E8500 or Q9450 ?

[Ibn Saeed]

Here are my present Specs:

Motherboard
CPU Type: AMD Athlon XP, 1215 MHz (11 x 110)
Motherboard Name: MSI KT4AV (MS-6712) (6 PCI, 1 AGP, 3 DIMM, Audio)
Motherboard Chipset: VIA VT8377A Apollo KT400A
System Memory: 1024 MB (PC2100 DDR SDRAM)
BIOS Type: AMI (10/03/03)


Display
Video Adapter SAPPHIRE RADEON 9600 ATLANTIS - Secondary (Omega 3.8.413) (256 MB)


Multimedia
Audio Adapter VIA AC'97 Enhanced Audio Controller

Storage
Disk Drive SAMSUNG SV4012H (40 GB, 5400 RPM, Ultra-ATA/100)
Disk Drive WDC WD800BB-00JKC0 (74 GB, IDE)
Disk Drive WD 3200JB External USB Device (298 GB

[Ibn Saeed]

Is it possible for HL to do a couple of reviews on E8500 and E7200

I just checked the price for E7200, a huge difference between E8500 and E7200

[Ibn Saeed]

Just checked the pricing for E8400 and E8500, the difference is alot.

Why does Intel release do many versions.It gets confusing as to which one to choose.

Arent developers trying to update their softwares in order to utilize Quad Core ?

[simple_inhibition]

intel is a business, and the purpose of a business is to make money. they put out many different processors for many different purposes. they also put out processors with minimal speed improvements with marked up pricetags to try to make money. i look at the E8500 in this light (for now until the price drops) if you go with an E8500, your paying $80-$90 more for a 166mhz speed increase over the E8400. you could buy an E2220 with the difference in price between the E8400 and the E8500.

as it stands, the E7200, E8400 and the Q6600 are the best bang for buck processors out on the market. with the E8400, your getting a modernized and faster version of last years fastest dualcore for less money. the Q6600 is still a solid buy at around $200 and is rather overclockable with the G0 stepping, and the E7200 is as fast as the E6700/E6750, a processor which upon its release in 2006 (in E6700 trim) cost over $500. all that speed for around $130 last time i checked. also included into that is the more modern core built on the 45nm process (E7200/E8400) which runs cooler, and overclocks better. tagged with SSE4 which will improve performance in applications that support it (which will only grow with time) you can now see why BNB suggested it. its a terrific deal for the money and will be a performance leap of astronomical perportions compared to your current systems.

*steps off soap box*

[sbohdan]

hey guys, he said @ the beginning that he wants to use the new rig for 5-6 years. for that the quad core is better because its true that not many apps can utilize the quad RIGHT NOW but in a year or two....? plus he also said he would be running MANY apps at the same time! please read the post carefully before making recommendations! when running many apps you need as many cores as you can get even if ONE application cant utilize all cores - MANY applications can...
so If you read the original post - he needs a quad for both reasons: 5-6 years of use in perspective and many apps being run at the same time.

[Ibn Saeed]

Originally Posted by sbohdan

hey guys, he said @ the beginning that he wants to use the new rig for 5-6 years. for that the quad core is better because its true that not many apps can utilize the quad RIGHT NOW but in a year or two....? plus he also said he would be running MANY apps at the same time! please read the post carefully before making recommendations! when running many apps you need as many cores as you can get even if ONE application cant utilize all cores - MANY applications can...
so If you read the original post - he needs a quad for both reasons: 5-6 years of use in perspective and many apps being run at the same time.

Thanks for summarizing my exact needs :)

This is exactly what I need to do with my new computer

[RangerXLT8]

Definitely go for the quad core. I had an E8400 and went back to my Quad-Core Xeon 3210. Even with the E8400 at 4.2ghz it cannot keep up with the quad at 3.2....

And in the future things are only going to be moving towards multi-core CPUs, more programs will start to utilize all cores. Every new game I have played used all 4 cores on my quad..

[simple_inhibition]

i just noticed according to your signature, your athlon xp 1700 is underclocked

[simple_inhibition]

Originally Posted by sbohdan

hey guys, he said @ the beginning that he wants to use the new rig for 5-6 years. for that the quad core is better because its true that not many apps can utilize the quad RIGHT NOW but in a year or two....? plus he also said he would be running MANY apps at the same time! please read the post carefully before making recommendations! when running many apps you need as many cores as you can get even if ONE application cant utilize all cores - MANY applications can...
so If you read the original post - he needs a quad for both reasons: 5-6 years of use in perspective and many apps being run at the same time.

by the time your fully able to utilize a quad, octocore and beyond will be available and todays best and brightest from this generation will be considered as archaic as the athlon xp is today. its very difficult to build a system for the next 6 years, in fact its impossible. what you can build for is a solid 3 years if you stretch it. a quad will help, but i personally find it hard to justify the cost of admission for the Q9xxx series.

[drew and not u]

As it stands today, an E8400 can easily handle a large number of simultaneous applications with blazing speed and a low price tag. The chip can always be upgraded to a quad/octo/etc as they become relevant (read: cheaper). After a couple of years when quads become the defacto configuration (and applications and OSs are really taking advantage of these cores) you can upgrade to a far superior chip to anything out today, and in the end you haven't spent much more then you would have getting the "high end" chip in the first place. Spend more now, and still have an obsolete chip a couple years down the road, or get something that's more than adequate now and upgrade when relevant.