Q9400 vs E8x00

[vict0r]

Let's take the E8200..

Q9400 vs E8200 ... both are 6 MB L2 Cache and both are 2.66 Ghz ..

one is 4 cores, the other is 2 cores..

isn't the Q9400 supposed to beat the E8200?

Lets OC the Q9400 to 3Ghz ..and leave an E8400 @ stock..

ain't the Q9400 still supposed to be faster @ 3 Ghz than an E8400 @ 3 Ghz?

What do you think?
Did I make any sense or does this sound like a big pile of bullsh*t for you?

 

[CamaroZ28]

The E8x00 would be faster in single threads clock for clock because the Q9400 doesn't have fully shared 6MB L2 Cache. It's more like 2x3MB L2 Cache which means a single core on the Q9400 can only use up to 3MB of cache.

 

[caw2007]

It'd be faster if you could take advantage of the two extra cores, which don't usually get used. If both have 6MBs of cache, then technically the E8200 has the better cache per core ratio. Both are good choices, but personally I'd get the dual core E8200. Quads just don't bring many benefits in terms of gaming.

 

[vict0r]

btw, i didnt ask this because im interested in a q9400 or something.. i asked because i was just wondering..

 

[Forceman]

Realistically, at the same clock speeds, on normal apps, you won't see a difference between the two. The cache differences are small, and most apps don't make use of the extra cores.