C0 or E0 Wolfdale

hmm...hi srourg

whoever advised you is utterly wrong. first off, the E0 stepping is better than the C0 stepping as it is newer with fewer erratas

second... the E8500 ONLY comes in E0 stepping so please don't listen to that person who is feeding you garbage.

the E8500 has the spec number SLB9K (E0) on the side of the box which indicates which stepping it is. and E0 is the only one.

Whatever chip you're getting, be it Intel or AMD, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go for the newest revision!

Many thanks for the clear info I was really lost...

Yeah when wanting to know what's better usually it's the letter further down the alphabet. It's kinda like a version number but with letters

The e8500 really does come in two versions. You can get more information here:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=...

It's true that the E8500 was offered with both steppings. The E8600 is the only Core2Duo with only the E0 stepping. The problem is that Newegg doesn't list the stepping on their listings, so there's no way of knowing what stepping you'll recieve. You can either buy from somebody who lists the stepping or take your chances. Either way, whoever told you that C0 is more desirable than E0 doesn't know what they're talking about.

Getting the current stepping is not life and death, there are advantages (fewer errata, lower power consumption, higher overclockability), but don't think that an older stepping is vastly inferior to the newer ones.

With a popular item as the E8500 Newegg is constantly purchasing new product from intell. The chances of getting the latest issue or stepping is almost certian...but no guarentee.

Edit: Esp. being at least a month into a new run.

Newegg is pushing E0 E8400s, so I would guess that all stock faster than that is E0 for sure.

Newer does not always equal faster. Most of the E0 vs. C0 Wolfdale comparison reports say that E0 consumes less power but also requires a higher voltage to reach a specified overclock. So this is just a recipe tweak of the same process - less leakage but less headroom - not technically an improvement.

When you apply this to quad-cores, however, since heat is more of an issue, the lower leakage can increase overclock ability.

For someone who does not overclock, the E0 stepping should consume less power at idle or load, but it's pretty minor. Talking about 5-10 watts at the wall.

Every review I've seen has the E0 reaching higher overclocks in every way than the C0. Where are these comparisons that you're referring to?

Thanks for correcting me, cjl. I've crossed out what I shouldn't have written above. I confused the C0 to E0 stepping change with a non-stepping change on Yorkfields (4-core only) that trades off power consumption for overclocking performance.

Surveying the half dozen reviews that talk about C0 vs. E0, I see all but one concluding that E0 has more overclocking headroom. Some of the reviews, however, are only comparing similar model numbers under the two steppings, and it is in one such review (on NordicHardware) that an E0 managed to clock worse than a C0. A quick look at an XS overclocking database sorted by models reveals that E0 more often hits closer to 4.4 GHz on air, and C0 usually stops around 4 GHz, with just a few counterexamples of newer performing worse than older.

I left the power consumption statement in my post as the couple sites that measured this came out with ballpark results.

Thanks for all of you guys but I am back to square zero...

Shortstuff_mt, if newegg doesn't clarify regarding the stepping of it stock, I can pruchase from another site if really have advantage in getting either C0 or E0.

Could someone guide me to a website where I can do that and which one to buy baring in mind that I will not OC?

Thanks

If you don't OC, don't bother trying to get the E0 instead of C0. It wont make ANY difference unless you are actually OCing.