E8400 or E7600, No OC! Which is good & why?

Aneesh@4GHz

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2009
806
0
19,010
hi guys,


Which one is good,Core 2 duo e8400 or Core 2 Duo e7600.E7600has high clock but lower cache only 3mb ,e8400has 6mb of cache and 1333fsb.Which one is good and is there any use for high amount of cache?

Thanks!
 

Aneesh@4GHz

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2009
806
0
19,010



Cheaper one?Both of this have a small difference in price at my place.Thats why i am in trouble.I dont want to oc because i dont need to kill the warranty!
 
If you're not overclocking it, the E7600 will be faster, the higher clock speed is more beneficial than the extra 3MB of L2 apart from gaming, where the cache helps a lot, and WinRAR compression.

Here is a comparison on AnandTech, between the E7500 and E8300, which have 100MHz difference, while there is a 67Mhz difference between the E7600 and E8400. Thus the performance difference between the E7600 and E8400 will be smaller, but bear in mind that the E7600 will cost $23 USD less at newegg:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/87?vs=57

But if you can get them for the same price, or may plan to overclock in the future, get the E8400 instead.
 


The slightly higher clock speed will help more in most applications, except games where large caches help, as well as things like WinRAR compression.

 

werxen

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,331
0
19,310


I agree with you, however, the cache makes the difference. You will notice differences in the FPS in some games... not from the .06 speed diff though.
 

jj555298

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2008
56
0
18,640
More cache is better, especially when you're talking about clock speeds that close together. The e8400 is the better processor any way you look at it. The only thing that matters is how much you want to spend and what you'll be doing with it. If you have the money go for the e8400, if you want to save a little get the e7600. I honestly don't think most people would see much of a difference between the two though.
 
0.06GHz does make a performance difference - look at the difference between the E7500 and E8300, which have a 0.1GHz difference, I'd say the majority the E7500 beat the E8300, and only the large cache helped in games and things of the sort. 0.06GHz is a bit over half of 0.1GHz, thus the performance difference will be smaller, but there will still be a performance difference in favour of the E7600. If he were to overclock, I'd definitely recommend the E8400, but considering he's not - the E7600 is a better choice.

The E7500 vs E8300 benchmark:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/57?vs=87
 

Uhhh... fail? In that benchmark there appears to be hardly any difference. The things the E7500 does beat the 0.1GHz slower E8300 in is by 6.6%. And that is only in one test. The others where the E7500 wins is 2% or less.
Alternatively, negating games, the E8300 wins by a greater margin in the tests that are not close.
There is a 3.5% clockspeed difference between the two. Therefore, there would be about a 2.5% clockspeed difference if the E8300 were upped to make the difference between the two 0.06MHz. This actually seems to negate or tie the majority of tests performed with the E7500 being faster.
 

werxen

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,331
0
19,310
This is such a dumb thread at this point... we all know the E8400 rapes the other processor but if the guy does not play games or encode/photoshop a lot then the E7600 will suffice UNLESS there is a very slim price difference.