Fudzilla
April 24, 2014, 02:16:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Fudzilla Forum is open
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Intel's Core 2 Duo E8500 Get's Tested  (Read 15801 times)
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« on: March 02, 2008, 01:02:49 AM »



Source -Engadget.com
March 1, 2008


"If you'll recall, we already witnessed a pre-production Wolfdale CPU outpace its competition back in August of last year, but the real deal has finally arrived. Over at Hot Hardware, the folks were able to crack open a retail Core 2 Duo E8500 processor, which comes in at 3.16GHz and features 6MB of L2 cache, a 1,333MHz FSB speed and is built on 45-nanometer technology. When put to the test, reviewers found this luscious piece of silicon to be quite the performer, noting that it was probably a better choice for gamers than a low-end quad-core chip. Still, with an expected price of just under three bills, it wasn't exactly seen as the greatest of values, but if you've got the coin and happen to fit the market, the "Recommended" badge tells you everything you need to know."

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Wolfdale/
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2008, 01:45:28 AM »

I think the e8400 is the sweet spot with people. Or it was until the price was inflated.
Goes over 4.0ghz on air. Probably do the same on the e8500.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2008, 07:08:17 AM »

I'm highly considering getting an E8500 because of the potential speeds, but I'm still waiting out for further insight on the Q9450 / Q9550 to see what would prove best for my rig.  My dream for the past two years has been to eventually have a quad core that can run stably at 4GHz 24/7.  The Q9450 seems like an ideal candidate for the task, but people are claiming that the FSB tops out at 450MHz which isn't nearly enough to give 4GHz speeds (especially with an 8x locked multiplier).  Oh well, I can only hope that Intel will step up the game and give me a quality CPU that I can rely on for the next year and a half Smiley
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 07:09:50 AM by AuDioFreaK39 » Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2008, 07:26:07 PM »

E8500 is waste of money, it does not better overclock compared to an E8400...

We have already tested them:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5871&Itemid=40

best,


Eliot
Logged
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2008, 08:11:12 PM »

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037
Much cheaper than the E6850 which I thought was wierd.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2008, 08:44:35 PM »

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037
Much cheaper than the E6850 which I thought was wierd.

As you can see from the name-scheme, the E8400 should replace the lower parts, such as E6550... there is nothing above E6850, except Extreme, but there is E8500 and there will be E8600.


best,

Eliot
Logged
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2008, 09:59:49 PM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2008, 10:52:09 PM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.
I don't see why people are picky. Well maybe its just because I don't have much money and am stuck with a Pentium D 920 Cheesy
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2008, 11:02:57 PM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.
I don't see why people are picky. Well maybe its just because I don't have much money and am stuck with a Pentium D 920 Cheesy

haha I know how that feels.  I was stuck on a Pentium 4 550 for three years until this December - switched to a $42 dollar Celeron that blows a $900 Athlon FX-57 out of the water  Cheesy  I just need that Q9450 to be perfect though for my dream to become a reality.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2008, 01:00:58 AM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.

500x8 = 4000 -> easily.


best,

Eliot
Logged
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2008, 01:49:59 AM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.

500x8 = 4000 -> easily.


best,

Eliot

How can you be so sure though with this CPU?  According to these quotes by johnny_ftm from the XtremeSystems Forums and tenax from Anandtech Forums:

======================================================

XtremeSystems.org - johnny_ftm:
"The Q9450 is 8x multi and 45nm quad cores are more FSB limited than the Kentsfield. This will give you suerely a limited OC potential. Also, while they run cooler, the finest 45nm build is more vcore sensible. The specs are now maximum 1.45v on white papers. Also, the 45nm would be more sensitive to heat+voltage combination, exactly like 65nm were to 95nm CPUs. The OC headroom for these CPUs will be bad unless you make like many people: use the Kentsfield references for volts and temperature to OC yours. There are already many feedbacks of the QX 45nm chips killed that way.

The FSB limit on retail CPUs coupled to 8x to 8.5 multi will be the major problem though."


======================================================

Anandtech Forums - tenax:
"just an fyi, read this thread..if your ultimate goal is to see if you can get 4GHz (which is my goal), i would suggest as a guy who has the cpu you want..and the board you have..and 2 gigs of memory that can easily do 500+ on stock voltage, go for the 8400..without a severe bios performance increase on the abit and watercooling, i see no way that your going to get 8 x 500 on air or maybe even watercooling as i don't think temp is any issue as i can run it at 1.3 volts and 3600 all day if i want to. and i generally concur with the opinions in this thread..that at least at this point, 478ish is where the 9450 stops dead in it's tracks..and the high pretty stable zone is 8 x 450 (i've had 8x 483 but i woudn't consider it stable for anything beyond booting into windows..as soon as you start testing stuff, it crashes) but 500 at any voltage currently is a no go..i've tried it all

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=173287

my theory is that on average, your going to see guys running the 9450 at 8 x 450 who want to overclock it on an everyday basis..

then let's talk the 9550..if i'm correct, it's going to have no more fsb potential and .5 multi so that takes us to:

3825 on the outside for those who want to run it hard everyday stable. 4,000 to shoot for bragging rights but currently, 4,000 would still appear to be a push. i think it's more likely guys who buy a 9550 are going to try for 8 x 500 and i wish them luck.

my last opinion..if i was going to spend 600 plus retail for a 9550..35, 40% more than 9450? i'd go all the way and get a qx9650 for a 1,000 and be done with it.

fyi, i run my 9450 on an htpc system with mx2 paste at 3400 everyday and it runs solid..i'm able to keep the cpu voltage just above the lowest (1.275 versus 1.235) with no other voltage increases required and my cpu fan at it's lowest speed (500-600 rpm) so my box is very quiet. i'm happy with that."
« Last Edit: March 03, 2008, 01:54:51 AM by AuDioFreaK39 » Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2008, 02:22:30 AM »

I'm still gonna wait it out for the Q9450 - I still have hopes that it will allow for 500MHz overclocks despite the unfortunate 8x multiplier  Embarrassed wish it was at least 9x.
I don't see why people are picky. Well maybe its just because I don't have much money and am stuck with a Pentium D 920 Cheesy

haha I know how that feels.  I was stuck on a Pentium 4 550 for three years until this December - switched to a $42 dollar Celeron that blows a $900 Athlon FX-57 out of the water  Cheesy  I just need that Q9450 to be perfect though for my dream to become a reality.
Yeah the Pentium D came with my crap Dell. Its really slow even though it has a high clock, pisses me off. I should upgrade to like a Core 2 Duo @ 1.8 for really cheap but im saving for a graphics card. 
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2008, 02:46:59 AM »

How can you be so sure though with this CPU?

Ups.. it's a quad Smiley
Sorry, a bit tired... mixed things up.

I think the process will be better the later the CPUs come out... but of course quads are more FSB limited compared to duals. We got 465MHz out of the QX9660 and 455MHz out of the QX9770.

So you may be right, it will not reach it... at least hopefully nobody is trying 1.70000VCore with air-cooling Cheesy


best,

Eliot.
Logged
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2008, 02:49:10 AM »

Yeah the Pentium D came with my crap Dell. Its really slow even though it has a high clock, pisses me off. I should upgrade to like a Core 2 Duo @ 1.8 for really cheap but im saving for a graphics card. 

Hmm... E21x0 are very cheap... you get 3GHz... so how much money you need to safe?  Wink


best,

Eliot.
Logged
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2008, 03:59:14 AM »

safe? you mean save? Well im trying to save for a 3850.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!