• 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.

E8400 v. Pentium D: Is it worth it?

O

orangeble

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
104
Well, awhile ago I made a thread about whether or not it would be worth it to upgrade from a 3.0 ghz Pentium D to a Q9450. My main concern was whether or not I would see a performance increase in gaming. I don't really do any processor intensive work, just normal apps like word processing, internet, games etc., and I only have at most 4-5 applications open at once. However, the price, avalability, Nehalem news, and the fact that games don't yet take advantage of quad cores have lead me to believe that the cheaper and higher clocked (I don't intend to overclock) Core 2 Duo would be a better choice to hold me over until the Nehalem processors come out.

So I guess, my main question again is would it be worth it to upgrade to the E8400 from a Pentium D. Now they're both dual cores and have the same clock speed, so I'm a bit skeptical, but from what I heard about the advantages of Core 2 Duos over older Intel chips, it seems like there is a large performance gap between the two. I'm wondering now how this translates to gaming performance, and I guess general computing performance too. As in, will I see a large FPS gains, quicker load times for programs, etc....

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
there will be a lot of difference . 8400 smacks pentium d all over .
 
The E8400 will be a completely sound purchase for you. It is better in every way than a PD and you will not regret the upgrade.
 
huddy said:
The E8400 will be a completely sound purchase for you. It is better in every way than a PD and you will not regret the upgrade.
Click to expand...

QFT........... a 1.86GHz e6300 would at least give the 3.0GHz Pentium-D a run for its money, if not totally smack it................ e8400 would be approximately eqivilent to the Pentium-D running at 5GHz or so..................
 
From your responses, the answer seems like a bit of a "duh" lol. I think I'll give this one a shot as soon as Newegg has it in stock. I like the price a lot better than the Q9450, and the higher clock speed should be a benifit to me since I don't like to overclock.
 
I just came from an 805 running at 4ghz..... no comparison to my 8400 @ 3.6ghz. :D
 
Can you still buy D's? I can't imagine why anyone would buy a D instead of a C2D now -- especially the newer ones.

CB
 
What games? It's likely that you may not see an improvement in most games at all. The processor itself is much better, but whether or not it'll reflect itself in games depends. Games are still GPU limited.
 
astyler said:
What games? It's likely that you may not see an improvement in most games at all. The processor itself is much better, but whether or not it'll reflect itself in games depends. Games are still GPU limited.
Click to expand...

People should really stop such over generalizations like this becuase they are simply not accurate.

Games can and will benfiit a lot. I went from an OCed X2 4400+ which is more powerful than a Pentium D to a Q6600 and the difference in games is HUGE. There are plenty of games that can bring a Pentium D to it's knees. UT3, CoD4, Supremem Commander, Flight Simulator, TF2, and even older games like Oblivion.
 
astyler said:
What games? It's likely that you may not see an improvement in most games at all. The processor itself is much better, but whether or not it'll reflect itself in games depends. Games are still GPU limited.
Click to expand...

Visit, and read some benchmarks or reveiws by sites such as hard-ocp, tomshardware, etc. Its much better than making up BS.
 
RamonGTP said:
People should really stop such over generalizations like this becuase they are simply not accurate.

Games can and will benfiit a lot. I went from an OCed X2 4400+ which is more powerful than a Pentium D to a Q6600 and the difference in games is HUGE. There are plenty of games that can bring a Pentium D to it's knees. UT3, CoD4, Supremem Commander, Flight Simulator, TF2, and even older games like Oblivion.
Click to expand...

Ok... I'm not disagreeing with you? I don't know why people are jumping down my throat cause it really depends what he plays. Civ4, for example, won't see any benefit at all. Not everyone is playing CoD4 or Superman Commander.

bob said:
Visit, and read some benchmarks or reveiws by sites such as hard-ocp, tomshardware, etc. Its much better than making up BS.
Click to expand...

As above, I'm not making up BS. Show me the part where I was wrong. There are plenty of games that people play that won't see a benefit at all. I don't need to look up benchmarks to learn about the processor I already have, tyvm
 
Just about any modern game paired up with a decent GPU will see an improvment from a Pentium D to a C2D.
 
Pentium D is like an 8400s celeron counterpart.

Here's a cool analogy: Compared to the 8400, the PD is on social security disability with a terminal illness :)

But it can do the internet and word processing just fine. And with a very good GPU, you can play games.
 
If money is problem overclocked e 21x0 series will do the jab running @ 3 Ghz.
I know i noticed a lot of diffrence going from PD 805@ 3.0 to E2160@3.0
 
Yeah i came from a pd820 @ 3.6 and now im a c2d e6850 3.0 @4.0.

HUGE difference.
 
for around the same price get the q6600 or the xeon equiv. i have to run e8400 @4300 to get same performance as q6600 @ 3600.
 
VG, I have both processors and the only place that I see a difference where the 6600 is faster is in Sandra or maybe if I encode something. Otherwise, my 8400 not only feels faster in games, it benches faster. Lets face it, they only differ when we use the additional cores, otherwise the increased speed is obvious.
 
Pkirk618 said:
VG, I have both processors and the only place that I see a difference where the 6600 is faster is in Sandra or maybe if I encode something. Otherwise, my 8400 not only feels faster in games, it benches faster. Lets face it, they only differ when we use the additional cores, otherwise the increased speed is obvious.
Click to expand...

are you typing that the e8400 feels/benches faster than a q6600 at he same clock speed?
all i am typing is that the e8400 needed a decent bit more clock speed to make up for the 2 less cores.
 
A Pinto can take you places but a Ferrari can get there much faster. There's my comparison.
 
lodingi said:
It would be like getting a "Yummy" from a toothless prostitute.
Click to expand...

Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.

Anyway, remember that there's a lot more to a chip's performance than just clock speed. You won't be dissapointed, methinks.
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
are you typing that the e8400 feels/benches faster than a q6600 at he same clock speed?
all i am typing is that the e8400 needed a decent bit more clock speed to make up for the 2 less cores.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate your comments, really. And I don't want to turn this into anything it's not. Just to be clear though, a program would first need to written to use 2 more cores--we agree here right? And if we had a program that does (and there are some programs) use 4 cores, then and only then would your statement apply. Sandra benchmarks all cores and sure as hell gives higher numbers to the quad core. But, a 3.6ghz quad core is not faster than an 4Ghz 8400 unless the other parameters are met. A 3.6Ghz Quad 6600 isn't faster in 70% of the current uses out there clock for clock. The 8400 is even more efficient due to the higher cache capacity per core. I suppose we can then argue how much faster a slower quad would be against a higher clocked dual core but that better debated in another thread.
 
Pkirk618 said:
I can appreciate your comments, really. And I don't want to turn this into anything it's not. Just to be clear though, a program would first need to written to use 2 more cores--we agree here right? And if we had a program that does (and there are some programs) use 4 cores, then and only then would your statement apply. Sandra benchmarks all cores and sure as hell gives higher numbers to the quad core. But, a 3.6ghz quad core is not faster than an 4Ghz 8400 unless the other parameters are met. A 3.6Ghz Quad 6600 isn't faster in 70% of the current uses out there clock for clock. The 8400 is even more efficient due to the higher cache capacity per core. I suppose we can then argue how much faster a slower quad would be against a higher clocked dual core but that better debated in another thread.
Click to expand...

While this is true, there is one important factor that you seem to be overlooking. Multi-tasking. Say you're running a program that only uses 2 cores, you're already maxed out on the dual core, doing anything else will result in either the first task slowing down to free up CPU time for additional tasks or the computer as a whole being less responsive. The notion that you HAVE to have software written to take advantage of a quad core in order to benifit from one is plain and simply false.
 
see, this is where we differ. On a practical standpoint, how do you benchmark your point to support it? When does the average user assume this benefit on a day to day basis? And back to your comments about speed, can someone in the market for a CPU assume based on your comments that a quad is faster because it can multitask? I didn't forget this bro, I simply don't believe its reaslistic to portray the quad as faster when it's just not the case. It's efficient yes and can do certain things faster if done at the same time and on a few multi processor programs, it can run them faster too.
I'm only one person and I don't encode/decode or play 2 games at once and that probably speaks of the current consensus, however so average it sounds.

Clock for clock and w/the advent of more cache the 8400 pays more dividends at the moment. Would you agree?

Say you're running a program that only uses 2 cores, you're already maxed out on the dual core,
Click to expand...
...btw, what program would you be referring to here?

edit: I didn't realize I was responding to someone other than my original response. Though my response remains the same, I'd like to extend a small challenge to Ramon. I'd be willing to bench my machine against yours on "average user" programs and 99% of games. And, I'd be willing to put it up against even some of the quad based programs only because I see your machine is clocked amost a gig lower than mine. Though I don't mean we bench each other literally, you should get my point.
 
You guys can talk benchies all you want. I own an x3350 at 3.6 and an e8400 at 4.0, IMHO they DO feel different and are better at different things.

Back to the OP's question.

Fact is, Intel took a wrong turn with the P4. Believe me I own like 10 of them in my offices at work. All they do is lower the heating bill in the winter.

I did a fresh install of WinXP sp2 on two of my employees machines recently. A P4 (single core 2.2GHz) and a Duron 1.6GHz. What's really scary is that the Duron actually boots up faster and loads programs faster. Moreover, it has less of that single core (non hyperthreading) lag. Tha'ts because it's got a shorter pipeline.

The whole advantage of the Core2Duos are the shorter pipeline, better prefetching and larger caches (that's important, since the mem controllers are not on die).

The whole draw of the E8400 is OC potential. With all of these reports of 3.6GHz at stock volts, your'll get fast performance, a lower electricity bill and could probably use some quiet cooling too!
 
Pkirk618 said:
see, this is where we differ. On a practical standpoint, how do you benchmark your point to support it? When does the average user assume this benefit on a day to day basis? And back to your comments about speed, can someone in the market for a CPU assume based on your comments that a quad is faster because it can multitask? I didn't forget this bro, I simply don't believe its reaslistic to portray the quad as faster when it's just not the case. It's efficient yes and can do certain things faster if done at the same time and on a few multi processor programs, it can run them faster too.
I'm only one person and I don't encode/decode or play 2 games at once and that probably speaks of the current consensus, however so average it sounds.

Clock for clock and w/the advent of more cache the 8400 pays more dividends at the moment. Would you agree?

...btw, what program would you be referring to here?

edit: I didn't realize I was responding to someone other than my original response. Though my response remains the same, I'd like to extend a small challenge to Ramon. I'd be willing to bench my machine against yours on "average user" programs and 99% of games. And, I'd be willing to put it up against even some of the quad based programs only because I see your machine is clocked amost a gig lower than mine. Though I don't mean we bench each other literally, you should get my point.
Click to expand...

I'm not refferring to any specific program, simply stating a scenario where the quads would be useful. I could rip/burn/encode a dvd and play a game at the same time. While you could do that with a dual core also, there would be a greater performance drop between the different programs running if you do. I could make a compressed image of my machine while doing any number of other stuff, playing a game, working on a large file in photoshop, encoding a video and have VPC running at the same time. Basically, any type of heavy multi-tasking would benifit from a quad core even if not a single one program will take advantage of all 4 cores.
 
that's cool. But unless that specific scenario was a daily objective of a consumer, it's just not worth it. I've been there and done that and I'm on the 8400 bandwagon because I have tangible proof and uses for this particular chip.

To the OP: If we're debating the 8400 over a quad, the message should be crystal clear :)
 
It's not so clear when the general consensus is split pretty much down the middle. ;)

Personally I see more tangible benefits from the quad. I'm pretty sure that my quad at 3.1GHz is more than enough to drive my video card to it's fullest potential when gaming, so going to 4GHz won't really do much for me except for some minor exceptions such as games that are largely CPU intensive AND don't make use of multi cores. But that's less and less of an issue with today's games and future ones.

The E8400 vs Q6600 has been beat to death in these forums anyway. One just needs to search to see what people out there think, like I said, it's pretty evenly split. With the edge probably going to the Q IIRC.
 
I'd agree - the 8400 OR the q6600 would be a very sound purchase. I couldnt beleive the responsiveness of my machine with the q6600 installed. It was one of those wooooow type moments :)

Plus - both are really coming down in price. You can find the E8400 for $210 and the Q6600 for just 20 dollars more.. I'd personally go with the Q6600. I was just amazed at how fast an "entry" quad core was.

E8400 - $210
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

Q6600 - $234
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115018
 
blah.... buy both. :D

Anyhow, this was 8400 v. Pentium D..... where did the Q6600 come in?
 
RamonGTP said:
It's not so clear when the general consensus is split pretty much down the middle. ;)

Personally I see more tangible benefits from the quad. I'm pretty sure that my quad at 3.1GHz is more than enough to drive my video card to it's fullest potential when gaming, so going to 4GHz won't really do much for me except for some minor exceptions such as games that are largely CPU intensive AND don't make use of multi cores. But that's less and less of an issue with today's games and future ones.

The E8400 vs Q6600 has been beat to death in these forums anyway. One just needs to search to see what people out there think, like I said, it's pretty evenly split. With the edge probably going to the Q IIRC.
Click to expand...

you know, unless you tried both processors (you haven't stated so thus far), how can you tell the difference. As for being down the middle, I don't see that anywhere. You're operating at 3.1ghz and that is slow compared to a 4ghz dual core processor (and I'm well aware that 3ghz is fast enough). Say what you want my friend, the bulk of computer users everywhere will use it for gaming, office apps and internet with the occasional burning of disks and encoding. Quads have their place. They certainly filled a slot in my machine, and they'll likely fill many that can benefit from it's technology. But I'm telling you, I had this quad processor and not only did it run slower, it ran hotter and used more power. It has less cache and a larger die, core for core. It's like this, if you recommend that processor, you should recommend it (nowadays) to the few likely to utilize all it's cores. Not for opening 10 web pages or playing a game while burning a DVD all while playing three songs simultaneously. I kid there but I'm trying to make a point.

And if we're talking future-proofing because of the direction we're supposedly headed, well, by the time we're there, even if it's a few months down the road, our next gen quads will be even more affordable making this quad less appealing.

It's a great processor and before we knew better, it was/is the shit. I won't dare debate it's history or it potential for many. It just doesn't feel right what you're saying. Split down the middle? I can't see it. The people who will defend this processor are yeah, the ones who own it still. But many people downgraded (and I think I'll use that word less now) for the benefit of a higher clock--so what's that tell you about the current status of the current view. To the OP, I'm sorry and I'm done rehashing a dead horse but it was a point I thought I had to make.
 
I don't have to use both processors to know how processing and threads work. I don't own an e8400 but I do own other Core 2 Duo's that I have run at higher clock speeds than my quad (before I OCed my quad) so I know full well the performance characteristics and differences between a higher clocked dual core vs a lower clocked quad.

Can't see that it's split down the middle? You're not looking then. Do a search on the forum, it'll be right there in front of you. There are ATLEAST 5 threads with both the words e8400 and q6600 right in the title and countless other threads like this one that evolved into a discussion comparing the two, and I've read just about all of them. If you don't believe me or if you think my memory isn't serving me well, it should be very easy for you to find.

You say most people won't use 4 cores, and you're right, but most people won't utilize 4GHz worth of clock cycles either. Office apps? how fast can you type? I find it impossible to believe you were able to see a "tangible" benefit to your MS office apps or internet surfing by having a 4GHz dual core vs a 3GHz quad core. Gaming? sure, I can believe that but that also depends on the game. If a game only uses 1 or 2 cores, then of course the e8400 would be better suited, I'm not arguing that point at all and I'll even admit that most games today do fall into this category. You are however, exaggerating the benefits of a faster clocked dual core by a LOT. Out of the three examples you mentioned. (office apps, internet and gaming) only one would benefit, and not all the time either, and that is gaming.

The bottom line is this. The Q6600 can do more work, the E8400 does less work but can do it faster. Which processor one should get depends on a case by case basis. If you upgrade fairly often and are looking for the best gaming performance, then the E8400 is the way to go. If you keep your systems for a while and/or you do a lot of multi-tasking in addition to gaming. The quad is the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top