Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU: E8400 or Q9300 or (Q6600)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 28, 2008 7:16:36 PM


I'm specing out a new build and Newegg has a mobo cpu combo that knocks the price of the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W down to $135. It's about $100 less than the price of the Q9300. Budget is a little tight.

Eventhough it's only Duo and not Quad, would I notice much of a difference? I'm not a gamer and don't think I'll be OCing.

Only for Photoshop and Lightroom.
--
Thanks!

Reid

Kodak Brownie
Argus 126
Quaker Oats Container Pinhole Camera

More about : cpu e8400 q9300 q6600

a b à CPUs
September 28, 2008 11:43:02 PM

I'd say you might see some difference, but when the budget is tight you have to go with what you can afford. What is your proposed build and budget? With this information we can assist you better and might be able to fit in your quad core CPU, if budge allows of coarse.
Related resources
September 29, 2008 6:12:19 AM


Wow! That chart was pretty interesting. I thought Photoshop CS3 was optimized for quad core. Perhaps it is, but not as well as CS4 which will be out next month. I've read to go with a quad core for photo work, but the chart actually showed that the E8400 was faster than the Q9300?!?!?

for RAW Processing.


And this chart also shows that the E8500 does better than more expensive quads http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/desktop-cpu-charts...

Here are the processors I've been focusing on, although it's been most the quad-cores: Q6600 and Q9350. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%201389627502%201051707842&StoreType=7&CompareItemList=N82E16819115037%2cN82E16819115043%2cN82E16819115017%2cN82E16819115054&bop=And

I remember what Collin Fletcher who wrote The Complete Walker said about buying a sleeping bag, paraphrased, "Figure out the most expensive bag you can afford and buy the one up from that." Usually been universally good advice. I don't mind paying good money for a CPU, but just want to make sure I'm buying more than bragging rights.

I had thought about Nehalem, but thought that the cost of being an early adopter on the financial bleeding edge wouldn't be worth the advantage. ( See my thread at http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/forum2.php?config=t..."e_only=0&new=0&nojs=0#t1862073

The good advice that made sense said to go for the the 9300 because "Before overclocking and depending on the measurement they're roughly 10~20% more efficient clock for clock, consume less power and therefore make a little bit less heat/noise. The stock FSB is higher (1333 versus 1066) as well, so you have a bit more bandwidth for running large picture files through that little bit more efficiently." but I don't know if the performance bears this out, especially with the price:

E8400 $155
Q6600 $190
Q9330 $255

System wise here is my current plan. Case, HS, and GPU were selected for building a quiet system:

Motherboard Asus P5Q Pro because it's on sale for $100. I don't need the SLI
CPU ?
RAM 8 GB total 4-2GB DDR 800 (open to suggestions)
GPU ASUS EN7300GT SILENT/HTD/512M GeForce 7300GT 512MB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express x16 SLI Supported Video Card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I'm not a gamer so I don't need a fancy card, just dual monitor.

Hard drives: Recyle my Samsung 750 and 500 GB drives
PS recycle my Seasonic 460
Heatsink Thermalright 120 Extreme
Optical Recycle from old system

So the big question in CPUs. I'm not intersted in RAID and OCing doesn't seem to be worth the gain for the hassle.

Ideas? The E8400 looks attractive for only $155. I don't have to buy the CPU immediately. I was even wondering if the price would drop more in early Nov when Nehalem makes all our systems obsolete ;) 

Thanks!

Reid




September 29, 2008 7:11:28 PM

go E8400 it is good and cheap i love it
September 29, 2008 11:38:31 PM

The reason raw photo processing runs better on higher clocked duals than lower clocked quads is because it's more dependent on throughput of ram, hdd speed, as large number of files are shuffled during that benchmark. Filter, on the other hand, is more dependent on calculation and raw cpu power. That accounts to the performance difference. CS4 will probably behave similarly.

E8400 is $170 on Newegg. $155 would certainly be a nice deal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Q6600 is $185:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Q9300 is $260:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

So, for US prices, q6600 is the deal to get. It reliably oc 50% (from 2.4ghx to 3.6ghz, outperforming $1500+ "Extreme" quads), far higher margin percentage than q9300, and slightly higher than e8400. Although e8400, starting at 3.0ghz stock and oc reliably to 4.0-4.3ghz, has an absolute higher oced clock.

Could you link to the $155 e8400 deal? It's good and I'd like to know. :p 

Photoshop can suck up a lot of ram, at least 4gb, possibly 8gb if you run heavy processing. Consider this model:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good timing, low stock voltage, cheap.

For video card, that 7300gt at such price is bad deal. Consider this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Or this, if you want silent (assuming that's the reason for fanless 7300gt):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you want more power and don't mind the mail in rebate, this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2008 12:03:40 AM

dagger said:
Photoshop can suck up a lot of ram, at least 4ghz, possibly 8ghz if you run heavy processing. Consider this model:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good timing, low stock voltage, cheap.

WOW!!! I thought 1066mHz DDR2 was slow.....You have 4ghz and 8ghz stuff??? I must be on the wrong website when purchasing my DDR2??? LOL, JK!!!
I'd bet the q6600 will be the smart move, when talking about Photoshop performance, especially if you OC it to +3ghz!! I don't know if 8gb's really makes that much of a difference over 4gb's, but I'm sure someone has a link that may prove/dis-prove this.
September 30, 2008 12:18:27 AM

lunyone said:
WOW!!! I thought 1066mHz DDR2 was slow.....You have 4ghz and 8ghz stuff??? I must be on the wrong website when purchasing my DDR2??? LOL, JK!!!
I'd bet the q6600 will be the smart move, when talking about Photoshop performance, especially if you OC it to +3ghz!! I don't know if 8gb's really makes that much of a difference over 4gb's, but I'm sure someone has a link that may prove/dis-prove this.


ROFL, typo. I'll go correct it. :na: 
October 1, 2008 1:30:43 PM

Good Info . . .

I'm somewhat new to the issue, but I was talking with a "PC Guru" yesterday and in our dialogue I said that I wanted to go to 8MB Memory. He told me that if I'm running a 32 bit OS, it will only recognize the first 3MB of memory. I would need to go with a 64 bit OS in order to go larger than 3MB.

I'm coming from a P4 2.66, with 768KB, so staying with a 32 bit OS (even with a 3MB limit) will be a dramatic upgrade, I think. I'm still in the ??? about E8400 vs. Q???. His thoughts were that todays software doesn't make great use of the quad yet, and while the E8400 may actually run about 10% quicker (based on clock speed) with single apps . . . the future of software is to move toward multi-core base apps.

Hmmm, today vs. tomorrow ???

64bit vs. 32bit ???

I'm looking at 32bit XP Pro with a board that will support 8MB+ Ram. 3MB for now installed. Upgrade OS later when the apps, support & stability improve, then add the extra Ram later. That having been said, I guess I should also go with the quad (future thinking).

I've only been using Corel Paint Shop Pro X2 so far, and have just ordered Photoshop CS3 Extended ... fire sale ;-) so I'm trying to get up a little closer to where the bigh boys play. I've been happy with the X2, but since the WORLD uses Photoshop, I figured I better come along too.

I hope this helps with the 4MB vs. 8MB question.
October 1, 2008 4:37:42 PM

dagger,

Thanks for your clear comments.

I should clarify that the $155 for the 8400 was with the Asus P5Q Pro mobo for $255, and at the time the mobo was $99, but that deal is gone. The combo is now $275 or so.

So, I'm still a bit confused about the Duo vs Quad. I know what we've all heard, Quad is the future and few apps utilize quad cores effectively now. I see that Newegg has the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache for $190. I'm trying to figure if that would be a better deal since, 1) I've read that clock speed is the biggest determinant of Photoshop performace, 2) especially if I'm not going to overclock the Q6600. I don't have much experience with overclocking except setting in the BIOS of my current Asus mobo, and it screwed up my printing jobs. It may be that my RAM, being value RAM, could handle it.

I'd be interested in learning about OCing provided that 1) it doesn't significantly shorten component life--I don't plan on upgrading again for a few years, 2) it's not difficult to do. I'm buying the Asus P5Q Pro mobo. I know Asus is known for OCing. It sounds like there are 2 ways to OC, either in the BIOS, by percentage, and let it take care of the rest, or messing with the voltage and RAM timing. I really don't want a lot of trial and error messing around with the votage and timing for a small amount of gain. 3) performance gains are worth the time setting it up, and 4) OCing doesn't general a lot of heat. I want to run a quiet system so I bought the Antec P192 case, and will likely get the Thermalright 120 extreme heat sink.

So, if you could forward OC how to info, that would be a help.

Quote:
For video card, that 7300gt at such price is bad deal. Consider this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814131084


Why don't you like the 7300gt? The specs look similar to the ASUS EAH3650, espcially if I'm not gaming

Again the question is the E8500, or the Q6600, both for around $190. Do you think we'll see much of a CPU price drop when Nehalem premiers next month?

Thanks!

Reid
October 1, 2008 4:58:18 PM

See this stickied thread for overclocking. They explain it in far greater details than I can.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/240001-29-howto-overc...

As for the graphics card, the 7300gt and 3650, they're not similar at all. 3650 perform far better, although that doesn't really matter for you. The more important thing is it's a newer generation. 7300gt is long outdated, use specialized processors instead of unified stream processors, does not support dx10 or opengl3, and driver support is sketchy. Given the similar price, it's not worth the headaches.

As for cpu price drop, I have no idea. Don't want to guess. Nehalem is not due to hit the shelves until end of this year or early next year.
October 1, 2008 7:04:42 PM


Dagger,

the 7300gt is on the truck to be delivered. Do you think I should send it back and get the 3650, eventhough I'm not going to do any gaming? What difference will I notice?

As for CPUs, the concensus seems to be that even a Q6600 with a lower clock speed is preferred over the E8500 because quads allow better multi-tasking? do you concur?

Thanks for all your help!

Reid
October 1, 2008 8:20:06 PM

reidthaler said:
Dagger,

the 7300gt is on the truck to be delivered. Do you think I should send it back and get the 3650, eventhough I'm not going to do any gaming? What difference will I notice?

As for CPUs, the concensus seems to be that even a Q6600 with a lower clock speed is preferred over the E8500 because quads allow better multi-tasking? do you concur?

Thanks for all your help!

Reid


If the 7300gt is on its way, keep it. It'll display when you plug it in, which should be enough for your purposes.

Yes, quads allow for better multitasking, plus future software tend to be multithreaded, so it'll have an advantage even in single task. The reason you get this concensus despite the low stock clock for q6600 is because it overclocks easily, and the people you talked to are probably taking this into account.
!