Get a E8400 or a Q9400?

Sprtfan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
315
The prices have dropped to the point of being similar. I'm building this for a friend that will only use it for gaming. I'm guessing that the E8400 would still be the best route to go but he normally keeps a system for several years. Will the Q9400 "future" proof him more for game that should be released the in the next year or two?
I looked at a i7 system so he could just drop in a different proc in a year but it looks like to much of a price premium at this point for what he will need it to do. Thanks
 

Sprtfan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
315
Microcenter has the Q9400 Processor $179.99 and Newegg has the E8400 for $165. Maybe I can find the E8400 cheaper but I really haven't looked around much.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,752
For the $15 or so difference, I'd definitely get the quad. I thought the Q9400 was still in the $230 range like at newegg.
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
Definitely the Q9400. With a decent motherboard and heatsink, he'll be able to get it up to at least 3.6GHz as well, which would negate any performance advantage that an overclocked E8400 would have in single and dual-threaded apps.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,752
I wish I could find a deal like $179 for a Q9400 :cool:. The multiplier on the Q8200 is hard to work with, but I like the idea of SSE4.
 

Finny76

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
1,172
Microcenter has the Q9400 Processor $179.99 and Newegg has the E8400 for $165. Maybe I can find the E8400 cheaper but I really haven't looked around much.

They have the Q9300 and Q9400 for the same price.

I picked my Q9400 for $179.99 last week :)
 

CamaroZ28

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
740
Depending on the games he plays the less cache in the Q9400 might hurt him, I would only consider Q9x50 quads as they have all the cache enabled like the E8400.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,416
i doubt they would notice the less cache really, short of benchmarks i dont think most people would ever notice less cache from 4MB to 6MB even to 12MB.
 

CamaroZ28

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
740
i doubt they would notice the less cache really, short of benchmarks i dont think most people would ever notice less cache from 4MB to 6MB even to 12MB.

Like I said, it depends on the games. In my case specifically, I know that Source engine games are greatly affected by the cache. I've ran my system with a friends E7200 which would be equivalent to the Q9400 in terms of cache compared to the E8x00 and FPS took a significant hit.
 

Sojuuk

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
3,011
Like I said, it depends on the games. In my case specifically, I know that Source engine games are greatly affected by the cache. I've ran my system with a friends E7200 which would be equivalent to the Q9400 in terms of cache compared to the E8x00 and FPS took a significant hit.

was his e7200 overclocked to 4ghz too?
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,752
Thanks for that link. That very well might be my next processor ;). I just can't justify spending an extra $100 for the extra cache.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,752
No just upped FSB to 333 when running the E7200 and mine at stock settings so we could see the exact difference the cache made in the games we played.

Heck, I got my E5200 to 4Ghz and it was $40 cheaper than the E7200 ;).
 

CamaroZ28

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
740
Heck, I got my E5200 to 4Ghz and it was $40 cheaper than the E7200 ;).

Well I'm not saying the E7200 couldn't get to 4GHz, that just wasn't the point of our testing so we didn't bother. Anyways E5200 is a great little processor, I have a E2180 which is like the 65nm precursor to that one and it overclocks like mad.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,416
would be nice to see some benchs of chips with cache levels varying to see just how much of a hit games do take.. but i guess it could be hard finding various chip, running them all at the same clock / fsb
 

Cov

Gawd
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
917
I have a E8400 paired with GeForce 8800 GT and it runs all top games currently on the market like a dream (except Crysis).

It might be more economical in terms of power usage to run 2 instead of 4 cores because some cores are unemployed most of the time anyway.
But I'm thinking to go quad too now (Q9550) cause if you need more horse power ... then you have it at your hands.

Actually, I expect software developers to be smart enough to make their products use multicore more.

What graphics card are you planning on getting ? That seems to be more important for gaming than the CPU.


As I'm all for innovations, the i7 surely sounds interesting but thinking about the domino effect I lost interest. You would decide for a whole different generation of computer system.
Not only is it too expensive at the moment, but also would it improve over the next couple of years anyway.
Yeah, it has to marture first ... like all other previous CPUs have done.

Until then, socket 775 will serve me just fine
:p
 

Tahoe916

Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
623
I just bought my Q9400 today from Microcenter for $179. Have it 6hrs prime stable at 3.8GHz and it blows the pants off my E8400 at 4.2GHz in almost everything. Can't be beat for $180!
 

NLW

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
405
I just bought my Q9400 today from Microcenter for $179. Have it 6hrs prime stable at 3.8GHz and it blows the pants off my E8400 at 4.2GHz in almost everything. Can't be beat for $180!

Got one of these, too. It's tough to beat the q9400 for $180 ($60 less than newegg). It's also plenty for most any game, unless you really need to be on the bleeding edge. Or if you play your games at 600x480 at medium quality, like all the "games" sections of the CPU reviews. :rolleyes:
 

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,573
I think you'll definitely want a quad in a year or so when a lot of games are designed for it like Lost Planet. So the question is whether to get one now, or wait for cheaper models w/ more cache in a year.

I might get a e7400 for $99 at microcenter, then get a quad in a year or two.
 

Casper312

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
1,762
How well do the Q9400 overclock? To me ill get the Q9400 if its a decent overclocker (3.8+). Otherwise, i would go E8400.
 

Zero82z

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
27,897
How well do the Q9400 overclock? To me ill get the Q9400 if its a decent overclocker (3.8+). Otherwise, i would go E8400.
They typically hit around that speed and higher. They use a newer stepping that is equivalent to E0 for the full-cache quads, so they have comparable overclockability. The only limiting factor is really FSB bottlenecking since they need 500MHz to hit 4GHz.
 

NLW

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
405
First day I got my q9400 I had it up to 3.2. That way yesterday. I haven't tried any more, but I got to 3.2 feeding it less that 1.2volts. I'd imagine there's plenty of headroom left. I may or may not explore that territory as 3.2 is really all the power I need. I've heard of a lot of people getting 3.5-3.6 on air pretty easily. 3.8+ may be out of range for most people, but I really haven't looked into the matter much. This, for what it's worth.
 

Casper312

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
1,762
They typically hit around that speed and higher. They use a newer stepping that is equivalent to E0 for the full-cache quads, so they have comparable overclockability. The only limiting factor is really FSB bottlenecking since they need 500MHz to hit 4GHz.

So i take it their multi is 8? Still very decent.

Im looking at the price tag over at newegg and its very appealing, even more the $180 price tag from mc.
 

ivandurago

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
1,307
You could consider looking around the FS boards
I picked up my q9450 for $175 shipped from here, and it runs incredibly cool @ 3.33
 
Top