Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E5200 vs E2200 vs E7200 vs E8200

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 15, 2008 2:39:43 AM

Please disregard the prices in this comparison.

I am focusing on the E5200 here. How big is the performance difference between these four processors? How much better is the E5200 than the E2200? Will the 800Mhz FSB and 2mb hold the E5200 back compared to E7200, E8200, ect? How would the E5200 do in office apps, gaming, and general speed? Again, please disregard the prices in this comparison.

E2200- 2.20Ghz, 800Mhz, 1MB Cache, 65nm
E5200- 2.50Ghz, 800Mhz, 2MB Cache, 45nm
E7200- 2.53Ghz, 1066Mhz, 3MB Cache, 45nm
E8200- 2.66Ghz, 1333Mhz, 6MB Cache, 45nm
September 15, 2008 9:40:04 AM

The E5200 is a lot faster than the E2200, especially in games, which normally take the biggest hits from smaller cache sizes. Apart from the clockspeed advantage, it also includes the 45nm Wolfdale core enhancements. I'd expect a general ~20% performance advantage to the E5200, closer to 25% for games. Here is a review comparing it to the E2200: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3885&p...

Its almost as fast as the E7200, probably 5% slower overall, there really isn't much difference between the two except the 1MB difference in cache size and FSB speeds.

Against the E8200 it'll be about 10 - 20% slower depending on how cache dependant the application is - in games it'd be closer to 20%.
September 15, 2008 2:16:01 PM

do you want to include when OC'd?
Related resources
a c 77 à CPUs
September 15, 2008 2:34:34 PM

I agree with epsilon84. The E2200 is the older 65nm tech and should not be considered for a new build. Last time I checked, the E5200 was only about $9 more expensive than the E2200. Games seem to gain the most from cache increases.
a c 341 à CPUs
September 15, 2008 3:28:41 PM

You should get fair value for your money with any of those parts. I would opt for the 45nm parts first because they will run cooler.
If gaming is your thing, go for the lower priced CPU and spend more on the VGA card.
September 15, 2008 3:58:29 PM

epsilon84 said:
The E5200 is a lot faster than the E2200, especially in games, which normally take the biggest hits from smaller cache sizes. Apart from the clockspeed advantage, it also includes the 45nm Wolfdale core enhancements. I'd expect a general ~20% performance advantage to the E5200, closer to 25% for games. Here is a review comparing it to the E2200: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3885&p...

Its almost as fast as the E7200, probably 5% slower overall, there really isn't much difference between the two except the 1MB difference in cache size and FSB speeds.

Against the E8200 it'll be about 10 - 20% slower depending on how cache dependant the application is - in games it'd be closer to 20%.


Well I agree with everything you said, I don't really trust some of those numbers.
The reason is that the E2160 should be virtually identical to the E2200 in performance at the same clock speed. (It appears they claim to have normalized on 2.5Ghz some places.) However, they are showing the E2200 having a significant advantage. As a result, I doubt their E2200 vs E5200 numbers.

With that said, I agree that the E5200 should be a no brainer over the E2200.
Cooler. Higher OC. And Yes, There will be a Clock for Clock Advantage even if I don't trust the exact numbers shown.
September 15, 2008 4:45:30 PM

Q6600 FTW!!! It can kick all those CPU butts with one core tied behind it's back... :oops: 
September 15, 2008 4:56:16 PM

Except it's about $100 more expensive. The point was a budget comparison, I believe.
September 15, 2008 5:00:31 PM

My humor is a bit dry again. :cry: . o O (I know it's a $100 more)
September 15, 2008 5:06:19 PM

Thank you all for your responses.

Does the 45nm technology actually make the processor any faster? Will this be any faster than the E4700? They have practically the same specs

Why does Intel keep making processors with only an 800Mhz FSB? Won't the slower FSB hold the processor back? How difficult is it to OC the bus speed?

How much can I expect the E5200 to OC on stock cooling?

Finally, I currently have a Pentium D 925 with 3.0Ghz, 800Mhz, 2x2mb, 65nm. Will I be able to see a difference between this and an E5200 in overall speed and in office applications? What would specifically not be faster with the new processor? Is it even worth the money to upgrade?
September 15, 2008 5:26:50 PM

Grimmy said:
My humor is a bit dry again. :cry: . o O (I know it's a $100 more)


I chuckled! :lol: 
September 15, 2008 5:38:31 PM

the e5200 somewhat made the e7200 a little undesirable.

the new 45nm's include a newer set of sse instruction ( the benefit of which i do not know,yet)

if i were you, i'll be looking @ only 2 processors, the e8200 and the e5200. ive seen e52s reaching 4ghz. it'll reach 3.0ghz without breaking a sweat.
September 15, 2008 5:45:57 PM

The 45nm tech itself makes no difference.

The difference is that it will OC higher and Run Cooler.
Also the newer chips support some added SSE instruction sets that will help in a few limited programs.

There is also some Cache Optimization changes that will help in all programs.

The $10 difference from the E2200 is positively worth it.

The E5200 may also OC better than the E8200, due to the fact it starts at a lower FSB which means you will have far less FSB issues when trying to OC.

Personally, I think the E5200 is a sweet spot for those on a budget.
I would then start looking at the E8500 (Higher Default speed so less FSB issues) or the Q6600.

And Yes, the E5200 will be SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the Pentium D 925 clock for clock.
September 15, 2008 5:48:53 PM

I would look at E8400 over the E8200. The price difference is laughable.

I have an E5200 in a Zotac 7100 supreme motherboard at 3.1Ghz easily (and trust me this motherboard SUCKS at overclocking). Speedstep is still active and working correctly even with the overclock (I was pleasantly surprized by that).

E8400 > E7200 > E5200 >> Pentium D 925

You will see a substantial difference between your current and future setups.

I would say E5200 and E8400 are the best bets, unless the E8400 is just a little too expensive, in which case the E7200 would fit the bill nicely.
a c 341 à CPUs
September 15, 2008 7:32:51 PM

If your current applications are not CPU limited, you will not see much of a diference if you upgrade just a little. It probably takes a E8400 to do enough just from the cpu. Turn on the task monitor, and notice how much of your cpu you are currently using.
For office, and surfing type work, it is better to upgrade other parts. If you do not have adequate ram, that is the first place I would spend money. You should have 2gb at least, and 4gb if you do a lot of multitasking.
If you can upgrade to a faster hard drive, then you will notice that things are faster.

If you want more gaming performance, then invest in a better vga card first.
September 16, 2008 3:10:41 AM

Dougx1317 said:
Does the 45nm technology actually make the processor any faster? Will this be any faster than the E4700? They have practically the same specs

Yes, 45nm includes a few performance tweaks, it's a few percent faster per clock with everything else (clockspeed/FSB/cache) being equal. It should be equal to or slightly faster than the E4700, despite the 100MHz clockspeed advantage on the E4700.

Quote:
Why does Intel keep making processors with only an 800Mhz FSB? Won't the slower FSB hold the processor back? How difficult is it to OC the bus speed?

Nah, FSB doesn't have a large impact on performance. 800FSB would probably be 2 - 3% slower than 1066FSB tops, similar to the difference between 1066FSB and 1333FSB, which is also quite minimal in most cases: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6 Its easy to overclock the FSB, of course it takes a basic understanding of the BIOS functions.

Quote:
How much can I expect the E5200 to OC on stock cooling?

Probably around 3.5GHz, maybe a little more.

Quote:
Finally, I currently have a Pentium D 925 with 3.0Ghz, 800Mhz, 2x2mb, 65nm. Will I be able to see a difference between this and an E5200 in overall speed and in office applications? What would specifically not be faster with the new processor? Is it even worth the money to upgrade?

It depends, are you office apps CPU bound? In any case, in any situation where CPU speed is the limiting factor, an E5200 would be a LOT faster than a Pentium D 925. Core 2 is around twice as fast as Netburst (P4) per clock, so an E5200 at stock 2.5GHz would be 'equal' to a ~5GHz Pentium D.
September 16, 2008 6:04:33 AM

how much slower then and 3MB cache 7200 is the 2MB 5200 ?
September 16, 2008 2:27:08 PM

wow thats nothing for 20 percent less money, maybe the E5200 is the way to go.
September 16, 2008 4:00:39 PM

80% of the price, 95% of the performance (E5200 vs. E7200) definitely worth it.

or 45% of the price, 90% performance (E5200@3.0 vs. E8400), also a steal.
September 16, 2008 4:17:46 PM

Thanks for so many responses. And don't worry, I'll eventually run out of questions.

So, an E5200 is roughly the same speed as the E4700 and the E7200? Not enough of a difference to notice? Why would intel compete with themselves like this?

If the FSB and cache don't make that big of a difference, how does the E5200 compare to an E6600? I always thought of the E6600 as a really fast processor, but the E5200 has only a 2mb smaller cache and a 266mhz smaller FSB. And the E5200 has the 100Mhz clock advantage and 45nm technology.

Also, people keep saying that the performance gain depends on if my applications are cpu limited. I know what they are getting at, but how do I know if my apps are limited by the cpu? What kind of normal non-gaming, non-CAD apps take up a lot of cpu?

Would it make sense to try to overclock my Petium D 925? Would I really be able to get any performance gain from it on stock cooling? Or is it just not worth even trying?
September 17, 2008 3:29:31 AM

Dougx1317 said:
So, an E5200 is roughly the same speed as the E4700 and the E7200? Not enough of a difference to notice? Why would intel compete with themselves like this? The E4x00 series are being phased out by the E7x00 series. The E5200 is not competing against the E7200, its competing against all the sub $100 X2s from AMD.

Quote:
If the FSB and cache don't make that big of a difference, how does the E5200 compare to an E6600? I always thought of the E6600 as a really fast processor, but the E5200 has only a 2mb smaller cache and a 266mhz smaller FSB. And the E5200 has the 100Mhz clock advantage and 45nm technology.

They'd be about equal, more or less. In some cache dependant apps the E5200 may be a little behind, but in clockspeed dependant apps it'll be a little ahead.

Quote:
Also, people keep saying that the performance gain depends on if my applications are cpu limited. I know what they are getting at, but how do I know if my apps are limited by the cpu? What kind of normal non-gaming, non-CAD apps take up a lot of cpu?

Open the task manager and look at the CPU usage under the 'performance' tab. ;)  I guess some large Excel spreadsheets could take a while to calculate, but I'm really not the best to answer this question as I'm more a gamer than anything :) , the only office apps I've used are Word, Excel and a little PowerPoint, and I'm not a 'heavy' user by any means, just did a bit of bookeeping for my old man a few years back.

Quote:
Would it make sense to try to overclock my Petium D 925? Would I really be able to get any performance gain from it on stock cooling? Or is it just not worth even trying?
[/quote]
Quote:

Not on stock cooling, no. The Pentium D's run hot enough as it is, I wouldn't recommend it. With a better HSF however, Pentium Ds are actually quite decent overclockers, I wouldn't be surprised if you hit 4GHz, but even then it won't hold a handle to a stock E5200, let alone one overclocked to 3.5GHz+.
November 9, 2008 11:28:07 AM

In my Opinion the e5200 is a wunderfull cpu, with some serrious disatvantages.
If you are looking for optimal gaming/application performance i think it is also a considerable choice. The 30€/40$ that stay in your pocket (compared to the e7200/e7300) are specially for gaming much better invested in the graphics card.

If you are amining for the best overclocking price ration (in sense of maximum stable cpu frequency) i myself would consider spending a little more buying the e7300 (not the e7200, cause price difference is marginal (max 5€/ca7$),whose multiplicator of 10 gives you some atvantage over the 9.5 multiplicator of the e7200.
At the same time some of the e5200 disatvantges are wiped with the e7xxx series. (To name them SSE4.1 commands are allready integrated in the e7xxx models - as well as 1 MB additonal L2 cache reduces the atvantage of higest class C2D models (utilizing 6MB L2 cache)
And the standart FSB of the e7xxx lieing at 266MHz gives a higher chance of reaching higer FSB rates at the processors then the really lame FSB200MHz of the e5200

In addition i think that the quallity of the e5200 modells will be rising cause they are the first budget 45nm Wolfdale most certainly followed by a rising number of budget wolfdales

If you are simply trying to get the best payable wolfdale on market i would recommend the e8xxx series. But be aware that the low mutliplicators of these cpu´s seriously limits overclocking ability of the lower end models of the e8xxx cpu´s.

All over i would say if you are not aming for applications that are mainly CPU limited like audio/video encoding (not gaming here the limitation most certainly will come from the graphics solution) the e5200 will do.
In all cases i would recommend a better cooling solution than boxed intel coolers. In case of the e5200 it is nearly not to avoid, cause intel only integrates a very small aluminum only cooler which is not at all compatible with higher overclocking trials (but most certainly also allowing about 3.2 - 3.5 Ghz what allready is somewhat impressive).
AND if sometime you really think hey now my cpu has become a real bottleneck in my system you most certainly will be able to buy 45nm Quad Cpu´s for resonable prices boosting bare CPU power on the same system in an amazing amount (without changing any other part than the CPU at least doubling the bare cpu power while profiting of the 4 cores, the latest stepings and bigger L2 cache - while applications in some years in my opinion will start to profit more and more from more and more cores, integrating consequent multi-core usage at the beginning of their development)
Even if [what is mostly certain] budget quad cores will never be released with the C2D architekture. The low price quad in my opion will only be available with the new Core i7 architekture in 1-3 years when the produced amount (and with the rising number the quality of the producion process) of i7 CPU´s allowes to sell the less sucessful produced cores at low prices
November 12, 2008 9:55:36 PM

Got my E5200 at NewEgg for $84, and E7200 at Fry's for $79...

So far:

1.35v 300 FSB 3.75GHz E5200 Max OC Speed
1.35v 375 FSB 3.58GHz E7200 Max OC Speed

I will be upping the voltage of the E7200 to 1.425 to see if it will go any higher. Otherwise I am going with the E5200 even it costs more :pt1cable: 



November 28, 2008 11:56:02 AM

I think the e5200 is a fantastic budget chip for a gaming rig. Same with e7200. I think your board will have a lot to do with your max OC/FSB. I built a e7200/P5K Pro based system for a friend and it has a stable OC 3.6 ghz (9x400) with 1.385v/1.36v/1.352v (bios/idle/load) Load temp in Prime is only 48-50c both cores with an Artic 7. It will go higher but needs a bigger bump in vcore to be stable and not worth it for performance. I would have suggested an e5200 if it would have been available at the time. If Fry's has the e7200 at <$80 it is a no brainer. With Nehalem killing the Core 2s, the writing is on the wall. For most real world usage, including current games, I wouldn't spend more on a dual core.
March 2, 2009 6:00:42 PM

I bought HP a6600f for $240 and it has E2200 CPU with motherboard based on Nvidia 630i chip with 3gb(2gb and 1gb dimms). I can upgrade to HP a6667c model for an additional $100 that has G33 chip 1gb memory more and E5200 CPU 4gb memory dual channel.

I want to add this:
For $100 I'll get
a6600f --- a6667c
HD 320gb --- 500gb
ram 3gb(2 and 1) --- 4(4x1gb) expandable to 8gb nax
dimms -
total 2 dimms
4gb max)
CPU E2200 --- E5200


Do you guys think it's worth it?

Thanks
May 29, 2009 8:19:31 AM

Morning everyone,

I have read the above comments and information, now I need to know. I see the Intel Pentium E5200 is labeled as Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5220. Is this CPU in anyway a Core2Duo? I was told this by a friend and just checking if it has any accuracy.

Now I don't live in USA I'm actually in South Africa but taking what I have seen as the current Exchange being 7.96119 to 1 USD as per http://www.xe.com/, is it worth selling my Intel Pentium D 925 Cpu for R250 / $31.40 to upgrade to the E5200 costing R683 / $85.80. Will the increase in performance prove to be worth while with the extra cost of R430 / $54.10.

Any input with this regard would be greatly appreciated. many thanks.

Ben
May 29, 2009 6:59:14 PM

@beni_boy: Ensure your motherboard supports the processor, but yes, the difference in power is worth it.

@lepa71: The upgrade will be marginally better, but still will have an Intel (read: crappy) GPU. IMO, it's not enough of a boost to warrant the cost. If you run out of room on your hard drive $90 can get you a 1TB, or $40 can buy you 4GB of DDR2 800 ram, or $91 can buy you a Pentium E6300 (2.8Ghz, 1066FSB), or $55 can get you a Radeon HD4650 (if you want to game/watch HD video). Live with your current rig and update as necessary, it's more worth it that way since you have a reasonable computer currently.
!