What's the next upgrade from C2D E8400 @ 4.0 GHz?

J

jmk396

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
787
Right now I have an Intel C2D E8400 overclocked to 4.0 GHz.

Most of my games play fine and are usually limited by the GPU (which is a GTX 285) but I also use emulators such as PCSX2 (PS2 emulator) which requires a whole lot of horsepower.

What would be a good upgrade chip? How much faster would it be?

(NOTE: I probably only need a dual-core and don't really see the need for a quad-core especially since almost all games only support at most two cores/threads).

Thanks!
 
I don't think it matters that you don't need a quad, you're looking at one regardless. You're pretty much at the top of the line as far as dual core chips are concerned. You're either looking at clocking your chip higher, or going i7.
 
A core i5/i7 clocked near that high, but it'd be quite a price premium. If I were you I'd sit tight a little longer.

If you want to save costs. A Q9550, Microcenter has it for $160, should drop right in your motherboard using your current board and memory. It's the top of the line final penyrn based Core2 quad, might clock that high since you know your other components will.

No personal experience/knowledge of the PS2 emulators, but I doubt they can make use of the extra threading a quad-core would give you. Again, I'd sit tight if I were you.
 
Unless you are planning to run cpu-intensive, multithreaded tasks a lot, NOTHING will be an upgrade from your E8400 at 4GHz.
 
jmk396 said:
Right now I have an Intel C2D E8400 overclocked to 4.0 GHz.

Most of my games play fine and are usually limited by the GPU (which is a GTX 285) but I also use emulators such as PCSX2 (PS2 emulator) which requires a whole lot of horsepower.

What would be a good upgrade chip? How much faster would it be?

(NOTE: I probably only need a dual-core and don't really see the need for a quad-core especially since almost all games only support at most two cores/threads).

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Core i7 - but it is not a real upgrade for gaming; not with a single GPU. There are only a handful of games that really utilize more than 2 cores and 4.0 GHz is plenty for GTX 285

i did the "upgrade" from e8600 @ 4.25 GHz to Q9550S at 4.0 GHz to i7 920 @ 3.97 GHz and the difference in gaming frame rates is minimal (with 4870-X3 TriFire)

The only reason i did it was to show why others shouldn't bother (yet) :p
(i do benchmarking for my own site)
 
I just bought a Q9550 to replace my e8400 @ 3.6. I'm rarely CPU limited at 30" and more games are seeing benefits from quad cores where overclocking a dual-core doesn't seem to help as much - Dragon Age and the latest Capcom stuff for example.
 
get a Q9550, I5, or I7, quads are the future

plus, GTA4 runs MUCH better on a quad :)
 
There is no real upgrade from an E8400 running at 4.0GHz..unless you go quad, and then your emulators would need to support multiple threads, which I kinda doubt they do.
 
Get a used $60 PS2 from gamestop and hook it up to your monitor, lol. Seriously, if it has component. It's a lot more logical. I wouldn't think the emulator runs as smooth or enhance visuals significantly enough to warrant a PC upgrade just to play PS2 games. If so, then I'll try it on my i7 and see for myself as I would like to play PS2 games in my basement where my PC is too, but my monitor doesn't have component input. I'm looking for a nice 24" that does though.
 
Last edited:
If you are running, or will use Windows 7, a quad may
help with just the overhead and i/o of the OS itself.
Some people have reported that 2 cores can be pegged
just by Windows startup, and Windows 7 is supposed to
play better with multiple cores in general (and in theory),
although I don't have, or know of any proof of this. Anyone?
 
aamsel said:
If you are running, or will use Windows 7, a quad may
help with just the overhead and i/o of the OS itself.
Some people have reported that 2 cores can be pegged
just by Windows startup, and Windows 7 is supposed to
play better with multiple cores in general (and in theory),
although I don't have, or know of any proof of this. Anyone?
Click to expand...
No, dual-core is quite fast in 7.
 
Menelmarar said:
No, dual-core is quite fast in 7.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that dual core wasn't fast in Windows 7.
I said that quad core is likely faster.
Also, if you have real-time a/v or other overhead, more
cores could be beneficial, although not necessarily.
 
aamsel said:
I didn't say that dual core wasn't fast in Windows 7.
I said that quad core is likely faster.
Also, if you have real-time a/v or other overhead, more
cores could be beneficial, although not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be
read like a haiku?
What is the reasoning
behind this format?
 
aamsel said:
If you are running, or will use Windows 7, a quad may
help with just the overhead and i/o of the OS itself.
Some people have reported that 2 cores can be pegged
just by Windows startup, and Windows 7 is supposed to
play better with multiple cores in general (and in theory),
although I don't have, or know of any proof of this. Anyone?
Click to expand...

I just upgraded from an E8400 at stock to a Q9550 and I can definitely feel the difference. More and more games are coming out that utilize quads, so it's a good way to hedge your bets with out going all out on an i7. And as for emulation, PCSX2 only uses 2 threads at the moment, so you won't see a difference until they rewrite it's code.

+1 for a used PS2 fat for $60 at GameStop. Nothing like the original hardware.
 
I'm running my e8500 at 4.1ghz - I did pick up a q9550 several months back when Microcenter had them for $160, but I'm having a hard time motivating myself to install it since the e8500 does everything and does it very well. The q9550 should be an upgrade, but really not much unless it clocks nearly as high.
 
Honestly an E8400 @ 4ghz is pretty fast heh. Why would you even want to bother upgrading.

Give me that cpu? :)
 
it will be if you multitask alot, a quad simple has more overhead to do things then a dual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top