sbrehm72255
Tech Monkey
LOL......How true, what I need is to get my hands on a CPU that OC'd percentage wise like my old E4300, that little beast would do in excess of a 100% OC on the FSB and overall clock, it was a monster.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz - Wolfdale Arrives
- Thread starter Rob Williams
- Start date
Merlin
The Tech Wizard
Maybe you will win the birthday contest....and have a new toy
sbrehm72255
Tech Monkey
lol.......That would be a dream come true and keep my busy for a long time to come....................
Merlin
The Tech Wizard
LOL...Tell me about it.......Yeah, it is hard to say no when you know those chips will take you to the moon. To quote a commercial, "Overclocking is a nicotine addiction."
Slugbug is right, going broke saving money
(On computer parts)
Merlin :techgage:
sbrehm72255
Tech Monkey
R
reLoad
Guest
Even lower voltage
Hi, I don't know if your even reading this forum anymore but I managed to downgrade my voltage to 0.88 and it's now running a full 9 hours of stability with Orthos. I will upload some pictures soon.
Hi, I don't know if your even reading this forum anymore but I managed to downgrade my voltage to 0.88 and it's now running a full 9 hours of stability with Orthos. I will upload some pictures soon.
Merlin
The Tech Wizard
R
Railman
Guest
Q6600 vs E8400
I've been blinded by all the test results, but can anyone tell me which is the better CPU for dealing with photo processing, typically, loading 15MB Nikon .NEF files, rendering, editing and saving.
I've been blinded by all the test results, but can anyone tell me which is the better CPU for dealing with photo processing, typically, loading 15MB Nikon .NEF files, rendering, editing and saving.
Depends on what you are using. Our Lightroom results show that the Q6600 is about 8 seconds faster than the E8400:
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q9450_266ghz/6
If you overclocked either CPU at all though, those results would change a lot. If you overclocked the Quad-Core to 3.0GHz (which is quite easy with a decent cooler), it would blow the E8400 away.
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_quad_q9450_266ghz/6
If you overclocked either CPU at all though, those results would change a lot. If you overclocked the Quad-Core to 3.0GHz (which is quite easy with a decent cooler), it would blow the E8400 away.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Q6600 vs E8400
Sorry, forgot to mention that the photo software that I'm using is Capture NX2 (from Nikon) which, according to Nikon uses single thread and .NET. On my current machine ( an AMD Athlon 4000+) it is slow loading/rendering images that have had some post processing done on them previously. The programme is non destructive and so creates cache files storing all modifications.
I tried Lightroom but Capture NX gives superior results.
Being a 'Dumbkoft' can you explain in simplistic terms, why boosting the quad to the same clock speed as the duo would 'blow it away'. Would the result be any different if I OC the E8400 to 3.5 GHz?
My son has a Q6600 running Vista 64and overclocks it, but when we tried Capture NX on his machine, we could find no improvement in performance over my Athlon!!!. It may be that Capture isn't supported on Vista 64.
Sorry, forgot to mention that the photo software that I'm using is Capture NX2 (from Nikon) which, according to Nikon uses single thread and .NET. On my current machine ( an AMD Athlon 4000+) it is slow loading/rendering images that have had some post processing done on them previously. The programme is non destructive and so creates cache files storing all modifications.
I tried Lightroom but Capture NX gives superior results.
Being a 'Dumbkoft' can you explain in simplistic terms, why boosting the quad to the same clock speed as the duo would 'blow it away'. Would the result be any different if I OC the E8400 to 3.5 GHz?
My son has a Q6600 running Vista 64and overclocks it, but when we tried Capture NX on his machine, we could find no improvement in performance over my Athlon!!!. It may be that Capture isn't supported on Vista 64.
In using a single-threaded application, raw frequency is what's important. In the case of Capture NX, if it's single-threaded, then it doesn't matter what CPU is being used, as long as it's fast. I am still thinking a Quad-Core overclocked (or even not) would be a better idea for the long-run. You are bound to use another multi-threaded photo tool in the future that might prove useful, or even Capture NX might add multi-threading in the future.
"Being a 'Dumbkoft' can you explain in simplistic terms, why boosting the quad to the same clock speed as the duo would 'blow it away'. Would the result be any different if I OC the E8400 to 3.5 GHz?"
I'm just looking at it from a mathematical perspective. If you have a Quad-Core at 3.0GHz and a Dual-Core at the same speed, any single-thread application is going to perform the same. But if you have a multi-threaded app, it will complete far faster.
Take this graph for example. The E8400 at 3.0GHz finished the task in 208s, while the Quad-Core Q9650 did it in 138s. That's quite a savings, and that's where the benefits of a multi-core processor will be seen. As for a 3.5GHz E8400, it would be better than a Quad-Core at 3.0GHz for single-threaded apps, but it will still come nowhere close to the performance of a multi-threaded application.
If Lightroom, for example, used 3 out of the 4 cores available, on a Q6600 at 3.0GHz, that essentially means it's dealing with 9.0GHz worth of processing power. If it's using two cores from an E8400 at 3.5GHz, that means it has 7.0GHz worth of processing power... still less than the Quad-Core. And that's assuming that the application won't use more than three cores. In the case of Lightroom and some other applications, more than three can be used.
Whew. If you have no intentions of using another photo application in the future and don't want to overclock, get the E8400. If you don't mind overclocking, get a Q6600 and hit at least 2.8GHz... which should be no problem on any Quad-Cores. Many of the newer Q6600's have gone over 3.4GHz on air, so I'm confident whatever you'd wind up with would be similar.
"My son has a Q6600 running Vista 64and overclocks it, but when we tried Capture NX on his machine, we could find no improvement in performance over my Athlon!!!. It may be that Capture isn't supported on Vista 64.""
That's likely because Capture NX isn't that processor heavy. When I used it in the past, it didn't exactly give me the impression that it was a very robust application, so I'm assuming the processor isn't a huge issue. Depending on what you are doing, even faster hard drives or a robust RAID setup would make a larger difference. But since you are dealing with a single file at a time, it might not be such a big deal.
"Being a 'Dumbkoft' can you explain in simplistic terms, why boosting the quad to the same clock speed as the duo would 'blow it away'. Would the result be any different if I OC the E8400 to 3.5 GHz?"
I'm just looking at it from a mathematical perspective. If you have a Quad-Core at 3.0GHz and a Dual-Core at the same speed, any single-thread application is going to perform the same. But if you have a multi-threaded app, it will complete far faster.
Take this graph for example. The E8400 at 3.0GHz finished the task in 208s, while the Quad-Core Q9650 did it in 138s. That's quite a savings, and that's where the benefits of a multi-core processor will be seen. As for a 3.5GHz E8400, it would be better than a Quad-Core at 3.0GHz for single-threaded apps, but it will still come nowhere close to the performance of a multi-threaded application.
If Lightroom, for example, used 3 out of the 4 cores available, on a Q6600 at 3.0GHz, that essentially means it's dealing with 9.0GHz worth of processing power. If it's using two cores from an E8400 at 3.5GHz, that means it has 7.0GHz worth of processing power... still less than the Quad-Core. And that's assuming that the application won't use more than three cores. In the case of Lightroom and some other applications, more than three can be used.
Whew. If you have no intentions of using another photo application in the future and don't want to overclock, get the E8400. If you don't mind overclocking, get a Q6600 and hit at least 2.8GHz... which should be no problem on any Quad-Cores. Many of the newer Q6600's have gone over 3.4GHz on air, so I'm confident whatever you'd wind up with would be similar.
"My son has a Q6600 running Vista 64and overclocks it, but when we tried Capture NX on his machine, we could find no improvement in performance over my Athlon!!!. It may be that Capture isn't supported on Vista 64.""
That's likely because Capture NX isn't that processor heavy. When I used it in the past, it didn't exactly give me the impression that it was a very robust application, so I'm assuming the processor isn't a huge issue. Depending on what you are doing, even faster hard drives or a robust RAID setup would make a larger difference. But since you are dealing with a single file at a time, it might not be such a big deal.
R
Railman
Guest
Q6600 vs E8400
Thanks for your comprehensive reply.
In short, get the E8400 for the short term but the Q6600 overclocked for the long run.
Capture NX now has NX2 which is much improved. FWIW Task Manager shows the CPU usage at 100% for the whole time that the file is loading/rendering - this can be for up to 45 secs for files that have been extensively edited. You are quite right, Nikon could well make this multi threaded for it's next update.
Thanks for your comprehensive reply.
In short, get the E8400 for the short term but the Q6600 overclocked for the long run.
Capture NX now has NX2 which is much improved. FWIW Task Manager shows the CPU usage at 100% for the whole time that the file is loading/rendering - this can be for up to 45 secs for files that have been extensively edited. You are quite right, Nikon could well make this multi threaded for it's next update.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Motherboard for E8400 with DDR2 800MHz
Hi there, I would like to know which motherboard is best for E8400 with DDR2 800 MHz as DDR3 is still expensive?
Hi there, I would like to know which motherboard is best for E8400 with DDR2 800 MHz as DDR3 is still expensive?
Doomsday
Tech Junkie
if u want to go for SLI go for the 780i. if Crossfire then go for the Asus X48 ones. if u only want to run a single GPU go for the Asus P5Q mobo cause its not as expensive as the above mentioned ones.
i have an E8400 with XFX780i and 2GB DHX Corsair DDR2-800 MHz. runs great!
i have an E8400 with XFX780i and 2GB DHX Corsair DDR2-800 MHz. runs great!
Most any motherboard is going to do just fine. You might want to check out our look at an excellent Gigabyte board we reviewed not long ago:
http://techgage.com/article/gigabyte_ep45-ud3p/
U
Unregistered
Guest
SMPS required for E8400??
Thanks Rob and Doomsday. I would also like to know if we require high watt SMPS for E8400 to perform in best condition or the SMPS that comes with the cabinet is ok? Since I would be using only 1 PCIe card, I would like to know if there are any other budget mother boards (except ASUS) to run E8400 without issue? I would love 7.1 Audio out in the mobo.
Thanks Rob and Doomsday. I would also like to know if we require high watt SMPS for E8400 to perform in best condition or the SMPS that comes with the cabinet is ok? Since I would be using only 1 PCIe card, I would like to know if there are any other budget mother boards (except ASUS) to run E8400 without issue? I would love 7.1 Audio out in the mobo.
I am not familiar enough with power supplies to comment, but I don't see a problem with virtually any supply on the market. The E8400 isn't a huge CPU (despite being fast), and it draws nowhere near as much power as a Quad-Core. It's a 65W CPU, so even at full load, it's not going to go anywhere near the top-limit for any PSU.
As for ASUS, I haven't reviewed many "budget" motherboards, but I'm sure they're fine. I'd just try to stick around the ~$100 mark if you want to get something with some nice features.
Here seems to be a few good options:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131347
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131299
I'd personally opt for the latter. It's larger, more feature-rich, and doesn't look so much like a "budget" board. If you are willing to spend a little more money and want better overclocking, then this would be a good choice:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131296
As for ASUS, I haven't reviewed many "budget" motherboards, but I'm sure they're fine. I'd just try to stick around the ~$100 mark if you want to get something with some nice features.
Here seems to be a few good options:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131347
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131299
I'd personally opt for the latter. It's larger, more feature-rich, and doesn't look so much like a "budget" board. If you are willing to spend a little more money and want better overclocking, then this would be a good choice:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131296
U
Unregistered
Guest
Gigabyte mobo for E8400!!
Thanks again Rob. Do you have any suggestion for Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L mobo for E8400? I read somewhere that this mobo is good but have some BIOS ver. issue with E8400 and restarts the system. In your choice which is best ASUS or Gigabyte?
Thanks again Rob. Do you have any suggestion for Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L mobo for E8400? I read somewhere that this mobo is good but have some BIOS ver. issue with E8400 and restarts the system. In your choice which is best ASUS or Gigabyte?
U
Unregistered
Guest
Gigabyte mobo for E8400!!
Also the mobo that you reviewed Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R. Is it good for E8400 with 2GB DDR2 800MHz RAM? I am little careful this time upgrading my system as last time when I bought a system I just followed the retailer and landed nowhere.
This time I need to know what I am going to build. Your views would be appreciated again.
Also the mobo that you reviewed Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R. Is it good for E8400 with 2GB DDR2 800MHz RAM? I am little careful this time upgrading my system as last time when I bought a system I just followed the retailer and landed nowhere.
This time I need to know what I am going to build. Your views would be appreciated again.
It's impossible to simply choose one of the two, because both make fantastic motherboards for all price-ranges. I tend to prefer ASUS, because the BIOS is more to my liking (and the color scheme / design), but that's not to say Gigabyte doesn't rock as well. It's just the minor things that keep me going to ASUS... things that might not even matter to most people.
That P35-DS3L is likely quite good. I've never taken a look at that board in particular, but I've also never taken a look at a Gigabyte board that has really let me down (like that one I linked to earlier).
That P35-DS3L is likely quite good. I've never taken a look at that board in particular, but I've also never taken a look at a Gigabyte board that has really let me down (like that one I linked to earlier).