Xeon X3210 or the E8400

[alfa147x]

Yeah im still looking for a CPU...
So I since im a Intel fan and found out that intel has a low end quad core CPU i think i have to choose between it and the E8400 New Poll thanks for the help
Also how do I know if an application supports 4 cores, I found out that F@H does



I was on newegg and i saw the AMD Phenom 9500 Agena should i go with this quad or the Intel E8500?

I will be doing VERY little gaming. i will be doing photoshop, autodesk inventor, and the normal web surfing, office, ect...

Edit:

Oh
i just read this

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
If you will get the penryns, get the E8400... I don't understand why people are getting the E8500... You shell out almost $100 more for a .5 bump in multiplier.

what does he\she mean .5 bump? Does this mean i can get the e8400 and overclock it a bit and get the same power as the e8500

edit:
ok i just found out that the e8500 is not in budget

sorry if I have to many questions, i just dont want F*ck up and regret it later (this is my upgrade from my amd 1500+) now im looking at the E8400
thanks!

 

[CTho9305]

Do you currently have a motherboard/RAM that you could/would use with the new CPU?

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Do you currently have a motherboard/RAM that you could/would use with the new CPU?

Lol i wish, Im running a 2.16 macbook and a AMD 1500+ with 512 ram and a 40gb hdd

 

[bryanW1995]

If you're not concerned about power/heat, buy a Q6600 now. If you ARE concerned about power/heat, buy a Q9300 in a month when they come out. both are much better than agena and should serve you well for your 3-4 year upgrade cycle (based upon your 1500+). The e8500 is certainly speedy but that .5 ghz speed bump can always be overcome with overclocking while you'll need to buy a new cpu to get the extra cores.

 

[Nessism]

I'm a cheap mofo and picked up a 9500/ecs motherboard combo from Fry's for $220 to do video editing work. The 9500 does not overclock enough to matter so using a non overclocking board like the ecs is a good match. Been using it since Christmas and the system works like a champ - video editing speed is soooo much faster than my old A64 3700+ processor it's unbelievable.

Bottom line is I'd say go with the quad if you want video crunching power, not sure how that relates to Photoshop though. For general usage though, a fast dual core would be a better way to go since the extra cores will not come into play.

Good luck.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

The .5 bump means that the speed is slightly higher on the E8500... If you OC, they can both reach around the same speed.

For intel, processor speed is determined like

mutiplier x FSB = speed

The E8500 and E8400 have 1333 FSB (333MHz x 4)
The E8500 has a multi of 9.5
The E8400 has a multi of 9.0

SO at default speeds, 9 x 333 is 3Ghz for the E8400
9.5 x 333 is 3.16Ghz for the E8500

Did I mention the E8500 is $80 more expensive than the E8400?

EDIT: Awesome! I got quoted! I feel important.

 

[Keysplayr]

7 votes for a 9500. why? No explainations? Better price/performance? No clue. Please elaborate.
And to the OP: IF you decide Intel, the E8400 is about 80 bucks cheaper for a 160MHz loss. Better buy than a 8500.
I see some people recommending the 8400 at least, and a reason why.

 

[Extelleron]

Assuming that you are comparing the E8400 and Phenom 9500, which are both in the same price range, they both have their advantages.

The Phenom 9500 will be faster with both CPUs @ stock when running apps that take advantage of quad-cores.

The E8400 will be much faster in applications that only use 2 or fewer cores.

The E8400 will be the better option overall if you're overclocking - it's an easy 4GHz in almost evey case so far, meanwhile you have to fight with the 9500 to get 2.5-2.6GHz.

 

[exar333]

Get a Q6600 quad and set for a good while.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Get a Q6600 quad and set for a good while.

Yup thats not in budget

 

[RaptureMe]

I say no to the E8400 or E8500.
I would get a Intel Q6600 or the AMD 9500 both are good despite what some will say.
They are both quads and will pretty much future proof you for the next couple years.
Dont be a cheapo and only get a dual core when you sooner then later are going to need all four of those cores.
"It will either go like this" you are going to thank your self when your running your new shiny quad system and you notice there is no lagging when running those multi apps and doing everyday tasks are super speedy.
"Or Like this" you will be kicking your self in the ass and saying to your self why oh why didnt I get that quad when I had the chance.
This lag is killing me...
The choice is yours make the right one and get a quad !!

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Assuming that you are comparing the E8400 and Phenom 9500, which are both in the same price range, they both have their advantages.

The Phenom 9500 will be faster with both CPUs @ stock when running apps that take advantage of quad-cores.

The E8400 will be much faster in applications that only use 2 or fewer cores.

The E8400 will be the better option overall if you're overclocking - it's an easy 4GHz in almost evey case so far, meanwhile you have to fight with the 9500 to get 2.5-2.6GHz.

How do you know what apps will use all 4 cores?

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
The .5 bump means that the speed is slightly higher on the E8500... If you OC, they can both reach around the same speed.

For intel, processor speed is determined like

mutiplier x FSB = speed

The E8500 and E8400 have 1333 FSB (333MHz x 4)
The E8500 has a multi of 9.5
The E8400 has a multi of 9.0

SO at default speeds, 9 x 333 is 3Ghz for the E8400
9.5 x 333 is 3.16Ghz for the E8500

Did I mention the E8500 is $80 more expensive than the E8400?

EDIT: Awesome! I got quoted! I feel important.

Sweet thanks for the help, im kinda swaying towards the E8400 and overclocking it a tad

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
I say no to the E8400 or E8500.
I would get a Intel Q6600 or the AMD 9500 both are good despite what some will say.
They are both quads and will pretty much future proof you for the next couple years.
Dont be a cheapo and only get a dual core when you sooner then later are going to need all four of those cores.
"It will either go like this" you are going to thank your self when your running your new shiny quad system and you notice there is no lagging when running those multi apps and doing everyday tasks are super speedy.
"Or Like this" you will be kicking your self in the ass and saying to your self why oh why didnt I get that quad when I had the chance.
This lag is killing me...
The choice is yours make the right one and get a quad !!

I dont want to spend the extra 75$ for a quad.
Iv already stretched my budget enough

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=27&threadid=2144683

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Assuming that you are comparing the E8400 and Phenom 9500, which are both in the same price range, they both have their advantages.

The Phenom 9500 will be faster with both CPUs @ stock when running apps that take advantage of quad-cores.

The E8400 will be much faster in applications that only use 2 or fewer cores.

The E8400 will be the better option overall if you're overclocking - it's an easy 4GHz in almost evey case so far, meanwhile you have to fight with the 9500 to get 2.5-2.6GHz.

How do you know what apps will use all 4 cores?

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
The .5 bump means that the speed is slightly higher on the E8500... If you OC, they can both reach around the same speed.

For intel, processor speed is determined like

mutiplier x FSB = speed

The E8500 and E8400 have 1333 FSB (333MHz x 4)
The E8500 has a multi of 9.5
The E8400 has a multi of 9.0

SO at default speeds, 9 x 333 is 3Ghz for the E8400
9.5 x 333 is 3.16Ghz for the E8500

Did I mention the E8500 is $80 more expensive than the E8400?

EDIT: Awesome! I got quoted! I feel important.

Sweet thanks for the help, im kinda swaying towards the E8400 and overclocking it a tad

The easiest way would be to look at benchmarks and see if the quad-core chips outperform the dual-core CPUs at the same clockspeed.

Here's some examples from Techreport's Phenom review:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13633/9

In Photoshop you don't see any gains by quad-core processors.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13633/13

Then there's apps like F@H where you see huge gains from QC, and a 2.3GHz Phenom 9600 is close to 2X the performance of a 2.66GHz E6750.

In gaming, QC makes little difference except in a few games such as Supreme Commander, Lost Planet, and UT3.

Whether Quad-core makes sense for you really depends on what you do. If you're into F@H, 3D Rendering, video encoding, etc, then you're better off going with the Phenom 9500. If you are only going to use 2 cores, then you'd be better with the E8400.

 

[imported_Iketh]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The E8400 will be the better option overall if you're overclocking - it's an easy 4GHz in almost evey case so far, meanwhile you have to fight with the 9500 to get 2.5-2.6GHz.

No sir, u dont fight up to 2.6, u fight to reach 2.7+ and that's because of immature bioses

everything is stock for my 2.57 overclock except the .1v cpu increase <------- that's 2 settings for the o/c

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Iketh

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The E8400 will be the better option overall if you're overclocking - it's an easy 4GHz in almost evey case so far, meanwhile you have to fight with the 9500 to get 2.5-2.6GHz.

No sir, u dont fight up to 2.6, u fight to reach 2.7+ and that's because of immature bioses

everything is stock for my 2.57 overclock except the .1v cpu increase <------- that's 2 settings for the o/c

And 2.57 vs over 4 ghz ? It can almost equal the quad even if you had smp software that uses 4 threads. And I think the 8400 is faster per clock, so maybe they are equal.

 

[imported_Iketh]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
In gaming, QC makes little difference except in a few games such as Supreme Commander, Lost Planet, and UT3.

be sure u add FSX in there, that's a huge one... it happily pegs all 4 cores in large cities

 

[imported_Iketh]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And 2.57 vs over 4 ghz ? It can almost equal the quad even if you had smp software that uses 4 threads. And I think the 8400 is faster per clock, so maybe they are equal.

something tells me OP wont be overclocking... and if he/she does, would you rather have a much more stressed dual running all the time or a slightly o/c quad??

 

[Mondoman]

Back in your other thread, you seem to have forgotten to include a power supply & video card in your budget. I'd just get an e2160 now (easy OC to 3GHz on 1333MHz FSB with stock CPU cooler) and in a year or two upgrade that to a quad-core. No reason for you to spend an extra $140 on an e8400 for just a modest performance boost, especially with your *extremely* tight budget.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

The mondoman speaks truth.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

I dont want to spend the extra 75$ for a quad.
Iv already stretched my budget enough

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=27&threadid=2144683

X2 5200+ Brisbane 2.7GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W
Promo Code
EMCABBHCA
$109.99
Your Price: $104.99

MSI K9A2 Platinum AM2+/AM2 AMD 790FX
Promo Code
EMCABBHBC
$179.99
Your Price: $164.99


I went with the 790FX instead of the MSI K9A2 CF-F AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X for $106 because I'm not really sure what your budget is anymore.

With PS you should be more concerned with your RAM and disk I/O. Clock speed always helps but +RAM and multiple HDDs (for data, textures, scratch) is the ticket ...

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Iketh

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And 2.57 vs over 4 ghz ? It can almost equal the quad even if you had smp software that uses 4 threads. And I think the 8400 is faster per clock, so maybe they are equal.

something tells me OP wont be overclocking... and if he/she does, would you rather have a much more stressed dual running all the time or a slightly o/c quad??

LOL I like how you try to spin your Phenom sucking at overclocking as a positive!

An E8400 @ 4GHz wouldn't be any more 'stressed' than your Phenom. Both chips would be running close to the limits. It just happens that the limit for the E8400 is around 4GHz, whilst your Phenom is around 2.6GHz. Just because the overclock is huge doesn't make it 'stressful'. It's called headroom, and the E8400 has heaps, whilst your Phenom has little.

 

[magreen]

Well I for one would rather have a KIA that can do a much more relaxed 90mph than a Ferrari that has to be stressed to run at 180mph.

 

[aigomorla]

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php...d9ad6cdb50b9b57639e771

here 227 dollar Kentsfield good to go on LGA775 boards. Xeon X3210 uses an 8x multi instead of 9x multi.

Thats if you need a quadcore, and are heavy into encoding or multi threaded aps. And yes this will pwn a phenom expecially overclocked.

8x400 ~ 3.2ghz with decient cooling is most definitely possible on this chip.

 

[alfa147x]

Im not a big fan of AMD i rather have an Intel ...

But performance will overcome fanboyism

any intel chip that can do this?