxxx may be better.

LOL were did I say many programs? No the the Q6600 is better over all if you compare OC'ed v/s OC'ed. Look at the benchmarks a notice that even the top quad is stock would be beat by and Q6600 at 3.8GHz. I agree with your last statement but with $90~$100 price difference.
February 20, 2008 10:47:32 AM
February 20, 2008 11:17:47 AM

someguy7 said:
I am getting sick of people saying you need a quad core to download movies, upload stuff, browse the web with I dont care how many tabs you got open all while doing the very cpu demanding task of watching a video(sarcasm). All of that combined at the same time plus anti-virus running in the backround wont even come close to even stressing my old single core p4 2.8 northwood in a older machine I got.

You guys have got to be using some really crappy apps to do those things if it bogs down any cpu from the last 4 or so years.

Once you add the 3D apps and graphic programs or games thats different. Those things actually use alot of cpu power will the rest of that stuff wouldnt even faze a old single core athlon or pent4.


Ok, thats all nice and fine. You don't need that much CPU horsepower today to do normal multitasking activities.

But regardless. How well does Vista and XP handle 4 simultaneous CPU intensive single threaded applications? Do they distribute them nicely to one core each? Is there a big difference between XP and Vista (and dual-core vs. quad-core)?
Does anyone know this/can point to any benchmarks?
February 20, 2008 11:40:27 AM



Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL
February 20, 2008 12:37:35 PM

Craxbax said:
Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL


I never mentioned overclocking, all the benches I linked to shows the E8400 beating the Q6600 at STOCK SPEEDS. I made that point clearly in my post. Just because there are overclocked results also, it doesn't invalidate the stock E8400 results. Perhaps that is beyond your comprehension? If so, there is no helping you, and this conversation is over.
February 20, 2008 1:28:18 PM

I think he just looked over it to quickly. As a third party individual with no favoritism, I can clearly see, in review of the charts, that the STOCK E8400 is beating the STOCK Q6600.
February 20, 2008 1:38:50 PM

epsilon84 said:
Perhaps that is beyond your comprehension? If so, there is no helping you, and this conversation is over.


Getting a little flustered are we? LOL

Rally, I was aware of the stock vs. stock but he was interjecting another strawman argument to knock down. Nobody said higher mhz doesn't help in apps not coded for multiple cores but beyond 3.2 or so in games it is irrelevant and both the quad and dual cores at max OC'd are minimal at best in most everything else. The E8000s are not a 'better' choice just a different one yet the future is brighter for the quad, including the Q6600, without any real practical loss to the E8000s. Nobody, has shown any evidence to dispute that position. They just keep introducing 'the hype' as new arguments that they can defeat to 'prove' the E8000s are better.

So to Epsilon84 I say: 1.) It is you that doesn't get it! and 2.) Intelligent people can disagree!
Odds are you and anyone else that wants to get the best performance for all around computer usage will be on 4 or more cores within 15 months if you can afford it or haven't spent your budget on a dual core. LOL

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supp...

Best to ya mate!
February 20, 2008 4:37:59 PM

Craxbax said:
Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL

Dude... slow down and take a closer look at the charts
Craxbax said:
Getting a little flustered are we? LOL

Rally, I was aware of the stock vs. stock but he was interjecting another strawman argument to knock down. Nobody said higher mhz doesn't help in apps not coded for multiple cores but beyond 3.2 or so in games it is irrelevant and both the quad and dual cores at max OC'd are minimal at best in most everything else. The E8000s are not a 'better' choice just a different one yet the future is brighter for the quad, including the Q6600, without any real practical loss to the E8000s. Nobody, has shown any evidence to dispute that position. They just keep introducing 'the hype' as new arguments that they can defeat to 'prove' the E8000s are better.

So to Epsilon84 I say: 1.) It is you that doesn't get it! and 2.) Intelligent people can disagree!
Odds are you and anyone else that wants to get the best performance for all around computer usage will be on 4 or more cores within 15 months if you can afford it or haven't spent your budget on a dual core. LOL

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supp...

Best to ya mate!


This is unbelievable... he showed you pure proof than in "some" apps (more often than not) the E8000 series is better than a Q6600! Are you really that ignorant. You are making his blood boil because you for 1. probably dont even own an E8000 series model or a Quad (this is like dogging the president when you didnt vote) 2. Are completely ignorant to pure evidence that it's BETTER!

Maybe you should stick with subjects less complex in nature and well just stay out of discussions that deal with things that you obviously know very little about first hand!

February 20, 2008 4:57:01 PM

Craxbax said:
Getting a little flustered are we? LOL


Yes, I can't stand people who takes the argument out of context, and has attention spans so short they can't decipher that those pretty bars in red may not necessarily be the crux of the debate. I clearly posted links to stock vs stock performance, in a reply to elbert about an E8400 needing overclocking to beat a Q6600 (not true) and what do you do?

Quote:
realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads.


WTF?!

I mean cmon, surely you can see that is not the case, if you actually bothered to read the charts and see the STOCK E8400 beating a STOCK Q6600. Again, try not to focus on those pretty red bars, I know they are distracting, but here's a handy little hint - look a little lower down... oh looky, stock E8400 results! And it beats a stock Q6600! See, that wasn't so hard, was it... all you need is a little chart reading guidance! :whistle: 

February 20, 2008 5:42:32 PM

:non: 

" The move to thread-optimized software represents a major shift in the industry, and puts new pressure on software vendors to play a role in delivering performance improvements for systems based on multi-core processors."

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supp...

"The era of frequency ramping has ended and the era of multi-core processors has begun. Intel is investing heavily in software optimization, in addition to hardware development. "
from Performance Scaling in the Multi-Core Era
R. Shiveley

I have not said that higher mhz doesn't show benefit in non-optimized apps...stock or OC'd. I have simply pointed out that the gains from this are largely unrealized in real world usage especially when both cpus are OC'd above 3.2ghz (including gaming which seems to be the biggest touted reason to choose an e8400 over a quad) but there is a big difference in multithreaded apps (as well as multitasking that requires cpu resources) and they will continue to increase thus making the quad a "better" choice even now. I'll stand by what I said and we can revisit it later when you both go quad (see the above quote and link). Like I said you miss the point or maybe you don't want to see it. But your replies are humorus none-the-less.
February 20, 2008 6:48:59 PM

Alright... you have a point that is well made.

You have to realize though that the majority of computer users (like I said I work for the largest employer in the world... no... not Wal-Mart... the US Gov) still are only using single cores. That in and of itself will be the determining factor when software developers develop software. The majority of consumers will not upgrade computer hardware for at least 2-4 years.

My point is... you can still play games that come out right now on hardware that is a few years old at max settings (with the exception of a few like Crysis)... you should know having still a two year old proc (FX-60 it that thing is still up to date).

You have to realize that the majority of people that buy a PC now are going to opt for a dual core... not a quad and thus software developers will have no choice but to create software optimized for duals and not quads if they want to keep their customers.
February 20, 2008 7:59:51 PM

Yes, the FX60 is more than adequate for gaming and most apps at present but the jump to a C2Q was very noticable as I'm sure to a C2D would have been. Since I do OC, I was very impressed with the OCing abilities of the Intel cpus over the AMD also.

As to most PC buyers going for duals...well, online polls are showing the opposite. Most brick and mortar retailers are selling quads now here in FL and I suspect elsewhere. Since multithread optimized apps will still run great on duals... they will still code for it at an increasing rate. They will just run better on more cores.

Intel and AMD are planning on 8-16 cores and although businesses may be the first beneficaries, it will come for all users in the not to distant future simply because upping the frequency and increasing cache is yield diminishing returns as the article I referred to pointed out. Also upping the bar is a way to more profits and like any business Intel and AMD want more profits.

We really have beat this thing to death. I like the Wolfies but they represent the end of an era in both concept and architecture despite their impressive advances. They are great overclockers and I appreciate them for that. I just don't share the enthusiasm for them over the quads despite the hype out to sell them.

Let's not start on the US government! LOL We will be all over the board on that subject but suffice to say...everyone is better off with an inefficient government! ;) 
February 20, 2008 8:04:38 PM

Craxbax said:
I like the Wolfies but they represent the end of an era in both concept and architecture despite their impressive advances.


Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.
February 20, 2008 8:11:40 PM

ritesh_laud said:
Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.


Agreed in part. C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies. So there really is no savings unless you stay with a Conroe.
February 20, 2008 8:49:01 PM

ritesh_laud said:
Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.

Educate me... what is this about ditching FSB? That is above me... I guess I better do some research.
Craxbax said:
Agreed in part. C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies. So there really is no savings unless you stay with a Conroe.

I would have bought a Kentsfield if they were going to be available sooner. I had to make a switch as I was stuck with a very buggy un-upgradable 939 socket motherboard. I didnt want a Q6600 only due to the fact that it had been out for so long (I was soo attracted to the 45nm die shrink) and wasnt going to touch anything AMD quad (although their X2 products are still fair... just too power hungry... I like to save energy ;) 


February 20, 2008 8:59:58 PM

Craxbax said:
C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies.


Eh? The Q1 tray price for the Wolfies ranges from $163 to $266. Whereas from the same link the C2Q currently ranges from $266 to $530 and even after the price cuts on April 20 will only drop to starting from $224. So the Wolfdale is much cheaper than C2Q. The only problem currently is that the E8400 is in short supply and the prices are artifically inflated, but that will sort itself out over the next few weeks.
February 20, 2008 10:04:57 PM

The Q6400 is available this week for $189. It is a B3 stepping so probably maxes out at 3.2 on air but nobody I know has tried it out.
http://www.stalliontek.com/product_p/cpc4d-q6400.htm

I paid $259 for OEM Q6600 in Dec and I have seen people reporting them e-tailed in the lower $200s. Whether that was accurate...I have no idea. The current premium on the 8400 brings the difference to less than $20...I would say that it is roughly the same! $10 a peice for 2 additional cores is a no brainer considering how fast these and powerful these chips really are.
February 20, 2008 10:11:46 PM

Craxbax said:
The Q6400 is available this week for $189. It is a B3 stepping so probably maxes out at 3.2 on air but nobody I know has tried it out.


Interestingly, the Q6400 isn't even listed on Intel's C2Q product sheet. If that is indeed a new quad from Intel to be available en masse, then it's certainly a steal and will put immense pressure on AMD's Phenom.
February 20, 2008 10:38:24 PM

guys, try playing a ps2 emulator with a quad core at 3.2 ghz. then try it with a wolfdale at 4 ghz. makes a hugeee difference in fps.
February 20, 2008 10:41:03 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if they're just rebranded old B3 Q6600s and Xeons.
!