The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

E8500 or Q6600.

 

bigwill68,
You might consider these settings. Even if you don't you need to set the memory multiplier to 2.5, as right now your memory is only running at 750MHz. With the same settings you are set at now, it would raise the memory speed to 937.5MHz. Check out how I have mine set at 3.552GHz!
CPUZ 1


CPUZ 2


With the bus speed set to 444MHz and the memory multiplier at 2.4, it runs the memory at a perfect 1066MHz.

Here's my Sandra results at that speed.





Mind you, that's with a processor that's been hurt a bit and will need replacing soon. Even if you don't use my settings, you still need to set your memory multi higher. At your current speed 2.5 is as high as you can go. the 3.0 multi puts the speed at 1125MHz and it may or may not run at that speed. Remember 1066 memory is still only 800MHz memory highly binned and overclocked 266MHz, so they don't overclock very well!

abuzar1,

Man, you are a front runner! Suppose Nehalem turns out to be a dud? I would reserve judgment until we can see what Nehalem can do first, thank you!

Between the E8400 and the E8500, the E8400 is the better chip. The E8500 can't run with the E8400 when it comes to overclocking, so why even consider the E8500?!

With the Q6600, you have to be careful which one you buy. The Box processor, SL9UM has the older B3 stepping while the OEM is the SLACR version which has G0 stepping, runs cooler and overclocks better.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

E8500 then, if it's only $20 more.

 

sammorris,

Read my edit to abuzar above. The E8400 is the better chip. You can't OC the E8500 as high!

Russ

 

Fair enough. A bit like the E6300 vs E6400 then?

 

May I ask where you got this info?

The only difference between them is that the E8500 has a 9.5x as opposed to the E8400's 9x. Therefore, it will OC better. The rest is exactly the same...

 

Not necessarily the case, it has been known that some faster clocked chips don't clock as well as the others. Of course, usually it's meaningless because they work out at a very similar speed, but nonetheless, buying a faster CPU intending to overclock further isn't always the best bet.

 

Probably the binning on the older E8400s is better.

 

proxyRAX,

It's simple! Many have gotten 4.0GHz with the E8400 while the E8500 struggles above 3.6GHz according to what I read in various overclocking forums! The same thing applies with the E6750 and the E6850, the E6750 is the better chip as it overclocks higher!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I am not looking to do liquid nitrogen cooling with an OC to 5. Either way, it looks like the difference is small enough to change from batch to batch.

EDIT: You sure about that? Lemme go look it up. I'll get back to you. =]

EDIT2:
The results I see are about the same, but the people that say E8400 normally do not say "it OCs better" they usually go with "it is worth less" and the prices went down a lot. Hm. I guess either one is fine, and in the interest on saving my $20 I'll probably go with E8400 unless I find a convincing argument somewhere.

 

proxyRAX,

Very true! A lot depends on what you wind up getting. I've been lucky a couple of times and got a couple of real good overclockers. I wasn't as lucky with my E6750. Maybe when I RMA it, I will get a better chip! I'm going to wait for a while and see what happens to the prices after Nehalem comes out. The prices should be coming down a good bit. I'm hoping for a sub $200 Q9450!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

i can speak on the E8400 from first hand expereince. it is a awsome chip i think. ive had mine OC'd to 4.1ghz orthos,occt,sandra,prime95 stable. im running it now at 3.6ghz with auto settings. 3.6 is the sweet spot for it i think.
compared to the E8500 which is hard to get stable at 3.6 to me its not worth the extra cost. even $20.
now let me throw anothe CPU at you. august 10th the E8600 is comeing out. it is supose to run circles around the E8400. 3.33ghz stock. and testers say 4.2ghz is easly gotten with a small amount of vcore increase..id say the E0 stepping is the cause of that. but the price on the E8600 is to be around $266. 100 buck more than the E8400 right now.

just a extra thought..lol

 

Not much more mhz for your money, I'd stick with the 8400 myself, it's proven.

 

ive been told from a friend at microcenter their Q9450's should drop down to $220 once Nehalem comes out. so it has me considering also...lol

 

Oooh...

 

lol
here is what microcenter charges now for it.
http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0287628

not bad at all

 

Lemme add a completely unbiased and unprofessional opinion to the mix. ROFL...

I would get the E8400 for several reasons but the most obvious 2 are PRICE and NEED!! It's the cheapest (least expensive) chip of the ones that are mentioned AND you don't NEED a Quad atm. The decision seems simple at that point in the process. You take it as you want to but I'd just BUY the E8400 and be done with it!!

NOW in 6-12 months when the Q9450 comes down in price, WAY down, you might consider and upgrade to that cpu but make sure you need it. LOL. I have a Q6600 and E6850 and my NEEDS would be satisfied with an E6550.... ROFL.... It's NOT what I needed at the time it was what I found at the time and what MONEY I had at the time when buying.

btw the E6850 OC's fairly well but I'm unwilling to pass 1.45v (vcore) to really see what it'll do. I need the PC it's currently in and I don't want to fight with Intel on an RMA if the GM screws up. hehehe.

ok.... my 2¢ are over....

continue on.......

....gm

 

Mr. RedRob if you post something like that again I'll be forced to question our friendship!!!!!! That's what I paid for my E6850.... <crying sobbing sounds> lol....

Seems as tho MicroCenter likes to be competitive at times. I'll keep them under closer watch from now on.... I think they charge me TAX tho... buggers!!!

....gm

 

It's half what I paid for my X2 4200+ you're having for 50 dollars mate!

 

Aye and a good wee lad you are!!! btw we'll work that out this weekend. Thanks again mate!!!!

....gm