Overclocking Intel's Wolfdale E8000

[someguy7]

I am getting sick of people saying you need a quad core to download movies, upload stuff, browse the web with I dont care how many tabs you got open all while doing the very cpu demanding task of watching a video(sarcasm). All of that combined at the same time plus anti-virus running in the backround wont even come close to even stressing my old single core p4 2.8 northwood in a older machine I got.

You guys have got to be using some really crappy apps to do those things if it bogs down any cpu from the last 4 or so years.

Once you add the 3D apps and graphic programs or games thats different. Those things actually use alot of cpu power will the rest of that stuff wouldnt even faze a old single core athlon or pent4.

 

[randomizer]

Spybot SD bogged my 3700 down real bad, but it's not very resource friendly. I think AVG was pretty bad too, but not as bad as Spybot. My E6600 runs both at the same time and I wouldn't even know it.

 

[hughyhunter]

Yammer on all you want but you can't change the simple facts that all the benchmarking sites out there are proving: that the Wolfdale delivers more frames in today's games and COSTS LESS than a C2Q. And will likely do so for another year or more. And can hit 4 GHz on air, which the C2Q more than likely can't. hat could very well make a difference in recent games like Crysis that bring even top-flight systems to their knees.

And having multiple apps open while running a game means next to nothing for CPUs unless those apps are actually DOING something, like Folding or rendering. Gamers in that situation need to get a quad. And that is certainly less than 10% of gamers out there.

Amen brother!

Why are people having a hard time excepting that the little $220 wolfie can hang with the big boys (Quads). Dont be mad because I saved more money than you (and not on my car insurance... on my computer)... and can overclock higher than you!

Bottom line is: money doesnt grow on trees! Unless you still get breast fed with mommy's milk. Well in that case... maybe you shouldnt be getting any cpu! You'd invest in diapers. Anyway, why pay 350 for Q9450 when you can get an E8400 for 220? Do the math... and besides the former isnt even available.

 

[randomizer]

Some people actually do have a use for more cores. All you people ever think about is games.

 

[elbert]

So now all dual cores may as well be Celerons in your view? :lol:

Nevermind that 1/2 the benchmarks show the E8x00 in the lead.

Never mind those show them in the lead are overclocks v/s stock.

 

[elbert]

And many programs are not quad optimized.

While the Q6600 is great for somethings, the E8xxx series is better for others.

The $250 price you are seeing is not Intel's price, but rather due to excessive demand. You could buy the processor for as low as $189 (MicroCenter) for the first week or so after release.

I expect the price to float down again in a couple months as stock repopulates.

Personally, I would nearly always suggest the Q6600 at near equal prices, but if there is a $60-$70 price difference the Exxxx may be better.

LOL were did I say many programs? No the the Q6600 is better over all if you compare OC'ed v/s OC'ed. Look at the benchmarks a notice that even the top quad is stock would be beat by and Q6600 at 3.8GHz. I agree with your last statement but with $90~$100 price difference.

 

[epsilon84]

Never mind those show them in the lead are overclocks v/s stock.

Um, no. A stock E8400 still beats the Q6600 in many applications. Not everything is optimised for quad cores at this point.

Benches where STOCK E8400 beats STOCK Q6600:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/avg.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/clonedvd.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/itunes.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/lame.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/pdf.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/photoshop.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/prey.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/quake4.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/studio11.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/winrar.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/xvid.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/pcmark05_mem.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sam2.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sandra_mem_float.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sandra_mem_int.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/supreme.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/ut2004_avg.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/warhammer.png

Did someone say Celeron? That's quite a beefy Celeron right here folks! :lol:

 

[dude14]

I am getting sick of people saying you need a quad core to download movies, upload stuff, browse the web with I dont care how many tabs you got open all while doing the very cpu demanding task of watching a video(sarcasm). All of that combined at the same time plus anti-virus running in the backround wont even come close to even stressing my old single core p4 2.8 northwood in a older machine I got.

You guys have got to be using some really crappy apps to do those things if it bogs down any cpu from the last 4 or so years.

Once you add the 3D apps and graphic programs or games thats different. Those things actually use alot of cpu power will the rest of that stuff wouldnt even faze a old single core athlon or pent4.

Ok, thats all nice and fine. You don't need that much CPU horsepower today to do normal multitasking activities.

But regardless. How well does Vista and XP handle 4 simultaneous CPU intensive single threaded applications? Do they distribute them nicely to one core each? Is there a big difference between XP and Vista (and dual-core vs. quad-core)?
Does anyone know this/can point to any benchmarks?

 

[Craxbax]

Um, no. A stock E8400 still beats the Q6600 in many applications. Not everything is optimised for quad cores at this point.

Benches where STOCK E8400 beats STOCK Q6600:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/avg.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/clonedvd.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/itunes.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/lame.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/pdf.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/photoshop.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/prey.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/quake4.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/studio11.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/winrar.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/xvid.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/pcmark05_mem.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sam2.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sandra_mem_float.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/sandra_mem_int.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/supreme.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/ut2004_avg.png
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/warhammer.png

Did someone say Celeron? That's quite a beefy Celeron right here folks! :lol:

Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL

 

[epsilon84]

Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL

I never mentioned overclocking, all the benches I linked to shows the E8400 beating the Q6600 at STOCK SPEEDS. I made that point clearly in my post. Just because there are overclocked results also, it doesn't invalidate the stock E8400 results. Perhaps that is beyond your comprehension? If so, there is no helping you, and this conversation is over.

 

[rallyimprezive]

I think he just looked over it to quickly. As a third party individual with no favoritism, I can clearly see, in review of the charts, that the STOCK E8400 is beating the STOCK Q6600.

 

[Craxbax]

Perhaps that is beyond your comprehension? If so, there is no helping you, and this conversation is over.

Getting a little flustered are we? LOL

Rally, I was aware of the stock vs. stock but he was interjecting another strawman argument to knock down. Nobody said higher mhz doesn't help in apps not coded for multiple cores but beyond 3.2 or so in games it is irrelevant and both the quad and dual cores at max OC'd are minimal at best in most everything else. The E8000s are not a 'better' choice just a different one yet the future is brighter for the quad, including the Q6600, without any real practical loss to the E8000s. Nobody, has shown any evidence to dispute that position. They just keep introducing 'the hype' as new arguments that they can defeat to 'prove' the E8000s are better.

So to Epsilon84 I say: 1.) It is you that doesn't get it! and 2.) Intelligent people can disagree!
Odds are you and anyone else that wants to get the best performance for all around computer usage will be on 4 or more cores within 15 months if you can afford it or haven't spent your budget on a dual core. LOL

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supportItem=2

Best to ya mate!

 

[hughyhunter]

Before you hurts yourself doing the "I'm superior dance" ...realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads. And I believe the Celeron point has to do with what happens as more apps are optimized for multicores. Quads are the way to go unless you can't afford better or simply only game and have an older cpu based system. As was pointed out the Q6600 and Q6400 can be found at about the same price as the E8400 or less. But upgrading from any C2D that can OC to 3.2ghz or more nets nothing beneficial in any practical sense other than energy savings by going with dual core even for gaming. And no one has shown anything convincing otherwise! LOL

Dude... slow down and take a closer look at the charts

Getting a little flustered are we? LOL

Rally, I was aware of the stock vs. stock but he was interjecting another strawman argument to knock down. Nobody said higher mhz doesn't help in apps not coded for multiple cores but beyond 3.2 or so in games it is irrelevant and both the quad and dual cores at max OC'd are minimal at best in most everything else. The E8000s are not a 'better' choice just a different one yet the future is brighter for the quad, including the Q6600, without any real practical loss to the E8000s. Nobody, has shown any evidence to dispute that position. They just keep introducing 'the hype' as new arguments that they can defeat to 'prove' the E8000s are better.

So to Epsilon84 I say: 1.) It is you that doesn't get it! and 2.) Intelligent people can disagree!
Odds are you and anyone else that wants to get the best performance for all around computer usage will be on 4 or more cores within 15 months if you can afford it or haven't spent your budget on a dual core. LOL

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supportItem=2

Best to ya mate!

This is unbelievable... he showed you pure proof than in "some" apps (more often than not) the E8000 series is better than a Q6600! Are you really that ignorant. You are making his blood boil because you for 1. probably dont even own an E8000 series model or a Quad (this is like dogging the president when you didnt vote) 2. Are completely ignorant to pure evidence that it's BETTER!

Maybe you should stick with subjects less complex in nature and well just stay out of discussions that deal with things that you obviously know very little about first hand!

 

[epsilon84]

Getting a little flustered are we? LOL

Yes, I can't stand people who takes the argument out of context, and has attention spans so short they can't decipher that those pretty bars in red may not necessarily be the crux of the debate. I clearly posted links to stock vs stock performance, in a reply to elbert about an E8400 needing overclocking to beat a Q6600 (not true) and what do you do?

realize you again are showing a max OC'd e8xxx against stock quads.

WTF?!

I mean cmon, surely you can see that is not the case, if you actually bothered to read the charts and see the STOCK E8400 beating a STOCK Q6600. Again, try not to focus on those pretty red bars, I know they are distracting, but here's a handy little hint - look a little lower down... oh looky, stock E8400 results! And it beats a stock Q6600! See, that wasn't so hard, was it... all you need is a little chart reading guidance!

 

[Craxbax]

" The move to thread-optimized software represents a major shift in the industry, and puts new pressure on software vendors to play a role in delivering performance improvements for systems based on multi-core processors."

http://www.devx.com/go-parallel/Article/32725/2046?supportItem=2

"The era of frequency ramping has ended and the era of multi-core processors has begun. Intel is investing heavily in software optimization, in addition to hardware development. "
from Performance Scaling in the Multi-Core Era
R. Shiveley

I have not said that higher mhz doesn't show benefit in non-optimized apps...stock or OC'd. I have simply pointed out that the gains from this are largely unrealized in real world usage especially when both cpus are OC'd above 3.2ghz (including gaming which seems to be the biggest touted reason to choose an e8400 over a quad) but there is a big difference in multithreaded apps (as well as multitasking that requires cpu resources) and they will continue to increase thus making the quad a "better" choice even now. I'll stand by what I said and we can revisit it later when you both go quad (see the above quote and link). Like I said you miss the point or maybe you don't want to see it. But your replies are humorus none-the-less.

 

[hughyhunter]

Alright... you have a point that is well made.

You have to realize though that the majority of computer users (like I said I work for the largest employer in the world... no... not Wal-Mart... the US Gov) still are only using single cores. That in and of itself will be the determining factor when software developers develop software. The majority of consumers will not upgrade computer hardware for at least 2-4 years.

My point is... you can still play games that come out right now on hardware that is a few years old at max settings (with the exception of a few like Crysis)... you should know having still a two year old proc (FX-60 it that thing is still up to date).

You have to realize that the majority of people that buy a PC now are going to opt for a dual core... not a quad and thus software developers will have no choice but to create software optimized for duals and not quads if they want to keep their customers.

 

[Craxbax]

Yes, the FX60 is more than adequate for gaming and most apps at present but the jump to a C2Q was very noticable as I'm sure to a C2D would have been. Since I do OC, I was very impressed with the OCing abilities of the Intel cpus over the AMD also.

As to most PC buyers going for duals...well, online polls are showing the opposite. Most brick and mortar retailers are selling quads now here in FL and I suspect elsewhere. Since multithread optimized apps will still run great on duals... they will still code for it at an increasing rate. They will just run better on more cores.

Intel and AMD are planning on 8-16 cores and although businesses may be the first beneficaries, it will come for all users in the not to distant future simply because upping the frequency and increasing cache is yield diminishing returns as the article I referred to pointed out. Also upping the bar is a way to more profits and like any business Intel and AMD want more profits.

We really have beat this thing to death. I like the Wolfies but they represent the end of an era in both concept and architecture despite their impressive advances. They are great overclockers and I appreciate them for that. I just don't share the enthusiasm for them over the quads despite the hype out to sell them.

Let's not start on the US government! LOL We will be all over the board on that subject but suffice to say...everyone is better off with an inefficient government!

 

[ritesh_laud]

I like the Wolfies but they represent the end of an era in both concept and architecture despite their impressive advances.

Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.

 

[Craxbax]

Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.

Agreed in part. C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies. So there really is no savings unless you stay with a Conroe.

 

[hughyhunter]

Perhaps, but the C2Q also represents a dead end because quad-core Nehalem is right around the corner and will smack it silly. Better for a general user to save money now and go dual, and then go quad when Intel finally ditches the ancient FSB and does quad the right way next year with Nehalem.

Educate me... what is this about ditching FSB? That is above me... I guess I better do some research.

Agreed in part. C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies. So there really is no savings unless you stay with a Conroe.

I would have bought a Kentsfield if they were going to be available sooner. I had to make a switch as I was stuck with a very buggy un-upgradable 939 socket motherboard. I didnt want a Q6600 only due to the fact that it had been out for so long (I was soo attracted to the 45nm die shrink) and wasnt going to touch anything AMD quad (although their X2 products are still fair... just too power hungry... I like to save energy

 

[ritesh_laud]

C2Q are the end of the architecture but at least the Kentsfields will have an advantage handling multithread optimized apps longer for roughly the same or lower price as the Wolfies.

Eh? The Q1 tray price for the Wolfies ranges from $163 to $266. Whereas from the same link the C2Q currently ranges from $266 to $530 and even after the price cuts on April 20 will only drop to starting from $224. So the Wolfdale is much cheaper than C2Q. The only problem currently is that the E8400 is in short supply and the prices are artifically inflated, but that will sort itself out over the next few weeks.

 

[Craxbax]

The Q6400 is available this week for $189. It is a B3 stepping so probably maxes out at 3.2 on air but nobody I know has tried it out.
http://www.stalliontek.com/product_p/cpc4d-q6400.htm

I paid $259 for OEM Q6600 in Dec and I have seen people reporting them e-tailed in the lower $200s. Whether that was accurate...I have no idea. The current premium on the 8400 brings the difference to less than $20...I would say that it is roughly the same! $10 a peice for 2 additional cores is a no brainer considering how fast these and powerful these chips really are.

 

[ritesh_laud]

The Q6400 is available this week for $189. It is a B3 stepping so probably maxes out at 3.2 on air but nobody I know has tried it out.

Interestingly, the Q6400 isn't even listed on Intel's C2Q product sheet. If that is indeed a new quad from Intel to be available en masse, then it's certainly a steal and will put immense pressure on AMD's Phenom.

 

[makotech222]

guys, try playing a ps2 emulator with a quad core at 3.2 ghz. then try it with a wolfdale at 4 ghz. makes a hugeee difference in fps.

 

[jbj190]

I wouldn't be surprised if they're just rebranded old B3 Q6600s and Xeons.