[Inpai] 4GHz E8400 VS G620/i3 2100 - Page 7 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 121 Old 11-29-2011, 08:11 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
jetpak12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 1,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Good article, especially for me on an E8500. I was going to go with Sandy, then wanted to wait to see what AMD did with Bulldozer, and now I'm looking at Ivy... sigh.. the endless cycle. rolleyes.gif

The proc is still capable, but it certainly feels its age, especially when trying to drive my 6970.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post

I wonder how the E8400 compares to the Q6600 in modern-day benchmarks. I remember back when I bought my Q6600, half the people here were saying it was a stupid idea and I should have gone with an E8400 instead because it clocks higher, quad cores aren't utilized yet, blah blah blah. Yet, here I am today, playing BF3 on max settings with a Q6600. Are E8400 users doing that?

I'll let you know once my copy of BF3 arrives in the mail! thumb.gif When I got my E8500, I remember wanted to go quad, and hearing about how it was going to be utilized in the future, but I just didn't have the money for it at the time.

4 Million+ Folding at Home points  Chimp Challenge Participant  BOINC Pentathlon Participant x3 

jetpak12 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 121 Old 11-29-2011, 09:42 PM
News Fiend
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oregon's Wild Rivers Coast
Posts: 3,287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 209
My situation:

E8400 @ 3.9Ghz
HD 5870 2GB
1920x1080 res

BF3 is the first game I have not been able to run to my satisfaction. (ie, max settings and solid 60FPS with vsync on)

Which is why I'm looking for my NewEgg box an day now with an i5 2500k and Asus z68 pro inside.thumb.gif Xmas comes early this year!

The JEEP club O||||O

The Web puts all of the world's knowledge at our fingertips; unfortunately it's mixed up with all of the world's crap.
Mjolnir is offline  
post #63 of 121 Old 11-29-2011, 10:54 PM
News Fiend
 
7heMy7h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13

It's definitely feeling a little dated now, but for as old as it is I'm surprised how well it can cope with everything.  Haven't run into any games yet where I really was wishing I had gone quad, except maybe BF3.  Think I'll hang onto this a while longer.  Too pricey for me to upgrade right now anyway.  Unfortunately paying for college has to come before shiny things. frown.gif  


7heMy7h is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 121 Old 11-29-2011, 11:22 PM
[A]bort,[R]etry,[I]gnore?
 
allikat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Southwestern UK
Posts: 6,361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Using the Anand comparison, with a PhenomII x4 980, as the nearest to my 4GHz quad, things don't look so good. Most of the results look very similar.
Sadly, with limited finances, this doesn't look like a direct upgrade, more like a sidegrade for me. Now if there was a K series i3, now that would be worth buying.

I also disapprove of Intel almost entirely banning BCLK clocking, I may have a BE, but I am running stock multiplier right now, with a 253MHz clock.. I like the complexity of balancing clock and multi to get the best performance. Multi only clocking is too much like easy mode.

Quotage is Epic (Click to show)
Quote:
Why do I have 6 monitors? Because I don't have room for 8. (Terry Pratchett)

Chimp Challenge Participant  BOINC Pentathlon Participant  

allikat is offline  
post #65 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 12:05 AM
8200RPM HDD Overclockz!
 
SgtSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by losttsol View Post

I agree with you Manyak, the old school stuff was more fun. I did a Pentium M pin mod on my laptop. Cut a tiny piece of wire in the shape of a U and had it connecting two socket holes. Then put my CPU in the socket. Made the chip go from 1.6GHz to 2.13GHz instantly by tricking it to run a 133MHz FSB instead of 100MHz. That was much more rewarding than hitting a Turbo button in Windows.
Heh, I so did the same thing. Except my chip was 1.73 to 2.25ghz. Thing got pretty hot at times, but ironically, my newer laptop with a dual-core AMD @ 2.0 ghz gets way hotter.

Laptops are the future of difficult/hackish overclocking then? biggrin.gif
SgtSpike is offline  
post #66 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 12:20 AM
PC Gamer
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post

I wonder how the E8400 compares to the Q6600 in modern-day benchmarks. I remember back when I bought my Q6600, half the people here were saying it was a stupid idea and I should have gone with an E8400 instead because it clocks higher, quad cores aren't utilized yet, blah blah blah. Yet, here I am today, playing BF3 on max settings with a Q6600. Are E8400 users doing that?
I'm a (now former) Core 2 Duo E8x00 user here who opted for it over a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Looking back... I'd do it all over again, seven times a week, and twice on Sunday. It worked better for me. I didn't want the extra cores. I wanted the extra speed. I figured that by time the heavy CPU stuff came around, the CPU wouldn't be that hot anymore anyway. I figured by time I wanted/needed more cores, I'd at least also want more IPC (and the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is already behind the Core 2 Duo E8400 there, more so when you factor in that the latter generally overclocks much higher too).

Per Battlefield 3, last I recall, any relatively decent modern CPU runs the single player portion about as well as the next. So far as multiplayer goes, it's a different story, but your claim means nothing without numbers.

"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."
Princess Garnet is offline  
post #67 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 12:27 AM
1.3ghz
 
Oedipus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 120
I hate my E8400. It overclocks like a brick.

Oedipus is offline  
post #68 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 02:26 AM
 
one-shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrbroad77 View Post

They should've tossed in an i3-530 at 4.4ghz. Pretty much a known fact that 1st gen i3's OC'd are faster than 2nd gen i3 @ stock.

A first Gen Core i3 had better be faster at 4.4 GHz that a stock 2nd Gen i3. It's also pretty much a known fact that tomorrow is going to be the day after today.
one-shot is offline  
post #69 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 09:51 AM
8200RPM HDD Overclockz!
 
SgtSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet View Post

I'm a (now former) Core 2 Duo E8x00 user here who opted for it over a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Looking back... I'd do it all over again, seven times a week, and twice on Sunday. It worked better for me. I didn't want the extra cores. I wanted the extra speed. I figured that by time the heavy CPU stuff came around, the CPU wouldn't be that hot anymore anyway. I figured by time I wanted/needed more cores, I'd at least also want more IPC (and the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is already behind the Core 2 Duo E8400 there, more so when you factor in that the latter generally overclocks much higher too).
Per Battlefield 3, last I recall, any relatively decent modern CPU runs the single player portion about as well as the next. So far as multiplayer goes, it's a different story, but your claim means nothing without numbers.
Congrats, glad it worked better for you.

What do you mean by IPC anyway? That's not a TLA I am familiar with. Something per core?

Fact of the matter is, for any modern CPU-heavy game, they're multithreaded to take advantage of 4 cores. In BF3 (who bought that game to play SP anyway? Why is SP performance even relevant then?), I run my Q6600 @ 3.0ghz and it gets around 80% usage constantly, pretty evenly across all cores. You'd have to run your E8600 @ 6.0 ghz to get the same performance (or maybe 4.8 ghz if you consider that only 80% of mine is being used, though 100% of yours would be used at that point). My only numbers I have to prove this are that I gained *around* 8 fps from overclocking my CPU from 2.4ghz to 3.0ghz. Went from around 32 fps average to around 40 fps. If that's a linear relationship (which it's not, but for the sake of argument and not knowing what the exact relationship is, we'll say that it is), your E8600 @ 4.0 ghz paired with my same video card and video settings would be getting you around 27 fps. 27 fps vs 40 fps.... hmmm...

Anyway, my point is, the Q6600 was plenty fast enough on a per-core level to run any older game that was only optimized for dual cores, while also still being fast enough to run new games optimized for quad cores like BF3. It does and will have a longer life than the older dual core processors to continue to play modern games.

Like I said, I'm glad you are happy with your decision. Sounds like you were planning to get the processor that gave you the best performance in the short run, because you knew you'd be upgrading sooner rather than later. I wanted to get the processor that would last the longest though, and definitely made the right decision there. The C2D dually's just can't compare anymore.
SgtSpike is offline  
post #70 of 121 Old 11-30-2011, 12:02 PM
1.3ghz
 
prava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ibiza, Spain.
Posts: 1,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreatsquare View Post

I guess that's why they don't let you do that. rolleyes.gif ... frown.gif
If I had a E8400 I'd still see no reason to buy a current dual core for gaming. All the FPS in those games were playable, though I'd face the fact that Ivy Bridge or Haswell is going to be the replacement.

In BF3 you really need a quad core SB to get it all out. Otherwise you have a fraction of the FPS you could have in fact.
prava is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off