CPU 775 question: E7400, E7500 or E8400??

[longtom33]

Hi guys.

I am just about to upgrade my computer (mobo and CPU).
I'm definately getting an Asus maximus 2 formula mobo.
The question I have is, which CPU to get??
I'm tossing up between thee E7400 and E7500, and also potentially the E8400.
The reason why I'm not really considering the E8400 is because I only have 800mhz RAM, and I will be overclocking the socks off whatever CPU I purchase. The E7400/E7500 have massive multipliers, which means I won't need to purchase more RAM (due to lower FSB speeds)
I guess my main question is, will I obtain much of a better OC with an E7500 compared to an E7400?
Does anybody have any opinions or results on this issue? I would greatly appreciate it

Regards

Tom

 

[boonality]

As far as overclocking goes I don't know, but what most people don't even look at is the fact that the E8XXX series supports technologies that the E7XXX series does not. One in particular that just burnt a friend of mine is intel virtualization technology. You can't run VM's on an E7XXX series processor.

 

[jamoramaJAM]

My opinion: E8400

Why?

#1 It runs at stock 3ghz speed, the fastest stock speed
#2 Only slightly more than the E7xxx series.
#3 Double the cache for better performance(to some degree, maybe not noticeable)
#4 As boonality said, a few extra features.
#5 GREAT and easy overclocker. Mine is clocked at 4ghz on a 25 dollar cooler!
#6 In truth, I have not found ddr2 800 a bad overclocker... If I set the multiplier at 9x, and the ratio at 2:1, set the speed of cpu to 445 mhz, then the ram should be steady at 890 mhz speed, which is a slight overclock.
#7 In my opinion, the e8400 would be more stable at high speeds.

If you indeed go with the E7xxx series though, getting the e7400 would be fine enough. Really, the e7500 and e8500 are just higher clocked versions, without much difference...

 

[longtom33]

Yea, i'm starting to lean heavily towards the E8400. I knew it had a few extra features, but thought they didn't really do much. Best being safe.
Besides, the maximus 2 formula is a beast at OCing, i like the fact that I can get to 4Ghz comfortably with an E8400, but maybe not for the E7xxx (there is limited data about how they OC). Any idea what I'd be able to get to roughly with this mobo and a zalman 9700?
Thanks for your help guys! I know people at Tom's Hardware always help out
Tom

 

[jamoramaJAM]

The fact that I use THIS: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835200026

basically tells you how good the E8400 is at getting to 4ghz. Also, I used a Gigabyte P45 ud3r that costs 100 dollars, so I'm not sure why you chose such a costly motherboard. Any reason why? Because I fail to recognize the reason behind it (cept sli/crossfire)

This is what I recommend for budget motherboard.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128359
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000200280%201075707618&srchInDesc=p45&bop=And&Order=RATING
SLI: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000200280+1075707618&Configurator=&Subcategory=280&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=sli
To answer your question about how far I think it would go... I wouldn't be surprised if you hit 4.2 or better stable and low voltage...

Keep in mind though, that 4ghz already oc's your ram to 890... which should be stable for most ddr2 800 ram... but going much farther might not work... I had, on accident, set my ram to auto... and it put its speed at 960... bsod'd like crazy =D

If you want to ask any more questions, email me at jamoramajam@gmail.com . I don't check for replies that often, so I might miss some of your questions.

 

[jsc]

E8400. If you OC the CPU to match DDR2-800 RAM, you'll be running at 3.6 GHz. If you relax the RAM timings and perhaps boost vRAM 0.1 volts or so, you have a good chance to hit 4.0 GHz.
----------
Overclocking since 1978 - Z80 (TRS-80) from 1.77 MHz to 2.01 MHz

 

[Guest]

I have the ASUS P5Q SE\R with a E7200 running at 1600fsb 3.8ghz vcore 1.29 31c idle and 53c full load. I have the ANTEC 1200 and the Vendetta 2 Cpu cooler. You can get the mobo for 130$ and the CPU for 130$ both in canadian $. The CPU cooler around 40$ I believe. Then in 2 years time you can swap in the most powerful quad core 775 socket you can find and get another 2 years out of your rig. For the memory I bought ballistix tracer ddr2 800mhz 2x2gb for around 70$ canadian. You can tighten the timings to 4 12 12 12 by increasing the voltage to 2.0 v OR you can increase the speed to 1066mhz by increasing the voltage to 2.0v. I haven't tried higher but it seems there is still a bit of room. Later on in a few years you can add 2 more sticks to get 8gb.

 

[cadder]

I don't think you would gain anything E7500 over E7400. There are tradeoffs both ways with E7400 vs. E8400. For that matter with 800MHz ram you could probably do about as well with an E5200. Tom's has used the lesser chips in several builds in the last 12 months so you could read up on what overclocks they were able to achieve.
And with 800MHz ram all of these are capable of similar overclock levels, depending on the individual chip that you get. You might do some research of your individual ram, not all 800MHz ram is created equal. Some of it overclocks easily, in which case there might be slightly more adavantage to the E8400. The other factor is how much money do you want to spend.
And it goes without saying that if you are overclocking that much you want a very good aftermarket cpu cooler.

 

[werxen]

you can hit 4.0 easily. 8400 +1.

 

[photonboy]

Overclocking RAM...

On some systems you can overclock the CPU without overclocking the RAM.

If your intention is for gaming, be aware that any of the CPU's you've picked out can be maxed out by a high-end gaming card so you've not left much expansion or you'll be wasting your money by buying a graphics card that can't be fully utilized.

My CPU usage (X2-4800+) is an average of 75% when paired with an HD3870. High-end SLI or Crossfire solutions are actually being limited sometimes by quad-core 3GHZ CPU's.

Since you are buying a new motherboard, your best value would be to invest in an AM2 solution such as:

1) suitable AM2 motherboard (read reviews, SLI? Crossfire? Audio? etc)
2) AMD Phenom II X4 920
3) 4GB DDR2 (read reviews)
4) *graphics card? (example ATI HD4890 or NVidia GTX 275)

*AMD is releasing a 40nm card soon for the mid-range so a high-end 40nm card may be availalble in a few months. There are lots of games that don't need the best graphics cards so you could get a cheaper card and hold off for a DX11 version. At least your base system would support it.

Be aware also that software (like games) often don't support multi-core efficiently or at all. Your quad-core will only get better value as games start supporting it (in fact, quad-core will become a "must"). Considering the small price difference when building a new system I find it hard to recommend building a dual-core system now if you are going to play high-end games.

That's my 2 cents and I build a lot of systems.

 

[jamoramaJAM]

Overclocking RAM...

On some systems you can overclock the CPU without overclocking the RAM.

If your intention is for gaming, be aware that any of the CPU's you've picked out can be maxed out by a high-end gaming card so you've not left much expansion or you'll be wasting your money by buying a graphics card that can't be fully utilized.

My CPU usage (X2-4800+) is an average of 75% when paired with an HD3870. High-end SLI or Crossfire solutions are actually being limited sometimes by quad-core 3GHZ CPU's.

Since you are buying a new motherboard, your best value would be to invest in an AM2 solution such as:

1) suitable AM2 motherboard (read reviews, SLI? Crossfire? Audio? etc)
2) AMD Phenom II X4 920
3) 4GB DDR2 (read reviews)
4) *graphics card? (example ATI HD4890 or NVidia GTX 275)

*AMD is releasing a 40nm card soon for the mid-range so a high-end 40nm card may be availalble in a few months. There are lots of games that don't need the best graphics cards so you could get a cheaper card and hold off for a DX11 version. At least your base system would support it.

Be aware also that software (like games) often don't support multi-core efficiently or at all. Your quad-core will only get better value as games start supporting it (in fact, quad-core will become a "must"). Considering the small price difference when building a new system I find it hard to recommend building a dual-core system now if you are going to play high-end games.

That's my 2 cents and I build a lot of systems.

From what I know, he is looking to build a gaming computer. Overall, Intel's dual core line is better(for gaming), and cheaper than AMD's Phenom II processors. Anyhow, AMD Phenoms cost similar to Intel's Q6600/Q9400 and really do not outperform them... Plus, any computer built now will be "mainstream" for at most the next 3 years. There is no point in spending more on quad cores and video, as the best will only be par in a few years. My point is, that by the time the majority of programs (cept encoding/rendering, etc) support more than 2 cores, new technology and video will be out that better take advantage of it(such as the i7, 40nm graphics cards, and even more that are being developed). What I think? Go "low budget" with a dual core with a 9800gtx, gtx260, 4850, or 4870 and use it till quad cores become used widely.

 

[rooseveltdon]

From what I know, he is looking to build a gaming computer. Overall, Intel's dual core line is better(for gaming), and cheaper than AMD's Phenom II processors. Anyhow, AMD Phenoms cost similar to Intel's Q6600/Q9400 and really do not outperform them... Plus, any computer built now will be "mainstream" for at most the next 3 years. There is no point in spending more on quad cores and video, as the best will only be par in a few years. My point is, that by the time the majority of programs (cept encoding/rendering, etc) support more than 2 cores, new technology and video will be out that better take advantage of it(such as the i7, 40nm graphics cards, and even more that are being developed). What I think? Go "low budget" with a dual core with a 9800gtx, gtx260, 4850, or 4870 and use it till quad cores become used widely.

lol actually the phenom 2 line outperforms the core 2 duo line and costs less he could get a 720 BE tri core that would smoke any of the core 2 duos for a lot less than the e8 series don't let your fanboyism mislead this young one thou sith. Full of deceit you are.

 

[jamoramaJAM]

lol actually the phenom 2 line outperforms the core 2 duo line and costs less he could get a 720 BE tri core that would smoke any of the core 2 duos for a lot less than the e8 series don't let your fanboyism mislead this young one thou sith. Full of deceit you are.

I was talking about the Phenom II 920 that the previous person pointed out when I said it was cheaper.

Now... about the Phenom II tri-cores...
It does NOT cost less, and does not outperform the core 2 duo line. I spend hours when I was building my computer trying to decide on the new phenoms(920) or Intel's Core 2 duo/quad line. Truth is, the new phenoms have had no success overpassing any of Intel's dual cores except for encoding, 3d drafting, etc. Also, they have less motherboard options. From what I know, his priorities are GAMING, not video production/encoding.

This is a comparison xbitlabs did on the phenom x3 II vs the E7xxx and E8xxx series. and came up with this summary of what they find. Although I understand that reviews can be somewhat biased/not real life conditions, but they are still able to give a pretty accurate comparison.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x3-720_12.html#sect0
"However, despite the microarchitectural improvements, adoption of the new production process, higher clock speeds and DDR3 SDRAM support, AMD is still behind the top dual-core competitor solutions on the performance scale"

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x3-720_4.html#sect1

I'm not saying the new phenoms (specifically the tri-cores) are bad, but they're not as good as you think either. Yes, there is the fourth unlockable core, but chances are it will be fixed sooner or later, and can potentially cause errors. If it was about their quad cores in comparison to Intel's quad core (Qxxxx series), I would probably agree that AMD is now the better choice.

Fanboyism? Prove to me that AMD, the company that is a generation behind Intel, is better.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

Not even a question for me. Easily, go with the e8400. You won't regret it. However, if you with the e7400, you'll be regreting the lesser performance which to me is worth the $25. My e8400 is stable all day long at 4 GHz whether I use 9 multiplier X 444 or 8 x 500 fsb! Stays cools too even on the stock Intel HSF. All I had to was disable the Asus Q-Fan Control in BIOS and the CPU fan just runs over 2,000 RPM full-time and it's 37 C idle 58 full load on P95. Amazing processor!

 

[bildo123]

you can hit 4.0 easily. 8400 +1.

For the best bang for you buck right now I believe the 8400 is the way to go. Especially with an OC. I was curious though, I thought there was an article or something on here that posted diminishing returns (aka no additional gain just about) when you put this chip over 3.6Ghz? I thought they benched some game and the difference from 3.6 to 4 was moot.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

It depends on the videocard. I find that my "old" 8800 GTS 320 mb reached it's bottleneck point at 3.2 GHz and going faster after that to 3.6 and 4.0 I coulld only get higher CPU scores in 3DMark06. However, with my 8800 GTS 512 I was able to get 15,962 amazing for a single card score for that model video card.

But Bildo could be right too if there are games out there that's not CPU sensitive.

 

[jamoramaJAM]

For the best bang for you buck right now I believe the 8400 is the way to go. Especially with an OC. I was curious though, I thought there was an article or something on here that posted diminishing returns (aka no additional gain just about) when you put this chip over 3.6Ghz? I thought they benched some game and the difference from 3.6 to 4 was moot.

As of my own experience, gaming does not improve much after 3.6ghz. But, everything else, such as overall system speed still improves. Also, why not 4ghz or more, just for the heck of it? =D

 

[longtom33]

Hrmm, interesting... *slips on the monocle*

Some things I have against going AMD way is that there are no killer mobo's out there, that I've seen. Also, like jamoramajam has said (and I agree), by the time quad core CPU's are widely used, there will be faster ones out and for good prices.
I'd prefer also to get a dual core intel over a quad core.

I still have the E8400 in my sights. I like the idea of getting up to such a blistering speed. And again, although its not quad/triple core, most of the programs i'll be using (GAMES) won't utilize them (to my knowledge).

Sound good?

One other thing I'll be purchasing is another vid card, most likely 4870 or 4890 (but we'll keep that out of this thread)

Thanks for all your input guys! It's interesting seeing and hearing what you suggest for me.

 

[rooseveltdon]

i still don't think its a good idea considering the fact that for $189 you can get a quad core running at 3.0 ghz stock speed that would handle high end graphics card better and would be a better over all system for future proofing gaming wise the e8400 is a great card but the 940 outperforms it (i would have still gone with the phenom 2 tri core myself) i just dont see why spending 167 dollars for a good dual core could be considered a better investment than a 189 dollar black edition quad core running at 3.0 with cheaper motherboard options....

 

[jamoramaJAM]

For Video Card, Get the 4870 or a gtx260/275... what resolution do u use?

Rooseveltdon:
#1 Quad Core has not shown improvements on gaming over dual cores, and will not for some time. People have said that the reason many people haven't gone into is is because it is extremely difficult to write a program that takes advantage of all 4 cores.
#2 Like I said, there aren't many motherboard options...
#3 Future proofing is almost impossible. Just a year or two ago, the 8800 gtx was one of the best cards out there. Look at this article from 3 years ago...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-cards-money,1380-3.html
The 8800gtx cost SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS. and was the best card out there.

Anyways, the thread started between choosing a dual core (Exxxx), not a quad core. Even if this was including quad cores, Intel's Qxxxx series could do just as well for about the same price, plus more motherboard options (which is a BIG difference, as it is the backbone of the system).

 

[jamoramaJAM]

Not even a question for me. Easily, go with the e8400. You won't regret it. However, if you with the e7400, you'll be regreting the lesser performance which to me is worth the $25. My e8400 is stable all day long at 4 GHz whether I use 9 multiplier X 444 or 8 x 500 fsb! Stays cools too even on the stock Intel HSF. All I had to was disable the Asus Q-Fan Control in BIOS and the CPU fan just runs over 2,000 RPM full-time and it's 37 C idle 58 full load on P95. Amazing processor!

Wow... stock Intel cooler... Lucky for you then... Mine was keeping my cpu at 3 ghz at a cool 65c on 60% load... and the thermal paste was @#$%. Also took me four hours carefully prying it out since somehow I accadentally broke the springs... Then switched to a cheap rosewill and now at full load (4.2 ghz) it stays under 50c.

 

[Helloworld_98]

720 BE does cost less.......

but to be honest the only cpu's you should think about in your price range are;

720 BE
Q6700
940 BE

 

[longtom33]

Lol. I have been researching vigourosly, and now stuck again.
My new things I'm tossing up between: E8400, Q9550 (or Q9400, much worse?), 720BE.
...this always happens haha

The 720BE looks tempting coz AMD mobos are cheaper, and I was looking at the Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P licking my lips, it seems to satisfy all my needs.

However, I'm also aware that not many games fully utilize 4 (or 3) cores, making the E8400 the straightforward choice.

I guess here's the question I'm asking myself: Is it worth going up to a 3/4 core, or sticking with 2-core atm (since they OC like crazy)??

Keep the thoughts coming guys, I am really valuing your input

Tom

 

[jamoramaJAM]

Lol. I have been researching vigourosly, and now stuck again.
My new things I'm tossing up between: E8400, Q9550 (or Q9400, much worse?), 720BE.
...this always happens haha

The 720BE looks tempting coz AMD mobos are cheaper, and I was looking at the Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P licking my lips, it seems to satisfy all my needs.

However, I'm also aware that not many games fully utilize 4 (or 3) cores, making the E8400 the straightforward choice.

I guess here's the question I'm asking myself: Is it worth going up to a 3/4 core, or sticking with 2-core atm (since they OC like crazy)??

Keep the thoughts coming guys, I am really valuing your input

Tom

Well... If you want my opinion... get either the E8400, Q6600, Q9400, or AMD's Phenom II x4 920/940. In truth, other than gaming, everything else about quad cores improve in performance. Multitasking (Specially on cpu-heavy apps), compressing/decompressing, etc. If you really are willing to go into the 200 dollar or so range, you should take them into consideration. In truth, quad cores do 3ghz easily, and some even more, so you aren't losing much OC power.

That said, I would probably go with AMD Quad, if you are strictly considering cpu power for the price. It's a fairly new processor, so it should have "better technology" There is much more compatability now than there was before that these new phenoms are pretty good. Although I had troubles finding a good motherboard, it may be different now(It's been a few months...). If you want quad, get the Phenom 920 + the motherboard of your choice. BUT, it is possible that the motherboard you pick does not support the new phenoms out of the box, and need a bios update. Sometimes, this would require another cpu to update the bios... That was the main reason why I stuck to Intel's Dual core line.

Really, there are no disadvantages of going quad, just advantages are limited. If you want to spend the extra 45 dollars or so, it would be a nice choice.

About the 720BE, it wouldn't make sense to go with 3 cores. It sorta makes me wonder why they had it in the first place, knowing that it is potentially 4 cores. People have unlocked it, and gotton performance increases, but it is likely it will get fixed soon, and potentially cause problems. It was rumored that AMD disabled 1 core because it is not "good enough for 4 cores". Anyways, it may be just bs that was made up, but it just doesn't make sense why not to go 4 cores...

BTW, to anyone who thinks I am contradicting myself with above posts, I was talking about the price range Tom was in(and his needs).

 

[jamoramaJAM]

What is your price range, btw?

Here's a pretty good outline by jsv35 of computer builds (gaming is probably the highest priority)
http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/172986.aspx