Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prescott 3.4 vs Wolfdale 2.66

Last response: in CPUs
July 3, 2008 7:59:47 PM

I'm currently running a dated system bearing a P4 3.4ghz proc. I wish to upgrade to one of the new Wolfdale chips in a new build. However, I like to know I'm getting my dollar's worth.
I have looked at the e7200, e8200 and e8400. I believe the e7200, though probably superior to my P4, will be a lil gimped for the gaming I want to get into (Cod4, etc) compared to the abilities of the latter 2. I would like to get the e8400 but I can't seem to get it out of my head the notion that the e8400 may just be an oc'd version of an e8200. The price difference isn't very much but for those of you who drive...$20-30 bucks makes a difference now :)  I always seem to spend more than I have to.

Bottom line is, I want to upgrade my gaming xp but I don't want end up kicking myself in the teeth for spending to much or too little.

Any suggestions any of you can offer will be greatly appreciated. Also, while I'm not very savy on the subject of multipliers and whatnot, please excuse my ignorance:) 


"Any step ahead is a step in the right direction!"

More about : prescott wolfdale

a b à CPUs
July 3, 2008 8:16:12 PM

I have built a few E8400 systems for customers and that chip screams even at stock. You cant go wrong and you will be very impressed, make sure you OC it to 4.0Ghz so you can cure cancer in ten minutes.
July 3, 2008 8:24:25 PM

If you want to get your dollar's worth than go with a quad core.

I am a fan of the Q9450, but if you are on a budget than go with the Q6600. Quad cores are the future and in time games and software are going to be more quad friendly.

That is my recommendation.

Related resources
July 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM

I have read that about the quad cores. However (once again, excuse my ignorance where it applies:) ), won't the reduced FSB and core clock make it inferior without overclocking? Or rather, would one have to oc the hell out of it? I'm not nearly technical enough to really push something to it's brink.
I remember several years back when I built the system I'm currently running, comparing P4's and Athlon 64's clock speeds was like comparing apples with oranges (i.e. Athlon 64 2.2ghz vs P4 3.0 meant precisely &^%@). Is that pretty much the case here?

Bear in mind, in my search for truth I am also concerned about not having to upgrade again for a good while. Therefore, I need to make a very well-informed decision while still remaining among the well-fed population :) 

Like I said before, any and all recommendations are welcome and appreciated.


"Any step ahead is a step in the right direction!"
July 3, 2008 9:01:34 PM


Yes and no. Depending on the application a Q6600 may be inferior. If an application is single threaded (or even limited to two threads) in most cases a faster clock on a dual core will be better than a slower quad. However many applications (and games) are finally making the transition to multi-threading. Once you've done the work to allow two threads it is relatively easier to do the work to allow four, meaning we should see things take advantage of additional cores at an accelerated pace.

I guess the point is that you can't say either one will be faster unless you know the specific use....
July 3, 2008 9:31:25 PM

An E8400 will run COD4 just don't need a quad for it.

People have been saying quads are the future for a while now, but games are still gonna have to be able to run on less than quads for the masses to buy them. So Dual Cores still have plenty of life in them. Buy the time you absolutely have to have a quad to run something......the current quads will be struggling to keep up too, and there will be something out that blows them away.
a c 123 à CPUs
July 3, 2008 10:26:58 PM

I would suggest a quad if and oly IF you are like me and like to game and do other stuff at the same time. If a game does take advantage of 2 cores and you want to do other stuff it will probably slow you down. But if you are mainly gaming then a E8400 will rock it.

Now I am just waiting for kessler to bust in here and try to tell you that a C2D is bad even if you have so many in favor......
July 3, 2008 10:28:31 PM

hemphill said:
Hello! I would like to get the e8400 but I can't seem to get it out of my head the notion that the e8400 may just be an oc'd version of an e8200.

Also, while I'm not very savy on the subject of multipliers and whatnot, please excuse my ignorance:) 

E8200 multilpier of 8 x 333MHz = 2.66GHz

E8400 multiplier of 9 x 333MHz = 3GHz

When people here recommend a Wolfdale it's the E8400......if it were a simple as an E8400 being just an OC'ed version of an E8200 then everyone would be recommending the E8200.....something tells me they aren't quite the same (multiplier) and that you'd probably have a tougher time getting the E8200 up to 4Ghz.
July 3, 2008 11:09:42 PM

If you plan to do more on your PC than game I think you'd appreciate the quad more. However, you can get the faster dual now and if you feel bad about that decision in a year or so you could get the quad then. However, few if any regret getting a quadcore over a dualcore, I don't think the reverse is true. If you got even an old Q6600 and gave it a simple overclock to 3.0Ghz I think you'd be challenged not to really enjoy its performance across the its hard to recommend you sacrifice the smoothness that a quad offers for the sake of a possible few more fps in gaming with a heavily overclocked dual. I've used them both and I loved my E6850 @ 3.5Ghz until I compared its general performance with a Q9450 @ 3.2-3.4Ghz, the quad is easily smoother.

If you're only tasks on your rig will be surfing the net, gaming, and wordprocessing (and you don't anticipate your needs expanding until your next upgrade) then get the faster dual. If you like to multi-task, don't plan to upgrade for a good long while, or may want to experiment with virtualization in the next few years then go for a quad, even if its a Q6600 or Q9300.