E7200 vs. E7400 vs. Q8200 (replacing E1200)

[PGHammer]

Here's the situation: I have a choice of three processors (all in the title above), at the same price. I'll be using the stock HSF (unlike some, I have no complaints or issues with the push-pins), and any overclocking will be to 3 GHz *at most* (despite having overcranked my current Celly from 1.6 to 2.67 GHz rather easily; and yes, I did that with the stock HSF).

Given the relatively minimal overclocking (the system is primarily used for gaming and running software in VMs) that will happen with the *new* CPU compared to the old, how will multi-tasking performance benefit (I tend to run multiple applications at once even now, and I would likely do more of that in any case)?

The primary OS is Vista Ultimate 64-bit (which I am posting this from).

The very reason I'm *not* asking about performance increases in games is because I have such a minimal GPU today that if I were to upgrade to darn near any HD48xx GPU (let alone my preferred choice, an XFX HD4890), any comparison would be so skewed that it would be apples vs. grapefruit; hence, my trying to take the graphics card out of the picture.

 

[Zero82z]

Well, between the E7200 and the E7400 at the same price, it's pretty obvious that the E7400 is the better choice. So it's between the E7400 and Q8200. Since you run VMs and do a lot of multitasking, the quad would most likely be the better choice. It will not overclock as well as the E7400, but since you say that you'll only be doing minimal overclocking, that should not be an issue.

 

[Dangman]

Well, between the E7200 and the E7400 at the same price, it's pretty obvious that the E7400 is the better choice. So it's between the E7400 and Q8200. Since you run VMs and do a lot of multitasking, the quad would most likely be the better choice. It will not overclock as well as the E7400, but since you say that you'll only be doing minimal overclocking, that should not be an issue.

+1 to this.

Lots of VMs + Multi-tasking: Definitely quad-core.

 

[Potatocodone]

Got microcenter near you? Go pick up the Q8200 for $99.

 

[PGHammer]

Got microcenter near you? Go pick up the Q8200 for $99.

That's what I was referring to (their Q8200 for $99 deal), as I have two near me (Fairfax, VA and Rockville, MD, with Fairfax being the closest, though I live in Maryland, not Virginia).

 

[needmorecarnitine]

Lots of VMs + Multi-tasking: Definitely quad-core.

is in chip Virtualization Technology important for this? will it make any performance difference?

 

[Zero82z]

is in chip Virtualization Technology important for this? will it make any performance difference?

Oh yeah. Big difference. Considering none of these chips have VT-x though, the Q8200 would be the best choice due to the extra cores.

 

[PGHammer]

Oh yeah. Big difference. Considering none of these chips have VT-x though, the Q8200 would be the best choice due to the extra cores.

Precisely.

The only non-EE/non-EOL dual-cores with VT-x support are the E8xxx series (and not even all of these, as neither the E8200 or E8300 support VT-x either) or quad-cores from the Q9400 up.

At the old price tag (identical with the Q9400), the 9400 wins *because* of VT-x, not because of higher possible overclocks (though it does overclock taller)

At the current price ($106, including tax), the Q8200 is at the same price as the E7400, and less than the E8400 (which is a dual-core). Because I multitask a lot more than I run multicore-aware applications (while all my operating systems are multi-core aware, most of the apps in them aren't.....yet), and because I'm upgrading from a Celeron (albeit a Celeron DC), things should be decidedly unleashed performancewise, even if I leave the new Q at stock.

 

[PC_User]

For gaming and VMs, I'd go with the quad-core. As was mentioned, since you won't be overclocking much, its maximum overclocking potential should not be a concern. Microcenter has a very good deal on the Q8200.

 

[Zero82z]

The only non-EE/non-EOL dual-cores with VT-x support are the E8xxx series (and not even all of these, as neither the E8200 or E8300 support VT-x either) or quad-cores from the Q9400 up.

Actually, the E8200 and E8300 do support VT-x, as well as the Q9300. The only E8xxx CPU that does not support VT-x is the E8190. The E1xxx, E2xxx, E4xxx, E5xxx, and E7xxx models also do not support it. As for quads, all Q6xxx and Q9xxx CPUs support it, and the Q8xxx chips don't.

 

[seanclayton]

I rather have 4ghz with E7400 than a Q8200 with ridiculous high voltage, but that's just me.

 

[PC_User]

I rather have 4ghz with E7400 than a Q8200 with ridiculous high voltage, but that's just me.

Some people could actually benefit from having more cores, even at a lower clock speed. It depends on what they do.

 

[tvdang7]

what high voltage? its normal........

 

[PGHammer]

Some people could actually benefit from having more cores, even at a lower clock speed. It depends on what they do.

In my case, none of my applications really benefit from high (above 3 GHz) CPU clocks; because I tend to multitask, I'd definitely benefit from more cores (and running Vista 64-bit as my day-to-day OS, I benefit to a greater degree from more cores than I would with Vista 32-bit, simply due to increased stability).

 

[Vengance_01]

In my case, none of my applications really benefit from high (above 3 GHz) CPU clocks; because I tend to multitask, I'd definitely benefit from more cores (and running Vista 64-bit as my day-to-day OS, I benefit to a greater degree from more cores than I would with Vista 32-bit, simply due to increased stability).

This logic is wrong. You would see 0 difference between 32 and 64bit Vista on that Quad. But if you plan to move to 4GB and beyond ( which is a no brainier with current prices) then yes 64bit Vista will be helpful.

 

[Michaelius]

For gaming E7400 would be better choice

 

[/dev/null]

I would not consider either of those for a virtualization box.

The way to go is e8400 or q6600 IMHO.

 

[PGHammer]

This logic is wrong. You would see 0 difference between 32 and 64bit Vista on that Quad. But if you plan to move to 4GB and beyond ( which is a no brainier with current prices) then yes 64bit Vista will be helpful.

The difference is in *stability*, which is an aspect of performance that nobody seems to consider overmuch (except me and a few others).

With problematical applications (in particular, problematical 32-bit applications, especially games), the 64-bit versions of Windows are FAR less likely to have a BSOD (or have the entire operating system fall down) than their 32-bit counterparts (and Vista 64-bit is far less likely to suffer from that, while maintaining compatibility, than XP64).

I want that stability not in spite of overclocked hardware, but largely *because* of overclocked hardware. (And I most certainly do plan on going to 4 GB at some point, regardless of when I upgrade to my next processor, which is why I went 64-bit now, as opposed to waiting.)

 

[PGHammer]

I would not consider either of those for a virtualization box.

The way to go is e8400 or q6600 IMHO.

If I were running OSes in VMs that benefitted from VT-x, then the likely processor of choice would be Q9400 (as MC no longer carries the Q6600; and it's only $30 more than the E8400).