• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

E5200: What can it be compared to?

J

JCNiest5

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
4,141
Okay, is it on par with the E2x00 series? Or is it a little faster? I know it's slower than the E7x00 series...but what can it be compared to?
 
E2x00 < E5x00 < E7x00 <E8x00 (Don't even want to get into adding the quads in there)

I have an E5200 (as well as an E2200 and an E8400). For most things, I don't see a difference between the E5200 at 3.8Ghz and the E8400 at 3.8Ghz. The E2200 is noticeably slower than both ... probably since it doesn't overclock nearly as well as the other two.

Just got an E7200, but haven't pushed it very far. A failed BIOS flash on the motherboard put the testing on hold.
 
You think it's worth going from the E5200 to the E7400 for a $30 price increase ($69.99 ==> $99.99)? They are both rated at 2.5Ghz with the E7400 having 3MB Cache vs. 2MB on the E5200. What do you think?
 
the e5200 has a high multi so you wont have to push your board or memory too much to get a high overclock.
 
If you have the $30 extra and nothing to spend it on, should you spend it towards a E7400? Sure.

One thing about the review that danny posted, is im wondering if the fsb difference was the factor of the performance difference or if it was 100% based on cache.

I have a E7200 around here that i got for cheap, but it does some unimpressive clocks, ill pick up some mx-2 this weekend and clock them the same, in the meaning of the same fsb/mem and see if the cache is really the main difference.
 
JCNiest5 said:
...but what can it be compared to?
Click to expand...


I compare them with goats. Much like goats they can handle (eat) anything you throw at them but they dont produce as much for you.

e7xxx and e8xxx series are like cows. They generate more results (milk/meat) but cost more. (the e8600 is like a prime Black Angus Steer)

Quad cores are like the majestic Moose that roams the Canadian/Washington state borders. They are heavy with value but need a cooler environment to survive.


I hope this has helped you with your buying decisions. If you ever consider an I7 system I can tell you about how they compare with Tuna, Marlin, and Beluga whales (920, 940, 965).
 
haadij404 said:
the e5200 has a high multi so you wont have to push your board or memory too much to get a high overclock.
Click to expand...

In that case would it be better to run your DDR2 800 at say 400 and use a lower multiplier? Or it doesn't matter? Or I guess the e5200 won't run at 400?
 
Fsb walls are known to hit E5200's at around 350+.

As for your question, with what most boards like gigabytes coming with different fsb strap options, its really easy to keep your ram at its rated speeds, with a 400fsb @ 1:1 ratio, it might benefit a bit more fsb wise.
 
If this is your primary rig I say go with the e7400. It is going to be about 10-15% faster due to the extra cache and in my mind that is worth the extra 30 bucks.

----

Now the e5200 in my mind is awesome for when you are trying to put together a budget rig for fun of just building something, salvaging old parts, or getting a good deal on a clearance motherboard. With the lower native fsb you can still overclock it pretty nicely on a older board.

The e5200 is also great if you are building a computer for someone who doesn't need the latest and greatest. You know the family members who want to do internet and occasionally play an older game like half life 2, unreal, or wow.
 
in amd terms, 7750.

But e5200 vs. 7200? IMO the performance gain vs. the extra money isn't worth it. Your really wont see a gain anywhere.
 
Roland00 said:
It is going to be about 10-15% faster due to the extra cache and in my mind that is worth the extra 30 bucks.
Click to expand...

It will average around a 5% increase (and less) due to cache (if both cpus are clocked the same and are using the same FSB)



Casper312 said:
One thing about the review that danny posted, is im wondering if the fsb difference was the factor of the performance difference or if it was 100% based on cache.
Click to expand...

There are actually 3 differences. The extra 166MHz, 1MB of L2 cache and the FSB difference
 
Well, so much for starting the thread about the E5200, I went and bought myself an E8400 E0 instead. But as expected, the temp sensors on the E8400 just suck as always. They are either way off of each other or one of them is stuck (sometimes both). Mine has one stuck. I hate that!!!
 
I have an E2180@3.2 GHz. Is it worth it to upgrade to an E5200? The computer is used for both gaming and work.
 
I say no, If you can get the E2180 to do some decent fsb numbers, nox2, if the 3.2ghz is the max on what you consider safe voltages, and you feel the need for more, then maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top