Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anybody use or like Q8200 quad ? ( versus E7400 duo )

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Quad
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2009 8:59:08 AM

How Well does Q8200 perform multiple & simultaneous tasks like combinations of :
Multi-Vid or sound play / WordP / DVD ripping / Spreadsheet / Photoedit / Websurf / CAD ?

Building a new system, can't spend more on CPU than cost of either Q8200 quad or E7400 duo (both around $120 AR) Some have told me that the quad-core multithread capability does NOT apply to most of the above-mentioned tasks, ...and that it only applies to specialized software made for multi-core CPU's .... is that your experience ??

Q8200 is kinda low Ghz @ 2.33 (though apparently can easily be O'C to 2.8 ) ... E7400 can easily O'C to 3.5, so if the Quad doesn't really make a noticeable difference (under heavy multi-App usage) then i'd go w/ the duo core instead.

VidCard will be 4770 Radeon (for the DDR 5 bandwidth)

More about : q8200 quad versus e7400 duo

June 12, 2009 9:31:35 AM

im using a q8200 oc'd to 3.04ghz. cant seem to get past that barrier. haha
June 12, 2009 9:59:57 AM

Actually tom's hardware had an article comparing the d8200 to the phenom 2 x2 and the pentium dual core e6 series as well as the e7400 (i think anyways the phenom 2 x2 is better than the e7 series so you can use that for comparison) the q8200 was not very good for apps and games that relied on cpu speed and clock frequency however for several productivity tasks and synthetic benchmarks it did pretty well however these tasks involved mostly video editing and encoding and and some sound editing,for the things you listed the e7 series will give you some better performance in many of the things you do however the Q8200 is very much capable of holding it's own with the e7400 and in some cases it will give you better performance than the e7400. I prefer the e7400 series because it is more over clocker friendly and already comes with a better core operating frequency and just 1mb less of cache,but it's up to you both chips will do the job fine
June 12, 2009 12:02:10 PM

Haven't read other's posts but my friend is using one at the moment... going to his house soon to help him OC it in fact :D  But I don't like the low stock clockspeed of it and the low multiplier. And it runs very hot for him too, I'm gonna install a Zalman cooler for him... hope I don't botch the job :sweat: 
June 12, 2009 12:48:30 PM

rooseveltdon: Because i'm a consistently heavy multi-app user, i'm hoping the Quad cores will be more important than the higher stock speed of the Duo 7400.

That extra 1 Gig of Cache has Gotta make a difference when i'm in the middle of ripping/writing files/DVDs at the same time as unspooling multiple huge Word/Office type files, and playing audio (tunes) to boot.


XenonVector9: yeah, that low stock speed (2.33) is troubling ... a lot of Newegg reviews claim that 2.8 GHZ is a sweet spot (w/o increasing voltage) for long-term stability.
Is your friends ALREADY running Hot withOUT any O'C ?? What MoBo does he have ?

I'm leaning towards Asus P5Q SE PLUS (w/ Radeon 4770)
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2009 12:50:19 PM

The Q8200 will have less cache than an E7400, because each of the Q8200 dual core, can only access 2mb of cache. Think of Q8200 as two E5200 running at 2.3ghz (333 x 7). An E7400, would have 3mb of cache and faster clock speed, making it a better deal, when it comes to general usage and gaming.

If you plan on CAD, then a quad would work better in the long run for you.

Your problem is, you're building a new system right before a new socket. If I were you, I'd spend only about $150 - $200 on a cheap socket 775 motherboard, E5x00, and cheap DDR2 memory. Use that until September, when the mainstream Lynnfield quad core is released. Move up to that platform and be happy.

Alternatively, if you stretch your budget to $500 for CPU/Mobo/Memory. You can get an i7 setup.

MSI X58M - $170 (Newegg)
DDR3 1333mhz 3x1gig - $34 (Newegg)
i7 920 - $230 (Microcenter), $280 (Newegg)

Don't worry about the small memory amount, this is just so you are close to your build budget initially. Just get your foot in the door of an i7 build. You can get more memory later, when you have the money or even better when prices of DDR3 drops even more.
June 12, 2009 1:24:50 PM

SatNav said:
rooseveltdon: Because i'm a consistently heavy multi-app user, i'm hoping the Quad cores will be more important than the higher stock speed of the Duo 7400.

That extra 1 Gig of Cache has Gotta make a difference when i'm in the middle of ripping/writing files/DVDs at the same time as unspooling multiple huge Word/Office type files, and playing audio (tunes) to boot.


XenonVector9: yeah, that low stock speed (2.33) is troubling ... a lot of Newegg reviews claim that 2.8 GHZ is a sweet spot (w/o increasing voltage) for long-term stability.
Is your friends ALREADY running Hot withOUT any O'C ?? What MoBo does he have ?

I'm leaning towards Asus P5Q SE PLUS (w/ Radeon 4770)

Make sure that the mobo you buy has support for 1600MHz FSB so that you have headroom for overclocking, which may be neccesary depending on your requirements. Yeah, I was suprised too considering that it was 45nm. Temps were in the 70s on load and nearly into 80s, which was troubling... he replaced the HSF and thermal paste 5 times apparently too :??: 
Oh, and it's an extra 1MB. If it was a GB, I'm sure it would be very popular. Unfourtunately from what I have read, after a certain point, cache doesn't make a very big difference. In saying that, though, I am running an E2200 which has 1MB of cache, but I'm making up for that with a higher clockspeed. flyin15sec is correct, if I were you I would wait until Lynnfield or just get your foot in the door of i7. Great ideas. Although apparently Lynnfields can't OC AT ALL! Apparently there is a lack of a Northbridge, so you cannot increase FSB. So no doubt Intel will make a bundle from that because people like me who bought budget chips to OC will be forced to buy i7 for ANY OCing at all! This whole thing pisses me off and Intel is just getting greedy now and is betraying a lot of customers. I would rather a more expensive platform (i7) that I can OC than a cheaper one stuck at stock clockspeeds. *Sigh*
June 12, 2009 2:39:07 PM

SatNav said:
rooseveltdon: Because i'm a consistently heavy multi-app user, i'm hoping the Quad cores will be more important than the higher stock speed of the Duo 7400.

That extra 1 Gig of Cache has Gotta make a difference when i'm in the middle of ripping/writing files/DVDs at the same time as unspooling multiple huge Word/Office type files, and playing audio (tunes) to boot.


XenonVector9: yeah, that low stock speed (2.33) is troubling ... a lot of Newegg reviews claim that 2.8 GHZ is a sweet spot (w/o increasing voltage) for long-term stability.
Is your friends ALREADY running Hot withOUT any O'C ?? What MoBo does he have ?

I'm leaning towards Asus P5Q SE PLUS (w/ Radeon 4770)


the extra mb of cache won't make much of a difference considering the fact that the chip would still operate at a much slower frequency than the E7400,the four cores will be helpful in some apps but at stock speed you would be better served sticking with the e7400. The q8200 is also not very good at over clocking if you are lucky you might get to 3.0 ghz or so....i would wait for the lynnfield but if you can't wait then try and save some money and get a faster quad core
June 12, 2009 2:58:16 PM

rooseveltdon said:
the extra mb of cache won't make much of a difference considering the fact that the chip would still operate at a much slower frequency than the E7400,the four cores will be helpful in some apps but at stock speed you would be better served sticking with the e7400. The q8200 is also not very good at over clocking if you are lucky you might get to 3.0 ghz or so....i would wait for the lynnfield but if you can't wait then try and save some money and get a faster quad core

Thanks for rewording what SatNav and I have said. Real helpful... :sarcastic: 
!