Hi,
 
Trying to choose which CPU I'm going for in my Alienware rig (Area-51 7500). Trying to decide on which of these two I'll go for:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66GHz 6MB Cache 1333MHz FSB    
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz 6MB Cache 1333MHz FSB  
 
Just wondering just how much difference there is between the two.
 
Thanks guys

I haven't looked it up, but since e8200's clocked lower at the same fsb, looks like it's running on lower multiplier.

If you dont plan to OC I would consider the 8400 worth it over the 8200 if the price difference isnt ridiculous. But even if you do plan to OC the 8400 has a 9x multi which will allow lower FSB increases so you will be able to get higher with it. I personally would go with the 8400. Hope this helps!

Best,

3Ball

Not really, higher multiplier can be an advantage if your motherboard's fsb is the bottleneck.

A price list here :
E8200 = 8x333 = 2660MHz : 145 EUR
E8400 = 9x333 = 3000MHz : 185 EUR
Q6600 = 9x266 = 2400MHz : 205 EUR
 
If you don't plan to overclock E8400 is a better choice.
But at that price point I'd start looking at the Q6600 for 205 EUR.  
 
If you are on a budget E8200 is a great pick.  
In ideal (benchmark) cases it would be around 11% slower than E8400.
In real life it's slower but not by much.

All those e8400 fanboys say it's better than quad because it overclocks higher.

If you have the money I think the E8400 is the ticket, faster and easier to find. The E8500 is a joke, 90 dollars more for 160mhz, no thanks. The E8200 is a great buy and hard to beat for the price, that is why they are hard to find. I personally would buy the 8400 simply because it's faster and only 30.00 difference. Then again I don't have the patience to wait for an 8200, everytime it is in somewhere it sells out immediately.

 
Fanboys always say they have the best.
I'm a quadcore fanboy. I have more transistors to play with!
 
Or as Sean Connery said in "The Rock".
Dual core users(/Losers) always whine about their best. Quad core users(/Winners)  go home and do(/fsck) the best (/prom queen) .

I have both, E8400 seems faster.

I dont think the problem is picking a CPU.
 
Why get an Alienware that costs 100s if not 1000s more then you would pay else where.
 
Build yourself or look for a custom builder on Ebay.
 
For the cost of Alienware you could prolly get a q9650 with good sli graphics.
 
I got some ALienware cases if its all about the looks.

 
Supreme Commander says otherwise. I don't play other games.
Single threaded applications are faster on E8400.
My system during a normal "work session" has 65-75 processes.
The last dualcore I had was an E6300 overclocked to 2.8GHz.
Compared to that ... Q6600 is a different beast.
 
My A64 3200+ "seemed faster" than my Pentium D 920.
With the Q6xxx and Q9xxx dualcores have become the "budget" sollutions (or for gamers).
 
That's why I'm a quadcore fanboy.

And I don't play Supreme Commander I play other games which say otherwise .

In a couple of years, the games that say otherwise won't be around anymore.

the bottom line is, Build it your self.

 
So basicly you're telling me I'm right.
I also agree, for current gaming(except SC which is the only game I played since DOW DC) a higher clocked dual core is better. For extreme multitasking/CAD/programming/FPGA compilation/content creation (basicly everything I do) quad is the "smarter" choice.

 
If money is not an issue why would he?
A system integrator like Alienware offers prestige for a price.
No "will it smoke" lottery. And what counts most to some people, it comes ready to play.
This forum is full of people who built themselves and have issues.
 
For us poor working people/enthusiasts it is the only way.

 
You are a moron.

The same can be said of my current gaming