Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 in stock @ Newegg

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 11, 2008 7:45:26 PM

Thats a good price as well. About $250 here in the UK!
April 11, 2008 8:14:44 PM

since its limit 2 per customer, i wonder if that means they finally have enough.

going to have to pick one up.
Related resources
April 11, 2008 10:44:48 PM

$209 is not a good price. Q6600 already dropped to $200 at Microcenter. The dual core chip, even a good one, is supposed to be cheaper! :na: 
April 12, 2008 12:23:27 AM

The Q6600 isn't a true quad and it's running a fsb of 1066 with 4mb of l2 cashe vs the E8400 at 1333/6mb. Add on top of that the 3.0 to the 2.4 and i'd say the E8400 at 209 bucks is a steal.
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2008 12:55:44 AM

Im impressed. They still have it on stock @8:55 PM.
April 12, 2008 1:36:12 AM

Shadow703793 said:
Im impressed. They still have it on stock @8:55 PM.


9:36PM - Out of Stock .... pissed.
April 12, 2008 1:37:30 AM

Jake_Barnes said:
9:36PM - Out of Stock .... pissed.



Why is everyone jumping through hoops for that cpu? I don't get it. :p 
April 12, 2008 1:39:06 AM

dagger said:
Why is everyone jumping through hoops for that cpu? I don't get it. :p 


Some of us jump thru hoops ... that what we do ... :bounce: 
April 12, 2008 5:01:52 AM

dagger said:
Why is everyone jumping through hoops for that cpu? I don't get it. :p 


Good, more for the rest of us.
April 12, 2008 6:48:38 AM

Because it's the best overclocking processor at the moment for under $300. E8500 is tempting, but if it's possible to get the E8400 for $100 less = no brainer!

Q6600 can't clock. Q9450 is the next contender, but at $350 and lower clock speeds, it can't hang with the E8400. Unless you like making pron DVDs, a dual core is the way to go.

April 12, 2008 8:15:27 AM

Q6600 cant clock? You're kidding right? I have had mine to 4ghz, 3.7 stable.
April 12, 2008 8:17:35 AM

^^ Agreed I've seen tons of Q6600 running at 3.6ghz stable on air.
April 12, 2008 12:22:43 PM

Plus the quads performance scales better at higher clocks. Not that you would really see any difference, but I'd rather game on a 3.6GHz Q6600 than a 4.0GHz e8400. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

edit: But at $200 or less for a retail e8400, I would not hesitate to buy one for a gaming or testing/benchmarking rig
April 12, 2008 3:06:31 PM

pauldh said:
Plus the quads performance scales better at higher clocks. Not that you would really see any difference, but I'd rather game on a 3.6GHz Q6600 than a 4.0GHz e8400. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

edit: But at $200 or less for a retail e8400, I would not hesitate to buy one for a gaming or testing/benchmarking rig





Of course quads scales better at higher clocks. You're overclocking twice the cores! And I seriously considered e8400 against Q6600 back when I built my rig. It was a hard decision back then, and I almost went with the e8400 because it cost less for more short term performance. But now, at higher price for less futureproofing, it no longer makes sense. :sarcastic: 

And yeah, Q6600 oc quite well. I got 4ghz prime95 stable too, 70/70/68/68 stablized temp on air cooling. Tuned it back to 3.6 for day to day operations. Eventually I'll probably upgrade to Q9450 or higher though.
April 12, 2008 7:31:45 PM

Nice OC. When I bought the option was e6850 or Q6600 priced the same. No e8400. The choice was not hard although it became a e6750 vs Q6600 choice because of the savings. I'm Glad went with the quad.
April 12, 2008 7:59:47 PM

dagger said:
Why is everyone jumping through hoops for that cpu? I don't get it. :p 


The fact that you don't have one is why you don't know.
Try an easy 4300mhz and enough processor to drive quad gpus with only 2 cores....for 200 bucks.
That's why.

Did you have an alternative in mind?
April 12, 2008 8:15:13 PM

pauldh said:
Plus the quads performance scales better at higher clocks. Not that you would really see any difference, but I'd rather game on a 3.6GHz Q6600 than a 4.0GHz e8400. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

edit: But at $200 or less for a retail e8400, I would not hesitate to buy one for a gaming or testing/benchmarking rig


try 22k in 3dmark o6 with either a 3870x2 or a 9800gx2.
Because of the cache and die shrink, you can clock it much higher which massively increases the shader performance. Especially in a quadgpu setup like I have.

I have both the q6600 and the e8400. If you are benchmarking with both in 3dmark as an example, you have the ability with a dualcore and a good overclock to beat the q6600, unless of course it is capable of an o/c of around 4ghz. This is also because of the improved shader performance in the gpus that the much higher clock capability of the e-8400 provides. This is because you cannot really keep all 4 gpus as busy with a slower clock speed. This is a big part of the scaling issues with the 9800gx2 and the 3870x2 used in quad mode.

Of course the quad is going to score higher in the cpu tests, but what the e8400 can do is beat it with way higher video scores. I get over 12000 in the shader model 3/hdmi score alone. with the e8400 at only 4ghz!

CPU is a bottlneck at any speed you'd get on water or air though. The higher it is clocked, the busier it can keep the gpus and the higher your shader scores will be. Pretty neat.

truth be told, we are really at a point where we need more mhz in our processors be it a quad or a duo at least in 3dmark.

Just my opinion.


April 12, 2008 10:11:30 PM

That is a ton of money for 3dmarks. I hope you actually game too. :) 

We don't need more MHz for even hardcore gaming. We need stronger GPU's that can laugh at crysis at very high 19x12 with 2xaa/16xaf.

Although I have purchased each 3dmark version since 2001se, it's been a long time since I've really cared about the overall highest score. If there is any real world gaming difference at playable settings in a game, that's different. 4.3Ghz is freaking sweet with that e8400! How high does your Q6600 go?
April 13, 2008 12:07:47 AM

pauldh said:
That is a ton of money for 3dmarks. I hope you actually game too. :) 

We don't need more MHz for even hardcore gaming. We need stronger GPU's that can laugh at crysis at very high 19x12 with 2xaa/16xaf.

Although I have purchased each 3dmark version since 2001se, it's been a long time since I've really cared about the overall highest score. If there is any real world gaming difference at playable settings in a game, that's different. 4.3Ghz is freaking sweet with that e8400! How high does your Q6600 go?



I doubt any Q6600 can go to 4.3ghz stable. Well, it can, but only by teh 1337 people with money... and hardware to burn. :na: 
4ghz would be the limit for Q6600oc. Any higher is just not practical for day to day use.

I ended up choosing quad over dual because of what happened years back, when duals first came out. People argued against dual in favor of single cores, citing the exact same points they do now. Nowdays, early duals are still fast enough to be useful for gaming, while comparable single cores are completely worthless. Back then, single core cpus offered more short term performance, but you didn't need it at the time anyway. Later on, when you needed every bit of juice just to get by, dual optimized applications had became the norm and it wasn't enough. Realistically, being on the bleeding edge at the moment is not all that useful, but being able to stay in the front of mainstream for longer is very useful. :p 
April 13, 2008 11:19:15 AM

I've thought about that too Dagger... but a big difference is that OS's etc have been reasonably well optomized for dual cores for a long time. XP Pro was a dual CPU OS after all. Software was a lot more ready for dual by than than most is for quad now.

I still think the E8400 is a great buy. As 45nm quads (and especially Nehelem) comes out I will consider quads to be the new necessity, but I'd still go E8400 > E6600 without too much consideration.

/shrug

April 13, 2008 2:48:53 PM

bardia said:
I've thought about that too Dagger... but a big difference is that OS's etc have been reasonably well optomized for dual cores for a long time. XP Pro was a dual CPU OS after all. Software was a lot more ready for dual by than than most is for quad now.

I still think the E8400 is a great buy. As 45nm quads (and especially Nehelem) comes out I will consider quads to be the new necessity, but I'd still go E8400 > E6600 without too much consideration.

/shrug


I think you mean E8400 > Q6600 :) 

Anyway, since I already have an E6300, the only CPU upgrade I'm considering for this rig is a quad, most likely the Q6600 unless the prices drop on the Q9450 within the next 6 months (which I'm sure they will..only time will tell).
April 13, 2008 6:07:38 PM

bardia said:
I still think the E8400 is a great buy. As 45nm quads (and especially Nehelem) comes out I will consider quads to be the new necessity, but I'd still go E8400 > E6600 without too much consideration.

/shrug

Yeah, for $200 or lower it sure is. But before way over retail price and priced like a Q6600 IMO no it was not. I've said it before, but priced the same I would take a Q6600 over an e8400 anyday, even in a 100% pure gaming machine. If we start talking $30-50 difference, as low as that seems overall compared to the system cost, then the e8400 looks like the better value.
!