e7200 or e8400?

[videogames101]

I can probably OC both to like 3.5ghz with the tuniq tower i'm getting, but does the 8400's 6mb cache really give that much more performance than the 7200s 3mb cache?

Worded better, is the extra 3mb cache worth the extra $60?

 

[VirtualLarry]

If it were me, I would say no, although I hear that the E8400 overclocks to 4.0Ghz easier than the E7200.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Quote: Ferris Bueller
If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

Edit: I mean the E8400

 

[videogames101]

Ok, well, how much does cache matter?

 

[johnnycasaba]

Can't help with your decision, but at Microcenter the price difference between the 2 is only $40.00.

 

[DSF]

Not so much really. Even the 2MB cache chips will play any game out there as long as you clock them to a decent speed. (Over 2.4 GHz or so.)

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: johnnycasaba
Can't help with your decision, but at Microcenter the price difference between the 2 is only $40.00.

can't beat the egg for shipping

anyways, DSF

when you say "play any game out there" does that mean at full settings along with a 4870?

 

[Triton67]

you probably can oc the E8400 to 3.9-4.1 w/o issues.

dunno if it was SSE4 or 6MB cache, but E6850(SSE3 and 4MB Cache) @ 3.7GHz was noticably slower than E8400@ 3.4GHz...you reckon wether its the SS4 or L2.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

what would you rather have, 3 million dollars or 6 millions dollars?

 

[svodka]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
what would you rather have, 3 million dollars or 6 millions dollars?

what....?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: svodka

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
what would you rather have, 3 million dollars or 6 millions dollars?

what....?

yes, please explain

 

[amenx]

Influence of L2 Cache Size on Wolfdale Performance:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../core2duo-e7200_4.html

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: amenx
Influence of L2 Cache Size on Wolfdale Performance:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../core2duo-e7200_4.html

TYVM!

Thats exactly what i was looking for, guess i have to shell out the extra $60

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: johnnycasaba
Can't help with your decision, but at Microcenter the price difference between the 2 is only $40.00.

can't beat the egg for shipping

anyways, DSF

when you say "play any game out there" does that mean at full settings along with a 4870?

I have an E4500 that I'm running at 2.93 GHz, and paired with an 8800GT it runs Crysis smoothly with all settings on high and 2xAA at 1024x768. The linked article suggests that more cache would give an improvement of about 5-10%, so 2-3 FPS. It's up to you to decide whether that's worth $60.

 

[ELopes580]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: amenx
Influence of L2 Cache Size on Wolfdale Performance:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../core2duo-e7200_4.html

TYVM!

Thats exactly what i was looking for, guess i have to shell out the extra $60

Actually, I am thinking the opposite.

It seems it's only worth it if you game. Even if you do, since you mention about o/c'ing, you can make the difference very little and keep the $60 in your pocket.

Now saying this, i just built a desktop and went with a Q9450 since I multi-task and game some and wanted the extra cache and cpu clock speed for an overall smoother experience. Plus i got a great deal on it.

 

[1Dogg2RuleAll]

It does matter what you will be using if for,... in some specific ways it is worth it (remember that cache is the most single expensive item you pay for on the processor anymore). Gaming and some other types of applications will benefit some (think high "chunks" of data with quick "changes" being made).

Gaming, Video/some high end Sound editing, Photo editing in very select instances.

Do you use it solely for a gaming machine???,... probably worth it for that extra bit so it is easier to accept a loss than blame it on equipment.

Commercial editing,... definitely worth it!!!

Casual use??? even gaming??? well $40-$60 can be used to:

1) keep in pocket (better than working 1-8hrs for more!!!)
2) pay for HSF/cooler ($30-$60) to overclock higher and achieve close to same as the other chip @ same price point (less potential of course as you can pay and do same to other chip)
3) add to what you would pay for a GPU and get the next level ($30-$100) (great especially for those doing a budget computer) to get better gaming level and same overall performance.
4) add/increase ram another 2 gb ($30-$50) to go from 2gb to 4gb

 

[MyLeftNut]

But how much of a difference does the extra cache have in higher resolutions such as 1680x1050 and above where framerates are more dependant on GPU rather than CPU? I would think that at lower resolutions (1024x768) such as those used in the review outlined in the above, it would be more cpu dependant which will show the benefit of having more cache on chip.

If the OP games at around 1680x1050 or even 1280x1024, then I really don't see the point in spending that extra for more cpu cache. What is it, like 40% more expensive for the e8400, while the higher resolution you go, you'll be getting diminishing returns on it's cache advantages to paid premium (which won't be anywhere near 40% more performance).

http://techgage.com/article/in...new_budget_superstar/9
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=754&p=7

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: MyLeftNut
But how much of a difference does the extra cache have in higher resolutions such as 1680x1050 and above where framerates are more dependant on GPU rather than CPU? I would think that at lower resolutions (1024x768) such as those used in the review outlined in the above, it would be more cpu dependant which will show the benefit of having more cache on chip.

If the OP games at around 1680x1050 or even 1280x1024, then I really don't see the point in spending that extra for more cpu cache. What is it, like 40% more expensive for the e8400, while the higher resolution you go, you'll be getting diminishing returns on it's cache advantages to paid premium (which won't be anywhere near 40% more performance).

http://techgage.com/article/in...new_budget_superstar/9
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=754&p=7

Yup, that's what I said in the E7200 review thread. Remember that the Xbitlabs numbers are worst case CPU bound situations, and not real world differences.
The E7200 is $60 less for AT WORST a 15% performance drop, clock for clock, and at best pretty much no drop.
If you're more GPU limited than CPU limited, then it's not even going to be an issue.

 

[Serradifalco]

I will put my 4Ghz e7200 against any 3.6Ghz e8400! In either case you will need an aftermarket cooler. I will even throw in a little poem I wrote in another thread.

The rig in my sig most people will dig
Overclocked to 4.0 for not much dough
The OCZ as you can see
Keeps the cpu willin' while it keeps on chillin'

The e72 is definitely for you
From games to web to office pro
This little baby makes you say "whoa"
For pure speed, this is all you need

You won't break a leg with prices at the EGG
With shipping that is free you will never see me
At the big box store anymore
Order today and she will be on her way

 

[AshPhoenix]

Originally posted by: Serradifalco
I will put my 4Ghz e7200 against any 3.6Ghz e8400! In either case you will need an aftermarket cooler. I will even throw in a little poem I wrote in another thread.

The rig in my sig most people will dig
Overclocked to 4.0 for not much dough
The OCZ as you can see
Keeps the cpu willin' while it keeps on chillin'

The e72 is definitely for you
From games to web to office pro
This little baby makes you say "whoa"
For pure speed, this is all you need

You won't break a leg with prices at the EGG
With shipping that is free you will never see me
At the big box store anymore
Order today and she will be on her way

:laugh: :thumbsup: