Anyone bought one of the new Wolfdales yet? I'm looking into either of these when I jump over to Intel and with a price difference of £22 I'm trying to decide which to chose (hey, every penny counts) I'm looking into overclocking when I do get it and have read online the E8200 can get to 4GHz stable and the E8400 to 4.4GHz stable (Both on air with possibly more to go). That's quite a significant jump from stock which I would be more than happy with. So, anyone got any advice or even one of the CPU's? I was also looking into the Scythe Infinity to keep it cool. I know results may vary
I'd imagine that the limiting factor would be the maximum FSB that you can reach with your motherboard with these chips, making the 8400 the better choice (as it has a higher multiplier).
I have a e8500 but cannot get 4GHz I can lower multipier to 8 and then go to 480MHz, but it is not stable.. can saome help me?
my e8500 its pretty ok, sometimes motherboard can slow you down with oc... mine is not taht great... EDIT: I have matx mobo.. they not so great in oc
Don't take this the wrong way guys, but why not get the new Energy Efficient Q6600 for the same price as an E8400 for some Quad-core goodness?
personally, I don't want to go quadcore at the moment, I wont ever use it, when I will be in need of quadcore the Q6600 will be outclassed and people will be buying new quads. Or at least that is the way I see it. Either way, I wanna get an E8400
I think there is no point going for quad now.. litle or no use of it.... I'll wait for Nehalem and get one in 2009
the q6600 is ace! i have mine overclocked to 3.4Ghz 24/7, and i can overclock to 4Ghz with some better RAM. i don't see any reason to go back to dual core now, just look at how fast encoding is, and i can compile in VMware (allocated 2 cores, compiling some code) while gaming in UT3 without even a single frame skipped.
yeah I dont do any of that stuff. The most multi tasking I will do is listen to music while playing games and even that is a rare occasion. I was going to go for a Q6600 but I just don't need to.
I have the same problem here. Not sure if there's a point going quad core now simply because most of the games (this is the main use for me) and apps (maybe apart from video editing ones) don't use more than 2 cores and usually even less I was so stupid. I had a nice E6600 that I decided to sell to get E8400. The problem is that I didn't check if they were in stock when I sold my E6600. And obviously they are not. So now I am considering either going E2160 route to wait a few months for E8xxx series or getting a nice Q6600 quad that are widely available under £150 and forget about changing my CPU for a bit longer. But as I mentioned before I just don't see too much point in getting a quad apart from the sake of having one. As far as I know not all of E8xxxs are great overclockers. A lot depends on the production batch. Lots of people report speeds over 4GHz with insane voltage around 1.5-1.6V which maybe a safe range for older 65nm processor but it is way too much for the new 45nm family. As for 8200 - it has x8 multiplier so you have to bear in mind that to get past 4GHz you need a board that won't have problems with 500plusMHz FSB.
Very true. If you look at the results in the HD x264 benchmark data, really, any 45 nm C2D will more or less score the same. In other words, an E8200 and an E8400 both clocked at the same core speed are more or less equal. Same is true for an Allendale and Conroe chip. You're spending the extra money on the higher available multiplier as oasked pointed out. Hell, that's the major reason some people shell out $1,100 for an unlocked QX9650 when @ 8x333 it performs the same as a much less expensive Q9450 @8x333. Anyway, the lower the multiplier, the higher the FSB to achieve a given core rate... there is a limit to stable FSB even with the newer X38/X48 chipsets. Sorry, that was a complex reply to a simple question. If you want the higher overclocks, use the chip with the larger multiplier as a general rule of thumb.
Ive got the e8200 at 3.4ghz, and it does everything I need, I have had it at 3.6, but I have to loosen up the ram timings, and I end up with more or less the same performance and occasionally worse. But really do we need more than 3.4ghz/3.6ghz for everyday usage, I read somewhere (either here on toms or another place) not long ago that after overclocks of more than 3.6ghz on the wolfdales the performance boost wasnt worth the extra heat and power used.
I have the E8400, but haven't installed it yet as the hardware isn't going into the case until I've done a few things to it. It will likely be the second computer I've overclocked, but first real serious attempt and with watercooling. I looked at the quad 6600, but don't have need for four cores. So I feel about it the same as you, DaveVader.
