E8400 vs E8500/E8600?

[slaponte]

Hi. Reading around the forum, and looking at my MOBO (Abit AW9D) I got the general suggestion that the E8400 was a good upgrade for my use (gaming). The Mobo supports it. I currently have an E6700.

My question is : the post was old (June 2009) and I see an E8500 and also an E8600 on PriceWatch.

Any particular reasons why the E8400 is recommended (vs the other two)? Or for $10 diff I should just go with the E8500? I was just wandering if there was any particular reason or just the best bang/buck equation.

I think it is a good upgrade for my rig (at a moderate cost). Thanks for any opinions.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

For $10 more get the higher binned E8500 for even higher overclocks (well maybe not much higher but better chances of stability at 4 Ghz).

 

[loneninja]

A year ago there use to be a larger price difference between the E8400 and E8500, if it's only $10 you might as well get the E8500, especially if you don't overclock.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

The E8400 can overclock to 4ghz+ very easily and even though the E8500 and E8600 can go a little higher usually if the MB/Ram can handle it the E8400 was so popular because it was the best "bang for your buck" chip.

Your MB may support the E8xxx series but it is a 975 chipset that was orignally designed with 65nm CPUs in mind. The E8xxx series are 45nm and likely will not overclock well in the older board.

If I was you I would buy an aftermarket cooler and overclock the E6700 and not waste money on the newer chip that you can not really take advantage of. At most with stock clocks you will only see a mild gain. Also LGA775 is dead tech. Save money and build an i5/i7 .

 

[slaponte]

I don't usually overclock, so I could run the 8400 or 8500 as is. I just want to get another year out of this rig before doing a new mobo/cpu revamp next year. To me (and we all have diff positions) spending $140 and getting another year out of the rig seems reasonable.

So if the money is right there are no tech diffs. Cool. I will just set my eyes out on a deal and see what comes up in the next two weeks. I am patient.

For next year I will plan on the i7 if the prices are in my range.

 

[saaiello]

go for the E8400 its a great processor i run an E8200 Overclocked to 3.8ghz stable and its very powerful handles anything i throw at it with relative ease.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

I love my E8400 and it is an overclocking champ.......however on an old MB with limited overclocking or at stock clocks I couldnt justify the money myself.

My advice? If you are set on upgrading get a Q6600 off E-Bay and an aftermarket cooler with LGA775 and newer support that you can reuse on the next build and overclock that. You are for sure going to need latest BIOS for the new 45nm E8400 to work with your old MB.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/compare,836.html?prod%5B2185%5D=on&prod%5B2199%5D=on

 

[slaponte]

Please, my question is directed at learning and not disagreement.

Why a quad 6600 for $120 to $150 (around that on eBay) vs the E8500 (around $155 new) if either one will be replaced next year? I don't think the games are going to run any better on the quad (vs some improvement on the E8500)... I run XP Pro, browser, iTunes, and mostly games (GW, RoM, etc...). Won't I have a bunch of quad just sittinf around?

And yes I have latest Bios and I don't plan to overclock, maybe a wee bit, just maybe...

 

[slaponte]

While on the topic... (on the E8500)

Abit lists the Rev C0 (SLAPK) as tested OK but the Rev E0 (SLB9K) as in testing. Is an old motherboard so I don't have any hopes this will change in the future.

Am I running a risk going with an E0? Anybody know the difference between them?

 

[singingigo]

In general, later revisions will not be a problem. If you are like me, and don't have the time or patience to mess around with overclocking, I would buy the E8500. If there was a big price difference, I'd say get the E8400, but for $10, it's worth it.

Quads are nice, however: 1. You are running Windows XP. Windows XP can handle dual/triple/quad, but Vista/7 does it better, especially with 3+ cores. 2. The apps you list probably won't improve that much with more cores, but they will improve with higher clock speeds. Thus, E8400/E8500 would be preferable to a Q6xxx.

One other thought: If you are like me and have your computer on ALL day (12+ hours), the E8500 will save you a decent about of money over the course of a year on your energy bill vs. E6xxx/Q6xxx.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Please, my question is directed at learning and not disagreement.

Why a quad 6600 for $120 to $150 (around that on eBay) vs the E8500 (around $155 new) if either one will be replaced next year? I don't think the games are going to run any better on the quad (vs some improvement on the E8500)... I run XP Pro, browser, iTunes, and mostly games (GW, RoM, etc...). Won't I have a bunch of quad just sittinf around?

And yes I have latest Bios and I don't plan to overclock, maybe a wee bit, just maybe...

My point as the chart in my last post shows.....is that unless you are going to overclock to 4ghz+ there is no way I could justify spending any money on upgrading the still pretty decent E6700 with only a newer dual core. Since your motherboard is likely not capable of taking advantage of the amazing overclocking of the E8xxx series I would do as I stated above. Get a good aftermarket heatsink and overclock the E6700 and save money for an i5/i7 system.

Compare the benchmarks at stock speeds and you will see very little gain.

I am not trying to be disagreeable I am trying to help you get the most for your money.

I recommended the older Q6600 because your motherboard was designed for that generation of chips and it will likely overclock the older 65nm chips better than the newer 45nm generation.

If you are going to get one and not overclock then for sure spen the extra $10 on an E8500.

While on the topic... (on the E8500)

Abit lists the Rev C0 (SLAPK) as tested OK but the Rev E0 (SLB9K) as in testing. Is an old motherboard so I don't have any hopes this will change in the future.

Am I running a risk going with an E0? Anybody know the difference between them?

The E0 is the newer revision and will overclock better.