E8400 or E8500

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: kschaffner
ok so what is the difference between the e8400 and the e3110?

There is no difference, except that you can claim that your PC is a "high-end workstation" because it has a Xeon.

 

[bfdd]

Funny bringing up the E3110 vs the E8400 here's a screen shot of my cpu running. It's an E3110 but as you can clearly see CPU-Z thinks it's a E8400.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: kschaffner
ok so what is the difference between the e8400 and the e3110?

Intel's page for SLAPL says the worst you could get is an E8400@1.36v. Their page for SLAPM says worst you will get is 1.225v for E3110.

That's a lot better on the worst case scenario for E3110. Because they are both on the same process (45nm from Intel) they should theoretically end up around the same mhz. However, based on the fact that E3110 is a server chip, and Intel's own documentation of both processors you should end up much better on a E3110. No matter what you won't get something worse that 1.225 @3.0ghz. That's a lot less heat than 1.36v and gives you more room to play with than E8400 assuming you get anything above 1.225. I'm not saying you can't get a good E8400, just that the odds of getting a pretty good one are in E3110's favor. In the case of E8400 you're risking getting anything up to 1.36 out of the box. I don't like that much.

http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLAPL
http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLAPM

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=549725
A quick look shows people hitting 3.6ghz at 1.14/1.15 etc. Pretty low. 1.3v@4ghz+ is common on air with some even lower (page 2 shows Rattle at 1.28v at 4ghz! his default was 1.1125 out of the box). I'm betting rattle could go lower, but his bios won't got below 1.1v...LOL.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: kschaffner
Hi everyone well I just bought all of my other components however, since both the e8400 and e8500 are out of stock everywhere I was wondering which one would be better to get. I have the money for both but I was just wondering if the e8500 had any benefits over the e8400. Thanks, Kschaffner

E8400. But...

Forget that, buy the E3110 since some stores still don't know they are REALLY an E8400 just with better shipping voltages!

This statement holds a VERY VERY big YMMV tag. [Your millage may vary] Your vid is luck of the draw, the only gaurentee you have is that the chip will run @ its designed specs, as for overclocking, a Xeon will not gaurentee you a better overclock, nor will a QX or X processor.

Originally posted by: kschaffner
ok so what is the difference between the e8400 and the e3110?

almost nothing. Maybe and just maybe the xeons might be bin'd higher for stress reasons, but that be very small if any.

There basically the same chip, get whatever is cheaper is my 2 cents.

Originally posted by: boomhower
If you are on here and planning to buy a $200-$300 CPU and the supporting hardware for a new system and cannot afford another $5 on your light bill then you have your priorities seriously screwed up.

It seems we agree on most points here and we can just agree to disagree on the others.

LOL... i have no comment for this....

YMMV? Intel guarantees you won't get over 1.225v on E3110. They guarantee you won't get over 1.36v on e8400. Which would you rather roll the dice on? I'm thinking this should be a no brainer. I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an E8400 if their given an e3110 option. IF E3110's are out of stock, and you're patience is slim, buy E8400. Lower volts=Lower heat. Not the same chip in a LOT of cases. My 2 cents.

@ $200 for a chip over 3yrs that's $5.55 a month. So figuring the ability to cut your bill by $5/mo is like a free chip before the warranty runs out, no?...LOL Not that I care about $5. But a lot of people are already stretching their budget. Whether we think its stupid or not, they do it...I'm reminded of all the homes being repo'd right now as evidence. Aren't we at the highest in history now?

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: boomhower

Originally posted by: TheJian
[

My problem was the blanket statement that everyone will like it and could afford to own it.

I have never said everyone would like it. Although I do struggle with the thought of finding many people would be disappointed with a quad but I am sure there are some. Definitely the heat issue could be a deal breaker for some. Yes I will make the blanket statement that everyone can afford(that is considering an E8400, at most sites the Q is actually cheaper right now. If you are on here and planning to buy a $200-$300 CPU and the supporting hardware for a new system and cannot afford another $5 on your light bill then you have your priorities seriously screwed up.

It seems we agree on most points here and we can just agree to disagree on the others.

I replied to aigomorla about the money. Everyone has some kind of budget.

regarding your link from your previous post: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520#data

IF that's a good representation of quads, why do ALL other quad cores in Intel's camp get beatdown by a Q6600? I see in that chart a Core2 quad 45nm hitting what is that, umm, 6? Then a Q6600 getting 40? An Athlon X2 scoring 19 or so? So I should by an X2 instead of Core2 45nm Quad I guess? Is that really a pentium 4 I see beating that quad 45nm too? Take a look at the Core2 Xeons. They score less than 3? Something is rotten in this benchmark. Who's techarp?

I guess we'll disagree on the validity of this benchmark

Looking at gaming I'd be disappointed with quad (@$200-250). Photoshop cs3, sysmark apps, dissapointed. Divx/Xvid/Itunes/lame/pinnacle studio, disappointed. Premiere/3D Studiomax/Cinema 3D - I WANT QUAD Depends on your apps I guess. But for home users the wins seem obvious (which I'd call the first group usually). Of course the future could hold more hope for quad at home, but for my money, by the time that happens I'll own a quad anyway.... Right now I'll take top performance in the home user section I noted, especially with gaming being my priority. This is assuming the chips we're discussing here (e8400/Q6600). If I had $1100 it would probably be QX9650 which changes the gaming some (changes everything some I ). But it's over 4x the cost to say that.

 

[sofarfrome]

The bottom line is this: Batch/FPO# is what counts.

fact1-I had an E8400 (Q743A) that would run 4.3GHz with 1.344vcore. P95 stable for 9+ hours and passed all 3D benchies.

fact2- I had an E8400 and E3110 (both Q746A534) that wouldn't run 4.3GHz stable no matter how much vcore you put to them and I tried up to 1.6vcore.

fact3- I currently have another E3110 (same batch as the previous two-Q746A534) that requires 1.456vcore to be 4.3GHz P95 stable.

So far, any mention of the Xeons being better as far as lower vcore required is untrue. Do they last longer? Dunno as I ran mine for a couple of years and sold them. Do they run hotter/cooler? Nope. In my water loop all of these recent CPUs have topped out at the same temps (+/- 2degC) when running P95 for 9+ hours. There is a lot of conjecture on all forums as to what makes the xeon different than the standard intel desktop chips. I have used xeons for my gaming and desktop rigs for years. Frankly I can't say that any xeon OCs better than its desktop counterpart. I had Xeon3060s with batch codes L629B and L631B that did not perform any differently than desktop cpus with the same batch codes. All would do 3.71GHz with 1.41vcore. Also, if you search around you will see the Q6600 and Xeon X3210 (both quads) of the same L723A batch code will typically OC better than most other batch codes. There are exceptions but that one sticks in my mind because I have an X3210 that runs 3.8GHz with 1.456 vcore. Under phase/dice/ln2 that may be a different story but under good air or water it is the same.

Right now it doesn't matter which one you buy. It does matter what batch/FPO# CPU you buy. That has always been true. And if you are lucky enough to find a Q743A I suggest buying it.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: sofarfrome
The bottom line is this: Batch/FPO# is what counts.

fact1-I had an E8400 (Q743A) that would run 4.3GHz with 1.344vcore. P95 stable for 9+ hours and passed all 3D benchies.

fact2- I had an E8400 and E3110 (both Q746A534) that wouldn't run 4.3GHz stable no matter how much vcore you put to them and I tried up to 1.6vcore.

fact3- I currently have another E3110 (same batch as the previous two-Q746A534) that requires 1.456vcore to be 4.3GHz P95 stable.

So far, any mention of the Xeons being better as far as lower vcore required is untrue. Do they last longer? Dunno as I ran mine for a couple of years and sold them. Do they run hotter/cooler? Nope. In my water loop all of these recent CPUs have topped out at the same temps (+/- 2degC) when running P95 for 9+ hours. There is a lot of conjecture on all forums as to what makes the xeon different than the standard intel desktop chips. I have used xeons for my gaming and desktop rigs for years. Frankly I can't say that any xeon OCs better than its desktop counterpart. I had Xeon3060s with batch codes L629B and L631B that did not perform any differently than desktop cpus with the same batch codes. All would do 3.71GHz with 1.41vcore. Also, if you search around you will see the Q6600 and Xeon X3210 (both quads) of the same L723A batch code will typically OC better than most other batch codes. There are exceptions but that one sticks in my mind because I have an X3210 that runs 3.8GHz with 1.456 vcore. Under phase/dice/ln2 that may be a different story but under good air or water it is the same.

Right now it doesn't matter which one you buy. It does matter what batch/FPO# CPU you buy. That has always been true. And if you are lucky enough to find a Q743A I suggest buying it.

I would agree with your data were it not for the fact that it's a sample of 2 of each chip and only 1 of your batch. How do you know you just didn't get a really good Q743A? I'm seeing some with decent results but not many like yours. I see in another thread where you posted the same post as here: http://forums.extremeoverclock...4139de&t=286433&page=2
Another guy BIOHazard87 comes to the same conclusion as me just after your post. Xeons are better from what he's seen. It's in every forum you go to. Batch may play a role, but voltage is KING. I see you posted the same msg in xtremesystems.

It's a nice piece of data to have (and you clearly got a good chip), but only adds to what we already know reading places like ocforums etc. Where many have your result with other batches. They also agree xeon has less voltage than E8400 when arriving at same mhz generally as stated by biohazard etc in many forums. Lots of people in OCforums hitting 4ghz+ at 1.288-1.31. Still though, the more data we can compile the better.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...d.php?t=173999&page=66
"The 743 and 745&46 seem to do very well." Another from that thread "A lot of us at overclockers.com.au are running Xeons E3110's actually, and while you get the odd E8400 that needs higher volts to run the same OC, the Xeon's generally all clock very well on very low volts. More consistently than the E8400's."

OK all things being equal though, I still want Xeon for lower starting voltage USUALLY. I never said they overclock farther. Just that when they do get to X speed it is often with less voltage. I would also agree that seems to be the best batch of E8400's. But I haven't seen E3110's with that batch code or maybe I missed them. I wouldn't be aiming for highest clock anyway, I'm more interested in a good clock but with best voltage for longer life. 4gh or less with excellent volts would be nice for 24/7. I'd say every batch has a few good ones. But I want lower volts to get to whatever mhz I'm after.