Retail E8400 $199.99 Instock Microcenter Online

i would grab this , if i wasn't going to their store to grab q6600 for the same price .
 
Looks like Intel may, finally, be catching up with demand.....though the 5-7 day shipping date implies that they're probably still in transit from Intel. Either way, nice find.
 
nilepez said:
Looks like Intel may, finally, be catching up with demand.....though the 5-7 day shipping date implies that they're probably still in transit from Intel. Either way, nice find.
Click to expand...

yeah, there is supposed to be a shipment coming in on the 31st so many other etailers will be getting them in as well.
 
seriously scratching my head right now... why does everyone have a boner for the Q6600's?

i've been waiting for microcenter to get these back in stock for two weeks now... thanks for the heads-up op.
 
Banyan said:
seriously scratching my head right now... why does everyone have a boner for the Q6600's?

i've been waiting for microcenter to get these back in stock for two weeks now... thanks for the heads-up op.
Click to expand...

Well, I want one because it seems like the best value quad core at this moment. The Q9450 may or may not be worth the extra premium for 45nm, but as for right now Q6600 all the way.

And, I also understand there are only a few programs that can fully utilize all 4 cores at the moment. The point is to future proof as much as I can - I don't plan to upgrade for years unless I have to (MAYBE late 2009 for Nehalem)...having a decently clocked quad core already waiting that I bought for a great price seems like a good option to me.
 
Thank OP, yeah I remember like a month ago I was standing in the Microcenter with e8400's in stock for 189.99... Didn't have the money at the time. Only a month later and 10 bucks more. Oh well.
 
Banyan said:
seriously scratching my head right now... why does everyone have a boner for the Q6600's?

i've been waiting for microcenter to get these back in stock for two weeks now... thanks for the heads-up op.
Click to expand...

$200 Q6600 GO vs $200 e8400 from Microcenter...its a no brainer I would take the Q6600 all the way. I had 2 e8400 that I bought and returned because of them being average overclockers. Alot of them are average and need alot of voltage. They're seriously overrated while GO q6600 are proven.
 
kadozer said:
$200 Q6600 GO vs $200 e8400 from Microcenter...its a no brainer I would take the Q6600 all the way. I had 2 e8400 that I bought and returned because of them being average overclockers. Alot of them are average and need alot of voltage. They're seriously overrated while GO q6600 are proven.
Click to expand...
I couldn't make up my mind.... so..... I bought both :D
 
kadozer said:
$200 Q6600 GO vs $200 e8400 from Microcenter...its a no brainer I would take the Q6600 all the way. I had 2 e8400 that I bought and returned because of them being average overclockers. Alot of them are average and need alot of voltage. They're seriously overrated while GO q6600 are proven.
Click to expand...

I thought that the e8400's were proven overclockers too, many people are reporting 4.0 Ghz with little or no voltage increase, since I personally have no experience yet :) I hope someone can clear this up.
 
UltraVioletDream said:
I thought that the e8400's were proven overclockers too, many people are reporting 4.0 Ghz with little or no voltage increase, since I personally have no experience yet :) I hope someone can clear this up.
Click to expand...
I had to go to 1.3 for 4ghz. I am currently running 3.6 <1.2v and <50 degrees full load.
 
UltraVioletDream said:
I thought that the e8400's were proven overclockers too, many people are reporting 4.0 Ghz with little or no voltage increase, since I personally have no experience yet :) I hope someone can clear this up.
Click to expand...

Well, there's people that can do 4ghz easily with their setups using low voltage with wolfdales and it is deceiving. How many of these people actually have it stable ?Run Prime95 4+ hours and OCCT 1 hour without any errors. All reports I've seen on XS and other forums leads me to believe there are more average then good batches of e8400's out there. IMO i would try to buy at least 2 and return the poorer overclocker if you're in the market for 1.
 
don't buy the 8400 over the Q6600. It doesn't make any sense...

You can overclock the Q6600 to the exact same speed as the 8400 at stock voltage. And newer games don't benefite much from extra CPU speed anyway.

Check out this link to see Crysis performance levels with different core 2 duo chips and notice there's no benefit at all between the fastest and slowest on high settings at normal resolutions and even less difference at the highest resolutions

http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-performance/page7.html

The extra two cores ROCK for just putzing around on the PC. I've been burning a DVD, Copying a 16GB file, Have my 3 Virtual PC's setup (domain controller, server, and workstation), listening to MP3's and like 16 other windows open. My CPU is like 11%. You hardly ever see the quad cores go above 30 percent. Playing Crysis at 1920x1200 resolution on high settings. CPU is at 30-35%. You can alt-tab out and navigate around as if the game isn't even running. The quads are like big ole' mean dually diesel work trucks compared to the medium and light duty F-150.

Once you've played around with a quad core you'll understand :)
 
Yup, I don't see any value in dual cores except on the low end nowadays. A slightly slower quad core will provide a far better computing experience in general Windows usage even without using multithreaded apps, where it really shines. Games benefit as Windows runs on one core while antivirus/antispyware/background apps/etc. run on another, and the game takes another core or two (two easily for single-threaded MMO's where you are dual-logging). The whole system is like the jump from single to dual: it's amazing.
 
Hmm I had the impression I had was that the 1) E8400 was a better OCer, and that 2) 4 cores didnt make much of a difference cuz most programs dont use all 4, so therefore the E8400 was the way to go over the Q6600.
 
Archaea said:
don't buy the 8400 over the Q6600. It doesn't make any sense...

You can overclock the Q6600 to the exact same speed as the 8400 at stock voltage. And newer games don't benefite much from extra CPU speed anyway.
Click to expand...

You need to do some homework before claiming the Q6600 to the exact same speed as the 8400 at stock voltage.

Usually a 8400 can do 4.0ghz with 1.3v, do i see any Q6600 can do 4ghz at 1.3v?
 
bail_w said:
You need to do some homework before claiming the Q6600 to the exact same speed as the 8400 at stock voltage.

Usually a 8400 can do 4.0ghz with 1.3v, do i see any Q6600 can do 4ghz at 1.3v?
Click to expand...

I'd love to see how many of these are stable. More realistically they need 1.35-1.39
 
bail_w said:
You need to do some homework before claiming the Q6600 to the exact same speed as the 8400 at stock voltage.

Usually a 8400 can do 4.0ghz with 1.3v, do i see any Q6600 can do 4ghz at 1.3v?
Click to expand...

I said the Q6600 could get to the same performance level as the 8400 for free -- stock voltage, no voltage increase. Meaning the Q6600 can hit 3.0Ghz just like the 8400 at stock voltage.

The 8400 can overclock as well I understand that....but my second point was games don't care too much about CPU in comparison to GPU and I linked the Crysis link.....

Before you call someone out about doing their homework, you should ensure you correctly read their comment.

Check out my sig - Q6600 stable at 3.6 Ghz and 1.4 voltage on air cooling. Best of both worlds!
 
Psh who around here OCs on stock voltage anyway? The 8400 DOES OC higher right? Were not talking about GPUs or decreasing marginal benefit with clock speed here. Most programs dont use multiple cores, and do see SOME benefit with higher clock speed no matter how "small." Doesnt that make the 8400 "better"?
 
9mmx19 said:
Psh who around here OCs on stock voltage anyway? The 8400 DOES OC higher right? Were not talking about GPUs or decreasing marginal benefit with clock speed here. Most programs dont use multiple cores, and do see SOME benefit with higher clock speed no matter how "small." Doesnt that make the 8400 "better"?
Click to expand...

everybody would overclock on stock voltage if they could. ---- You are pretty much guarenteed a 3.0ghz O/C of 600mhz on stock voltage with the GO stepping Q6600. That's darn nice considering Intel wants 1000 bucks at newegg for their 3.0ghz retail quad.

Reasons for overclocking on staock voltage?

Extend chip life!
Lower heat output!
Save Electricty!

I would argue that you'll much sooner notice a quad core in overall system performance including games than you would in a dual core that's running 5% or 10% faster. As already touted in this thread and every other "I love my quad" thread on this board. The difference between a quad core and dual core is very distinct for multitaskers. It's like you just CAN'T overload the CPU....I'd say a dual to a quad is just about as distinct as a single to a dual. So with that anology in mind (and there are lots of people who say the same.) Would you rather than a Athlon 3800 single core or a x2 3600 dual core?
 
wow they just started handing out cancellations, the guy offered me a OEM and wanted me to wait another week for a $189.99 OEM piece of shit, and I ordered three, they said I could only get one... I said no
 
I got the same thing in voicemail. They're saying they "couldn't get" retail 8400's, and are offering OEM at 189.99 Limit 1....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top