Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 availability

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 29, 2008 4:22:57 PM

Does anybody know when the back-log of e8400 Wolfdales will clear? Seems some are around at the $250 range (much too high) - and many are back-ordered at "normal" prices (since around the 1st of Feb). Has anybody talked to any retailers about a new supply? Any rumors? Last I heard was the end of the month or early March.

More about : e8400 availability

February 29, 2008 4:41:40 PM

I'm beginning to believe that this is a Paper Launch! Thanks for the tiger direct link, but 1. I hate TD, and 2. they are in FL (where I live) so I pay taxes - and that's the purpose of the internet ... to avoid taxes at all costs ... :D 

Edit: I've got one on B/O with Buy.com for $210 - but have heard nothing for almost a month.
Related resources
February 29, 2008 4:49:01 PM

I would lean towards a paper launch too. The 45nm supply is too low. While some people do have them (and some idiots returned them), most people that want one do not have one.
February 29, 2008 4:50:39 PM

Maybeeeeeee... The EU seized all of em... :oops: . o O (Oh, nm)
February 29, 2008 4:56:23 PM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

on the grounds of unfair competition?
February 29, 2008 5:07:50 PM

I found them in stock at Fry's in Sacramento, Ca (I believe they had 5 or 6 on 2/28/2008). I'm told that the Roseville store is expecting a shipment of 50 around 3/10/2008. I just bought one today hehheheheheheheh.


SSSShhhh' dont tell my wife hehheheheeheheh.
February 29, 2008 5:18:53 PM

I think they also have stock at Fry's in San Jose, CA. However, Fry's usually have the tendency to not update on their product. So even if they're out of stock, they won't take the sticker down.
February 29, 2008 5:48:25 PM

Over at NCIX the admins are saying that Intel told them they wouldn't see sizeable shipments until "April-ish" and that in the mean time they're getting very small numbers of units in randomly that bascially go right to the backorders O_o

What I've recommended to some people so far is to get a cheapo ($80)E2160 and OC it to get their systems running in the mean time, otherwise wait it out or grab a Q6600. With the E2160 you could eBay it or keep it for a spare or donate it to a friend/family member I guess.

/shrug gotta love paper launches :) 
February 29, 2008 5:57:08 PM

I bet you guys didnt know that eta stands for estimated time of arrival and that more dogs are eaten a year than chickens.....
February 29, 2008 6:30:56 PM

I have an E8400.
Runs very cool. I don't even have a fan on my 120eX heatsink. Even when I OC to 3.6Ghz/450MHzx8@1.25v.
And at $207.00+shipping, I think I got a good deal. I'll take that kind of paper launch anytime.
February 29, 2008 6:35:26 PM

Well considering the fact that Intel currently only has two fabs @ 45nm in production, and one of them is D1D, an experimental fab. So technically speaking, there's only one fab producing 45nm CPUs (Xeons, C2D) for the entire world. I wouldn't be surprised if the supply is dangerously low.

Then again, I wonder why Intel decided to go ahead with the launch rather than delaying it. They've been executing very good ever since C2D's debut. Unless of course the management did not anticipate the overwhelming demand for 45nm C2Ds, and/or the validation of additional 2 45nm fabs fell behind schedule.
February 29, 2008 7:00:10 PM

If you have a C2D that can OC to 3-3.2ghz then wait or get a Q6600. There are a lot of reports surfacing that E8400 ( and all 45mm chips including the quads) are failing at high >.1.4v and/or high FSBs after a few weeks so the 65mm quads are looking like a better choice for now... even over the new quads if you consider cost.
February 29, 2008 7:12:23 PM

I would imagine 1.4V Vcore for Penryn is like 1.6V for Conroe... since stock vcore for E8400 is like....1.15v.

February 29, 2008 7:21:15 PM

Craxbax said:
If you have a C2D that can OC to 3-3.2ghz then wait or get a Q6600. There are a lot of reports surfacing that E8400 ( and all 45mm chips including the quads) are failing at high >.1.4v and/or high FSBs after a few weeks so the 65mm quads are looking like a better choice for now... even over the new quads if you consider cost.



Choooo Chooo! It seems the misinformation train has arrived. Someone is using "alot of reports" as a source to back-up statements.


You say they are failing at > 1.4v "and/or high fsb". The only reason you need 1.4v on the E8400 is to go 4.0ghz+. It is not Intel's (nor would it be AMD's) job to make sure your chip can overclock over 33% or higher. I would bet the farm on the fact that if anyone is failing at >1.4v after a few weeks, they probably deserve it. They are probably using the box HSF, and/or have no idea how to read temps.

As far as "high FSB", what does that mean? Is 400 high? (3.6) Is 450 high? (4.0)
February 29, 2008 7:28:24 PM

Look...investigate it for yourself!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2762...

I think the big selling point for the e8400 is the fact that it can be OC'd to 4ghz+. If it is going to burn out at that then there isn't much advantage in getting it over a e6750 or other C2D. And makes the 65mm quad an even better choice!
February 29, 2008 8:05:47 PM

Craxbax said:
Look...investigate it for yourself!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2762...

I think the big selling point for the e8400 is the fact that it can be OC'd to 4ghz+. If it is going to burn out at that then there isn't much advantage in getting it over a e6750 or other C2D. And makes the 65mm quad an even better choice!



A big selling point by who? Intel? I have yet to see an ad from Intel that says "Buy our E8400, they all can do 4.0ghz+ on air!". Your statement is hilarious.

There is a small % of people who think that getting to 3.8ghz stable isnt good enough. For me, it is perfect. However, 4.0ghz+ is easilly attainable if you know what you are doing, but my guess is most of the newbie OCers dont. And, once again, it is YOUR RISK when you volt the Wolfdales 1.4+, and has nothing to do with the chip maker.

No advantage over an E6750? You need to do some more reading.


Edit: Here is the "proof" from that link you posted

"Most deaths occurred from running above 1.5v and/or benching at ?1.6+, and one died from running fsb 600 for 6 hours 1.4v max."

600FSB? 1.5v+? And you wonder why chips fail? LOL.
February 29, 2008 8:18:46 PM

Craxbax said:
Look...investigate it for yourself!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2762...

I think the big selling point for the e8400 is the fact that it can be OC'd to 4ghz+. If it is going to burn out at that then there isn't much advantage in getting it over a e6750 or other C2D. And makes the 65mm quad an even better choice!


No. Overclockability was never ever part of the selling point of the CPU. Those belong to the Extreme Editions: QX9650, QX9770, X6800.... E8400 is just like E6850, with a locked multiplier. E8400 has its own selling points against E6750: faster, cooler, at relatively the same price.

The only reason YOU and other Joe Blows thinks its a selling point is because 3rd party review sites took them to 4.0Ghz, as well as fanboy hypes. Intel never endorsed overclocking except on their Extreme Editions, and they do not have the responsibility if you fried your CPU.

Heck Q6600 can be taken to 4.0Ghz. Was this ever the selling point?
February 29, 2008 8:21:47 PM

ocguy31 said:

Edit: Here is the "proof" from that link you posted

"Most deaths occurred from running above 1.5v and/or benching at ?1.6+, and one died from running fsb 600 for 6 hours 1.4v max."

600FSB? 1.5v+? And you wonder why chips fail? LOL.


Sometimes I really wonder why people just take issues at face value. "OMG 4.0Ghz!! I gotta get one OMFGBBQ".

There are a lot more aspects to overclocking then just the result.
February 29, 2008 9:19:37 PM

No? All the e8400 fanboys and half of the THG posters of late spout that the 4ghz + is the reason to get the chip. I certainly don't share that opinion. Apparently you don't either! I was simply pointing out that all the frenzy maybe a bit overdone. Not all e8400s are getting to 4ghz at less than 1.4v. It is not a must have chip!

It is nice but not worth the current premium. The new chip is faster and cooler clock for clock but no reason to to dump a 3.7 or 3.8ghz capable e6750 to spend $250-$300 to get it. Certainly not for the relatively little more performance that is mostly noticable only in benchmarking.
February 29, 2008 9:32:33 PM

Craxbax said:
No? All the e8400 fanboys and half of the THG posters of late spout that the 4ghz + is the reason to get the chip. I certainly don't share that opinion. Apparently you don't either! I was simply pointing out that all the frenzy maybe a bit overdone. Not all e8400s are getting to 4ghz at less than 1.4v. It is not a must have chip!

It is nice but not worth the current premium. The new chip is faster and cooler clock for clock but no reason to to dump a 3.7 or 3.8ghz capable e6750 to spend $250-$300 to get it. Certainly not for the relatively little more performance that is mostly noticable only in benchmarking.


:lol:  :lol: 

E8400 has its own selling point other than overclockability than E6750. AFAIK, E6750 is a waste. It has a multiplier lower than E6600, thus having lower overclocking potential than it, and its predecessor, E6700. Its for those who can't overclock, or who does not have good overclock knowledge, or just want to run everything at stock.

The inherit danger of overclocking an E6750 to 3.8Ghz will be similar to overclocking E8400 to 4.0Ghz, if not greater. E6750 needs at least 475Mhz FSB to achieve 3.8Ghz, while E8400 only needs 450Mhz FSB. Also, the premium of E8400 is not implemented by Intel, but by retailers due to their limited supplies and overwhelming demand.

Also, it looks like you do not take a good look at the link you posted earlier. It just says CPUs running at 1.4+V will likely be fried. However, that poster only needed 1.39V to reach 4.2ghz. I know others who achieved 4.0Ghz below 1.4V. Again, 4.0Ghz was not promised to achieve on E8400. You may get a chip that's 5.0Ghz capable, or get a chip that hardly goes over 3.6Ghz.
February 29, 2008 10:57:02 PM

:cry:  So what is your point? What you seem to miss is the 45mm chips are apparently a lot less tolerant of over voltage than the 65mm. There wasn't a big failure rate of these chips although a lot peeps are pushing them hard. You are basically agreeing with me about the limitations of the e8400.
February 29, 2008 11:13:20 PM

Craxbax said:
:cry:  So what is your point? What you seem to miss is the 45mm chips are apparently a lot less tolerant of over voltage than the 65mm. There wasn't a big failure rate of these chips although a lot peeps are pushing them hard. You are basically agreeing with me about the limitations of the e8400.



At this point im thinking you are just baiting or trying to be funny......


Right, they are so limited that you can get over 33% oc no problem on air. Going beyond that, you take risks if you dont know what you are doing. WORST CHIP EVER!
February 29, 2008 11:19:37 PM

My point is, E8400 is a lot superior than E6750 in every single way: power consumption, performance, heat dissipation, and overclocking headroom.

A lot less tolerant? Show me an E6850 that's 4.0Ghz capable, on air cooler. I can guarantee you, unless that chip is golden, E6850 craps out at 3.6Ghz top. As I said earlier, since 45nm Wolfdales's stock Vcore is around 1.15V, therefore putting 1.4V in to the processor is like putting 1.5V~1.6V in the processor. How long do you think an E6750 would last under 1.5V?

I'm only agree that E8400's overclockability is not warranted from the purchase of the CPU. Yes, they have their limitations, but their limitation is far above Conroe's limitation.
February 29, 2008 11:50:36 PM

Sheesh people are getting antsy.

Im buying the E8400 when it becomes available because it is currently the best value on the market for my gaming needs. And I plan to OC the thing a bit because im an enthusiast, and thats just what I do.

The big difference is that if I fry my chip, I know that I have no one but myself to blame.
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2008 12:11:41 AM

Don't forget just how many people are posting about the temperature sensor issue either.

Just look how many posts there are now?

If this wasn't an issue ... people wouldn't be telling us eh?

So there now seems to be three issues with the 8XXX series CPU's:

Low MBBTF
Lower Vcc tolerance
Temp issue

I wish THG would do an article across a range of mobos and see whether it is or isn't ....

I suspect Intel has probably told them not too.

If its good for the goose (AMD's Phenom) then it is good for the gander (Intel's Wolfdale).

I just find it sickening that the fanbois can play down this issue and hype up the Phenom one.

Don't forget this either ... AMD was up front and provided a patch for the Phenom.

Intel stuck it's head in the sand.

Project this thinking and attitude to the customer base to the day Intel finally does have a monopoly .... looks even bleaker for the customer ... doesn't it??

With their FSB hitting the ceiling for the noise threshold this also means it is going to be much harder for enthusiasts to OC ... which is obviously in Intel's best interest.

While AMD flops around wallowing in incompetence.

I feel like the prophet of doom.
March 1, 2008 1:25:03 AM

In real world performance ..ie. the kind you will actually notice...the e8400 is a waste if you are upgrading from a Conroe that will do over 3.2 in gaming or 3.6 in most everything else. You would be better off with a quad. If you are upgrading from a s939 or P4 then go for the e8400 if you want to be limited to a dual core otherwise grab a quad. The gamer does not gain a thing in the practical sense. The 65mm chips are tolerant of higher voltage...that is a given, They are temp limited. The wolfie and yorkies are voltage and FSB limited but until software and GPUs catch up MHZ are a mute point. Unfortuntely, the future is geared toward multithreading not mhz. Cry all you want but dual core will be second fiddle to dare I say...even Phenoms... soon enuff. Go ahead and pay a premium for a wolfie if you wish...I would grab a x3210 or Q6600 or wait Yorkie (even with the voltage and FSB limits) over a Wolfie.
March 1, 2008 3:54:17 AM

:sleep: 
Reynod said:
Don't forget just how many people are posting about the temperature sensor issue either.

Just look how many posts there are now?

If this wasn't an issue ... people wouldn't be telling us eh?

So there now seems to be three issues with the 8XXX series CPU's:

Low MBBTF
Lower Vcc tolerance
Temp issue

I wish THG would do an article across a range of mobos and see whether it is or isn't ....

I suspect Intel has probably told them not too.

If its good for the goose (AMD's Phenom) then it is good for the gander (Intel's Wolfdale).

I just find it sickening that the fanbois can play down this issue and hype up the Phenom one.

Don't forget this either ... AMD was up front and provided a patch for the Phenom.

Intel stuck it's head in the sand.

Project this thinking and attitude to the customer base to the day Intel finally does have a monopoly .... looks even bleaker for the customer ... doesn't it??

With their FSB hitting the ceiling for the noise threshold this also means it is going to be much harder for enthusiasts to OC ... which is obviously in Intel's best interest.

While AMD flops around wallowing in incompetence.

I feel like the prophet of doom.





Speaking of fanboi...... :sleep: 
March 1, 2008 4:11:48 AM

Reynod said:

So there now seems to be three issues with the 8XXX series CPU's:

Low MBBTF
Lower Vcc tolerance
Temp issue


Lower Vcc tolerance in reference to what? 65nm Vcore? How about let's see if Phenom can run at 90nm Opteron voltage, or better yet, 130nm Barton. Your inability at understanding common knowledge is astounding.




I feel like the prophet of doom. said:


I feel like the prophet of doom.


No. You're just a, to put it mildly, a mindless fanboy, that even Baron seems more intelligent. :lol:  :lol: 
March 1, 2008 4:28:07 AM

Craxbax said:
In real world performance ..ie. the kind you will actually notice...the e8400 is a waste if you are upgrading from a Conroe that will do over 3.2 in gaming or 3.6 in most everything else. You would be better off with a quad. If you are upgrading from a s939 or P4 then go for the e8400 if you want to be limited to a dual core otherwise grab a quad. The gamer does not gain a thing in the practical sense.


Doesn't gain a thing? How about faster loading time? How about more frame rates?

Quote:
The 65mm chips are tolerant of higher voltage...that is a given, They are temp limited.

Its a given? How about a solid proof?

Quote:
The wolfie and yorkies are voltage and FSB limited but until software and GPUs catch up MHZ are a mute point. Unfortuntely, the future is geared toward multithreading not mhz. Cry all you want but dual core will be second fiddle to dare I say...even Phenoms... soon enuff. Go ahead and pay a premium for a wolfie if you wish...I would grab a x3210 or Q6600 or wait Yorkie (even with the voltage and FSB limits) over a Wolfie.


Now we're arguing about Wolfdale vs. Yorkfield? What about your original argument, that E8400 is not a recommended buy over E6750? I guess you have to retract that stance, because a person with an IQ over 60 would recognize the inherited benefit of E8400 over E6750.

I'll give you FSB limitation, but definitely not voltage. How many 65nm dual cores do 4.0Ghz on air? I'll say that E8400 is more FSB constrained than voltage constrained. Let's wait for E8600's overclocking result. Having a higher multiplier would definitely reduce required voltage.

As a gamer, and an enthusiast, I would definitely recommend E8400 to gamers who don't plan on overclocking. Having a quad core almost means nothing in gaming. With 600Mhz difference, and about 60USD cheaper, E8400 would eat Q6600 alive in most of the games.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

Sure, the future is multi-core. However it would take at least several years before the softwares become fully multi-threaded. The most popular games at the moment do not benefit much from quad cores; Crysis is only dual core optimized; COD4 do not see substantial gain from having a quad core. By the time most games are multi-threaded, it would time to upgrade computer again.
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2008 4:37:36 AM

Deleted
March 1, 2008 4:54:10 AM

Deleted

lolz... the fanboy who calls other fanboys...

I don't understand how my comments link to my lifestyle, but no, I do not live at home. My home is several thousand miles away. I also received an internship offer from ASUS.

I thought you already quited this place, after your 491st post? Oh wait, I guess you have to come back and show off your intelligence, which is.... to be honest, nothing to be proud of. Please, do us a favor, go to AMDzone, go to [H]ardForum, Xtremesystem, or go to Sharikou's site. Maybe they can cater to your "needs" better than THGF does.

Oh and btw, its "prolific", not "prolithic". You might want to go back and check in the dictionary again.
March 1, 2008 4:54:43 AM

yomamafor1 said:
As a gamer, and an enthusiast, I would definitely recommend E8400 to gamers who don't plan on overclocking. Having a quad core almost means nothing in gaming. With 600Mhz difference, and about 60USD cheaper, E8400 would eat Q6600 alive in most of the games.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

Sure, the future is multi-core. However it would take at least several years before the softwares become fully multi-threaded. The most popular games at the moment do not benefit much from quad cores; Crysis is only dual core optimized; COD4 do not see substantial gain from having a quad core. By the time most games are multi-threaded, it would time to upgrade computer again.


Well in my point of view, the Q6600 still stands a chance when just pushing it to 3ghz on stock voltages on todays games (Q6600 can go higher but I'd kind worry more on thermal temps). Sure you can push the E8400, allot further, but still at 3.8-4ghz, is it really going to improve the game feel, or is it going to be about the same? And even if they improve the dual core to be more utilized, you don't have any cores to help with background services, in that point of view.

To me even the cost is about better on the Quad, when you look at the cost per core. Even right now, the OEM is $245+5shipping=$250/4=$62.50 per core vs $239/2=$119.50 per core. (NewEgg Prices) I paid 125 bucks for my E4400, and per core is the same, $62.50.

But either way, right now you couldn't go wrong with either choice (assuming the person knows what he/she is doing), except getting an E8400 now is.. um.. hard to find. :whistle: 

Edit:

Bah.. forgot to include this link that has a review on OC the Q6600, but they push it to 3.3ghz=

Overclocking Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6600
March 1, 2008 4:59:50 AM

What I'm trying to point out here is that, without overclocking, E8400 is a clear buy over Q6600 in terms of gaming. 600mhz is really hard to make up just by two extra cores. As a result, for Joe Blows who wants to have a fast rig without the hassle of overclocking, E8400 is pretty much the clear choice.

Of course, overclocking Q6600 is not hard, if at all. However, not everyone has the background for it, or fully understands the inherit danger of it.
March 1, 2008 5:02:18 AM

600mhz? Your talking about a 2.4ghz stock vs a 3ghz stock.

Edit:

Unless your talking the 45nm quad. :oops: 
March 1, 2008 5:04:44 AM

I'm talking about Q6600 vs. E8400. 600Mhz difference in clock is kind of hard to make up in games.

Btw, for those who claims E8400 cannot reach 4.0Ghz at 24x7, this is a screenshot from Coolaler.



1.28V for 4.0Ghz.
March 1, 2008 5:17:49 AM

I'm with yomama on this, in terms of gaming, an E8400 is a lot faster than a Q6600. Sure you can overclock the Q6600 to 3.6GHz or whatever, but I'm not a fan of 150W+ CPUs, personally. The E8400 represents an ideal balance between efficiency and power.

Seriosuly, by the time games can actually take advantage of quads (besides Sup Com and FSX of course) we won't be discussing Core 2 dual vs quads, but rather Nehalem quads vs octos. ;)  ;) 
March 1, 2008 6:14:27 AM

So there's a 600mhz difference at the same clock? Could I see a link?

It's very hard to find comparable benches to really see that, because all the reviews that I looked at have different test platforms, mainly using different video cards, so that really makes it hard to see what is going on.

I was looking at tom's chart, vs another chart, but hard to say what video card their using, for example, the prey:

Tom's 1280x1024 Stock 3ghz:
E8400 3ghz - 125 or 124.9 fps

Source: - Tweak Town
Tweak Town 1280x1024 OC 3ghz:
Q6600 3ghz - 132 or 131.8

3dmark 06 1280x1024 (I'm not really into 3dmark, but running out of comparisons bewteen the 2):
Toms:
E8400 - 10804 (stock)
E8400 - 16092 (4ghz - yo's screen cap of Coolaler)

Tweak Town:
Q6600 - 13387 (3ghz)
Q6600 - 16004 (3.8ghz - really pushing it :ouch:  1.6v)

Now the thing is.. from Tweak Town, they are using 2 HD2900XT. So my point is, its very hard to see the difference when the setups are not the same. Not to mentions the charts on Tom's, I'm kinda strugglin to understand what hardware they are using.

So far my conclusion is, its very hard to see the clock for clock at the same speed for comparison. :cry: 
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2008 6:21:45 AM

suck it up yomama ... i posted in haste.

If spelling and grammar are the best that you can do then you'd better pack up your cut lunch and yogurt and go home.

intern ... lol ...

I am still unconvinced that an E series CPU would be a more future proof buy than even a lower end Q ...

Unless your on a budget.

And you can get one ...

They are probably all being recalled.
March 1, 2008 8:06:22 AM

Grimmy said:
So there's a 600mhz difference at the same clock? Could I see a link?

(Condensed to save room)

So far my conclusion is, its very hard to see the clock for clock at the same speed for comparison. :cry: 


So what exactly is it you're after? Clock for clock comparisons between Kentsfield and Wolfdale? That's pretty easy, just compare a QX6850 to an E8400, both are clocked at 3GHz/1333FSB.

Although it must be said that in these sort of comparisons 'clock for clock' is only for purely academic reasons, since E8400s will generally overclock to 4GHz or more, whereas Q6600s tend to max out around 3.6GHz. A 'fair' comparison would be either stock vs stock, or max OC vs max OC.

Xbitlabs covers such a scenario - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

There is an E8500 instead of E8400, but they are close enough to get the picture anyway. Stock vs stock, or OC vs OC, the E8500 is faster in most games. 3DMark scores are off course higher on the quad, but 3DMark in no way represents 'real world' gaming anyway, its a purely synthetic benchmark.
March 1, 2008 9:22:36 AM

What I was after, is clock performance, the Q6600 at the E8400 stock speed for comparison, so I'm trying to see the 600mhz differnce that yomama <(felt funny when typing that) was saying. (not saying your mama, but yomam... oh nm :oops: )

For me, I don't find upgrading from an E4400 to E8400 to be much of a difference, not even power wise since I use a 8800GTS 320 that just ruins any power efficiency at idle. (example, my dad's E4300/7300GT uses around 109W idle & mine E4400/8800GTS idles at 160w). OC'ing to 4ghz is impressive and insane at the same time to me. Although OC to the max isn't my objective. I'd rather try to keep the stock voltage, which is doable for either chip, and I rather have 2 more cores then more speed.

And looking at the Cyrsis (one game I do have) bench, 4.77 FPS difference isn't much when you compare the OC speed (3.6ghz / 4.3ghz)

I'm not so sure about the upgrade to the yorkies on the other hand. MSI keeps changing the support on those(i650 chipset), and I already came to the conclusion that I can run a yorkie below 3ghz, so OC'ing them will be out of the question for me, and why I'm so set on the Q6600.
March 1, 2008 9:31:52 AM

Jake_Barnes said:
Does anybody know when the back-log of e8400 Wolfdales will clear? Seems some are around at the $250 range (much too high) - and many are back-ordered at "normal" prices (since around the 1st of Feb). Has anybody talked to any retailers about a new supply? Any rumors? Last I heard was the end of the month or early March.

Most likely, Intel wants to clear some of thier older stock before bringing out much of the new stock. I wouldn't expect supply to be strong for a while.
March 1, 2008 9:37:08 AM

Ya.. that thought has occurred in my mind as well. Would make sense to get as much as the old stuff out as much as possible.
March 1, 2008 11:22:17 AM

Grimmy said:
What I was after, is clock performance, the Q6600 at the E8400 stock speed for comparison, so I'm trying to see the 600mhz differnce that yomama <(felt funny when typing that) was saying. (not saying your mama, but yomam... oh nm :oops: )


I think you misunderstood yomama. There is a 600MHz difference in stock speed between the Q6600 and E8400 (2.4GHz vs 3.0GHz), that was his point. That is a 600MHz difference, along with whatever IPC improvements are in the Penryn core (which amount to 5 - 6% overall) which is hard to make up with extra cores on the Q6600 since most games aren't optimised for quads at this point, with the exceptions of Supereme Commander and FSX.

Quote:

For me, I don't find upgrading from an E4400 to E8400 to be much of a difference, not even power wise since I use a 8800GTS 320 that just ruins any power efficiency at idle. (example, my dad's E4300/7300GT uses around 109W idle & mine E4400/8800GTS idles at 160w). OC'ing to 4ghz is impressive and insane at the same time to me. Although OC to the max isn't my objective. I'd rather try to keep the stock voltage, which is doable for either chip, and I rather have 2 more cores then more speed.


Yeah, I'm a bit like you myself, I'm more about relatively high performance whilst maintaining power efficiency. I also run an E4400 / 8800GTS 320. I don't game as much as I used to nowadays, I use my PC more for movies and 'other stuff' :D , so I actually undervolt my E4400 to 1.1V in BIOS (lowest setting) for 24/7 use. It is still stable at 2.5GHz even at such a low voltage. I also underclock my 8800GTS 320 to 113MHz core / 134MHz memory in Rivatuner (you have to edit some setting to get such low clocks btw). I recall going over this before with you a while back, I'm sure you can cut the 8800GTS idle power a lot by effectively running it at 1/5 speed on the desktop instead of the stock 513MHz core / 792MHz memory which I'm sure chews power like crazy (something like 50W IIRC!). It idles around 10C lower when underclocked, I don't know how many watts it's saving but I'm sure it's quite substantial.

Quote:
And looking at the Cyrsis (one game I do have) bench, 4.77 FPS difference isn't much when you compare the OC speed (3.6ghz / 4.3ghz)


That would be due to GPU limitation I guess. Looking at the stock speed results, the spread is far larger.

Quote:

I'm not so sure about the upgrade to the yorkies on the other hand. MSI keeps changing the support on those(i650 chipset), and I already came to the conclusion that I can run a yorkie below 3ghz, so OC'ing them will be out of the question for me, and why I'm so set on the Q6600.


I thought the Asrock i650 board was the only one capable of running Yorkfield? From what I've seen 650i/680i can run Wolfdale fine but not Yorkfield. Is MSI also working on a BIOS with Yorkfield support? Kudos to them if they can pull it off.
March 1, 2008 11:29:10 AM

yomamafor1 said:
What I'm trying to point out here is that, without overclocking, E8400 is a clear buy over Q6600 in terms of gaming. 600mhz is really hard to make up just by two extra cores. As a result, for Joe Blows who wants to have a fast rig without the hassle of overclocking, E8400 is pretty much the clear choice.

Of course, overclocking Q6600 is not hard, if at all. However, not everyone has the background for it, or fully understands the inherit danger of it.


You are jumping all over the place! My OP was about the problem that e8400s are burning out when running at 1.4v or more and/or high >500 FSB that a lot of people are using to get 4ghz. If that bothers you then tough!

Most people are buying the e8400 to OC it to 4ghz or more. I never said the e8400 was a bad chip and some can do it on voltages that are well within spec. I only pointed out it has limitations like everything else that show it may not be the 'must have 'chip that warrants all the hysteria and premium prices it seems to be getting.

If you are not going to OC then fine but this is an enthusiast site and there are a lot of people that do. Adding that comment to your argument is silly and actually support my comment that there isn't any real world advantage over 65mm C2D/Q owners that do OC.

I don't care if you are getting indigestion over the fact that someone has said something unfavorable to your world view. Get over it. BTW, interns in business are usually cheap sources of labor for low skill tasks and based on your comments I highly doubt they are offering a position as advisor to the CEO...in other words...no one cares!

March 1, 2008 12:04:59 PM

epsilon84 said:
I think you misunderstood yomama. There is a 600MHz difference in stock speed between the Q6600 and E8400 (2.4GHz vs 3.0GHz), that was his point. That is a 600MHz difference, along with whatever IPC improvements are in the Penryn core (which amount to 5 - 6% overall) which is hard to make up with extra cores on the Q6600 since most games aren't optimised for quads at this point, with the exceptions of Supereme Commander and FSX.


Heh, you basically repeated what he said, in which I was trying to understand. How is that calculated? Is there a link that you could show me, so I can get a better understanding in the 600mhz difference?

epsilon84 said:
That would be due to GPU limitation I guess. Looking at the stock speed results, the spread is far larger.


It's kinda pointless for me to look at that comparison when I'm not going to run it at stock speed. If you reverse it, E8500 at 2.4ghz and the Q6600 at 3ghz then what would ya have? Heh.. thinking about it, I wonder what the TDP would be on an E8400 at 2.4 ghz.

epsilon84 said:
I thought the Asrock i650 board was the only one capable of running Yorkfield? From what I've seen 650i/680i can run Wolfdale fine but not Yorkfield. Is MSI also working on a BIOS with Yorkfield support? Kudos to them if they can pull it off.


Well.. heh, MSI has been changing the support on it quite abit. They passed a few yorkies, then it was NO, then went back into testing, which is quite irritating to see:

P6N SLI Platinum

I specifically remember the QX9650 passed, then went back to testing, then NO, and now... in testing. Even the Q9300 passed, now its back into testing. [:mousemonkey:6]

It was giving me the idea at first that the 45nm quads would work under 3ghz, and everything at or above 3ghz would not. So, I dunno. I'm still going for the Q6600, and see what happens later on with Nelahem and Bulldozer. I'm sure the Q6600 will keep me at bay for a long while.
March 1, 2008 12:21:58 PM

Grimmy said:
Heh, you basically repeated what he said, in which I was trying to understand. How is that calculated? Is there a link that you could show me, so I can get a better understanding in the 600mhz difference?


LOL your confusion is getting me confused also. What is so hard to understand? Stock E8400 runs at 3.0GHz, 600MHz faster than a stock Q6600 at 2.4GHz! 99% of games don't take advantage of quad cores, so 2x 3.0GHz cores are faster than 4x 2.4GHz cores. Simple. :hello: 

Quote:
It's kinda pointless for me to look at that comparison when I'm not going to run it at stock speed. If you reverse it, E8500 at 2.4ghz and the Q6600 at 3ghz then what would ya have? Heh.. thinking about it, I wonder what the TDP would be on an E8400 at 2.4 ghz.


Probably around 25W or so, an E8200 at 2.66GHz pulls 27W under full load. :sol: 

Quote:
Well.. heh, MSI has been changing the support on it quite abit. They passed a few yorkies, then it was NO, then went back into testing, which is quite irritating to see:

P6N SLI Platinum

I specifically remember the QX9650 passed, then went back to testing, then NO, and now... in testing. Even the Q9300 passed, now its back into testing. [:mousemonkey:6]


LOL FFS! Yes it works, no it doesn't, maybe it does, make up your friggin mind already!!! :whistle: 
March 1, 2008 12:41:20 PM

epsilon84 said:
LOL your confusion is getting me confused also. What is so hard to understand? Stock E8400 runs at 3.0GHz, 600MHz faster than a stock Q6600 at 2.4GHz! 99% of games don't take advantage of quad cores, so 2x 3.0GHz cores are faster than 4x 2.4GHz cores. Simple. :hello: 


:oops: . o O (Soooo... 3000mhz-24000mhz=600mhz)

:cry:  . o O (I guess nobody understands meeeee.....)

The confusion I was taking... was to run a Q6600 at 3000mhz or 3ghz, and being told an E8400 would still be 600mhz faster. That was my take on what yomama was saying to me, and how it confused me or him. :pt1cable: 

I think I'm just reading/typing too much at one/same time. [:tippy55]

edit:

yomamafor1 said:
What I'm trying to point out here is that, without overclocking, E8400 is a clear buy over Q6600 in terms of gaming. 600mhz is really hard to make up just by two extra cores. As a result, for Joe Blows who wants to have a fast rig without the hassle of overclocking, E8400 is pretty much the clear choice.

Of course, overclocking Q6600 is not hard, if at all. However, not everyone has the background for it, or fully understands the inherit danger of it.


:oops: . o O (dat's what I overlooked)

So I was thinking 8400 (3ghz) Q6600 (3ghz) and wonder why the 8400 was 600mhz faster (from my previous replay above his post)... I think I need an expresso, or just go to bed. Hmmm.
!