Topic: Looking for learned opinions

[Rod ONeal]

What do you guys think,

Living in NZ is mostly wonderful, but getting some stuff at the end of the world isn't so easy. I've ordered a new PC.

Here's the specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz 6M 1.33GHz LGA775    
Gigabyte GA-X38-DS4 Socket 775 X38 ICH9R
G.SKILL 4GB kit (2GB x 2) DDR2-800 (PC-6400) CL4-4-4-12
MSI RX3870-T2D512E-OC Radeon HD3870 512MB PCI-E    
Seagate SATAII 320GB 16MB 3GB/S HDD
Liteon 20X SATA Dual DVD RW
SILVERSTONE SST-TJ04 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tow    
ACBEL 510 8CM FAN OEM Power Supply

The E8400 is back ordered 'til the middle of April. The shop is willing to install an E8200 for me to use until the E8400 arrives. At that point what will happen is that I'll remove the E8200 from the PC have it couriered to the PC shop on the No. Isl. and they'll send me the E8400. All of this will take about 4 days down time, at best. If all deliveries go smoothly.

Here's the question... Do you think that the E8400 over the E8200 is worth all the effort. Or, should I just keep the E8200 and take a $50.00 refund on the price difference between the 2?

I plan on OC'ing the system and can probably get similar clock speeds between the 2. The lower multiplier on the E8200 might make it a bit trickier though.

P.S. Will be running XP pro.

[Pestalence_XC]

I would go with the e8400..

It overclocks better, better multiplier.. it can OC pretty good with stock cooling, etc..

the e8200 has reports of over heating under normal conditions with stock cooling... also the slower multiplier will make OCing difficult.

for a $50 price difference.. I would go with the e8400.. the over heating problem noted on the e8200 (though I have only see 5 reports of this).. why take a chance?

[Rod ONeal]

I've dug around a bit more myself and that's the conclusion that I've come to, as well. The 8200 just seems like a lower quality chip overall. I've seen over 4gig OC on air quite common with the 8400.

[Bonk]

I haven't built a new machine since 1999 (I build 'em to last!), but I've always found that an acceptable processor is always $300 regardless of what year it is.  Not sure these days but I bet it's exactly the same.

In home computing products, a $50 savings now almost certainly results $250 in additional modification costs later or frustration with inadequate performance.

Buy processors by the batch at logical clock speeds for the buses in use, I very explicitly purchased a Pentium 3 1000MHz Coppermine for this machine, based on the established performance and reputation of the chip.

Also, cache, cache, cache... you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if you bought one for $20 less chances are the cache is so small as to cripple the chip. Always ensure that L1 and L2 caches are sufficient.

Never buy the latest greatest processor. (Unless you're "rich" and need places to dump money...)

[Rod ONeal]

Thanks for all the advice. No doubt the E8400 is worth the extra money. That's why I bought it. The cache is the same on both, 6meg. The difference spec wise is the multiplier, 8.5 for the 8200 compared to 9 for the 8400. More important though, it appears that the "real" difference between the 2 is the headroom for OCing. Apparently the 8400 are just the better chips.

It'll be a bit of a pain, but I'm going to do the exchange.

[Bonk]

Sounds like the multiplier is the main difference there, and integral values always make more sense. Over-clocking? I always use quality chips at their QA'd speed. Just the right amount of thermal transfer paste, a quality heat sink and ball bearing fan. Build to last, you could be broke tomorrow!

EDIT: after a quick look at the market, if I were to buy a new processor today I'd probably go with the E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz at ~$230. It looks like the optimum buy right now to me for a quality chip with a good performance record.

What is that 8400 going to cost? I'd be wary of brand new chips without a performance record. Chances are it will drop in price by over 50% within 6 months. The price on the E6600 will remain relatively stable until the reputation of the E8400 is established. I expect that purchasing an 8400 (or 8200) right now is not the best decision economically unless you absolutely must have the performance (for business contracts that will recoup the extra cost?)

Nice choice of board. Gigabyte or ASUS is still the way to go.

So on second thought, I'd back it off to an E6600 (the Conroe batch I mentioned). Sorry to flip flop, but that is my considered opinion on the matter. (you're probably spending about $200-300 too much for minimal gains)

ALSO, L1 caches are critical... let me look up the L1 on those 6600's .. the herd may have missed that detail...

EDIT #2: Well, well, well... it looks like Intel no longer lists the L1 cache sizes in their processor spec sheets, I cannot find the info anywhere. Perhaps they have caught on that smart people will not buy cheap chips with a chincy L1 cache...

That's almost enough to drive me to AMD for my next purchase. That is crtical information, without wich I cannot purchase the chip... Hmm Let's see what the best AMD buy right now is and if they list the L1 cache sizes.

[Bonk]

OK, enough edits! lol, new post.... this is worthy...

Best processor buy on the market right now in my opinion:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Brisbane 2.6GHz (Black Edition)  - $99 !!! 

64KB L1 Data and 64KB L1 Instruction (schweet!) and 512KB L2 per core. Easliy accessible info, full product disclosure:
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor Product Data Sheet

Excellent rep, best QA of batch... The L2 is a little small, but to be honest the 128KB L1 makes the size of the L2 far less important.

Now this is a 64 bit chip, so if I were to buy it myself I would be looking at a 64 bit platform (otherwise I'd just buy the best 32 bit chip available, at probably half the cost). Whether I would go with windows or not would be a tough call, as the availability of 64 bit applications is pretty limited, and the best uses of it to be honest are going to be in the *nix style computing environments. HP-UX might be a good way to go, but I'd need something worthy to work on if I were to buy such a system. (intel or AMD).

That cinches it for me, If I were buying right now, I would build a system around this chip. Gigabyte or ASUS mainboard, Matrox graphics, WD storage, any cheap old CD/DVD, and I'd get me a good old fashioned USR 56K v.92 external serial RS232 modem though I doubt you can get a mainboard with serial ports anymore, I guess a USB adapter or better yet, a real serial com card with a buch of ports for tinkering.... yeah... funny part is, that modem would cost about as much as the whole computer!

This processor will leave anything with an 8,16 or 32 KB L1 per core in its dust, regardless of clock speed, no question. Size and quality of cache (whether on chip or external - well L1 must be on chip) is the single biggest factor in processor performance in my experience. You could put this rig on a board with a large external L3 (don't know if such a thing is available) and it would scream. I would not overclock it. Ever. Not becasue you couldn't but because a quality chip like this will run continuously for decades at the QA'd speed.  (note the bundled fan may not be the best though...)

[Pestalence_XC]

this chart should explain things.. this is stock cooling... for both chips.. one is the same a my chip, the E6750 Core 2 Duo and the other is a Quad Core Q6600

the E6750 blows the quad out of the water..

the E6750 is only $189.99 at Newegg and comes with the Intel 3 year warranty.

[Rod ONeal]

Unfortunatrly for AMD the latest Intel chips (and even the previous series) eat their lunch. The E6600 you mention will stay with the 6400+ The E6750 will beat the hell out of it.

The E8200 (which replaces the E6750) runs at about 1/2 the wattage as the previous generation chip. Translates to less heat and, should be , longer life.

They're all 64 bit now. Unless you want to buy an older pentium chip.

The E8400 runs $300NZD which is about $240USD (They're even cheaper in the states, AFAIK!). They're actually less expensive than the current price for E6850 they replace. Again, way more efficient.

They've just started releasing the 45nm quad cores. They are still pretty expensive at $700NZD or so. Too rich for me. C4D can multithread up to 16 cores. A quad core would really improve my work flow, but the dual core will suffice just fine until the quads drop a lot in price.

Once all of the drivers are available for 64bit I'll consider it. For now though there are just too many issues with the 64bit OS.

[Rod ONeal]

Pestalence, The 6750 and 6850 are great chips. The biggest difference between them and the 8200 and 8400 that repace them is efficiency. There are some other improvements in their instruction set too, but no software takes advantage of it yet. So, it's kind of hard to know if the "improvement" is real or not.

[Bonk]

The E8400 runs $300NZD which is about $240USD (They're even cheaper in the states, AFAIK!). They're actually less expensive than the current price for E6850 they replace. Again, way more efficient.

Oh, that's much less than I thought. Usually the latest Intel chip retails at about $1200 USD. Actually that is very suspiciously cheap - it stinks of a chincy cache. Ask your retailer what the L1 caches are on that batch/lot. People get sucked in by this all the time, with every new generation of chips.

I still would not buy a chip without the L1 cache specs - just way too risky - there are plenty of P4 chips out there that can be outperformed by a 486 with a good cache - seriously, its that critical.

If that E8400 has something stupid like an 8 or 16 KB L1 then that old AMD will blow it out of the water.

They're all 64 bit now. Unless you want to buy an older pentium chip.

Shame. Most inefficient. I have yet to meet a home user that can actually use a 64 bit processor. Many think they do, but it is just unnecessary. I know we've been over that before here but I still feel it is a waste in 99% of cases.

[Pestalence_XC]

Bonk, you don't have to run 64 bit if you don't want.. but with Vista.. there is 64 bit software coming out.. mostly Microsoft right now.. but many games have 64 bit in them as well..

Hellgate London loads 64 bit

Crysis loads 64 bit

both are Direct X 10 and run smooth as glass

Sure they will run on 32 bit.. and I have.. trust me you can tell a difference with the way it plays online..


as for the E8400 it and all core 2 duo chips have 64Kb 2nd lvl cache (2x32) and on the E8400 it has 6Mb 2nd lvl cache

on my e6750 I have 64 Kb first lvl cache (2x32) and 4 Mb 2nd lvl cache

I may upgrade to the new chip.. it can overclock to 4.0 Ghz under stock cooling..

And that doesn't mean the chips are 64 bit only or have to have a 64 bit OS.. what it means is when software migrates to 64 bit.. and you upgrade your OS to 64 bit, the CPU will support 64 and 32 bit simultaneously.

[Bonk]

as for the E8400 it and all core 2 duo chips have 64Kb 2nd lvl cache (2x32) and on the E8400 it has 6Mb 2nd lvl cache

Is that one 64KB level 1 cache per core? (32 data + 32 inst) One 32KB level 1 per core? Or are the caches non-discrete? Is it a single 64KB level one?

Where did you find that info? I could find nothing on Intel's site. Not that I'm in the market right now, but not being able to find proper specs has severely shaken my faith in Intel. I've always bought Intel in the past.

Bonk, you don't have to run 64 bit if you don't want.. but with Vista.. there is 64 bit software coming out.. mostly Microsoft right now.. but many games have 64 bit in them as well..

...

And that doesn't mean the chips are 64 bit only or have to have a 64 bit OS.. what it means is when software migrates to 64 bit.. and you upgrade your OS to 64 bit, the CPU will support 64 and 32 bit simultaneously.

I know. I just don't have the need for more than 4GB of RAM for any application that I run. Should I ever have the need then I will consider a 64 bit system.

A well designed 32 bit system can be just as fast or faster than a 64 bit system. I'm confident I can build a 32 bit system that will outperform a 64 bit system at tasks requiring less than 4GB of RAM. That however would be dependent on chip manufacturers not caving to a market that thinks it needs more memory. Motorola might still make a 32 bit processor with modern techniques....

It is a matter of principle for me. I will not buy a 64 bit system until I can actually use it.

I just can't bring myself to buy a 64 bit system and then run a 32 bit OS and applications on it. I'm sure 99% of these 64 bit systems sell with considerably less than 4GB of RAM... just to make it that much more redundant I guess... I just have to shake my head.

[Pestalence_XC]

Program called CPUZ by CPUID will give your system specifications, including cache for first and second level..

On my systems that I have had.. Pentium Dual Core, and the Core 2 1.8 and my current Core 2 2.66, the LVL 1 cache has been 2 x 32 Kb .. in other words 32 Kb per CPU... with both CPU's running L1 is 64 KB..

this is my system ...

Here is a screen shot of CPUZ for the L1 and L2 cache

[Bonk]

Cool. Thanks for the info Pestalence. My faith in Intel is restored, though I have to wonder why they do not make this information available to potential buyers. If I were buying today and had not discussed this with you I would almost certainly have purchased the AMD chip I mentioned instead of the E6600 optimum buy for an Intel chip based on lack of information on the Intel chip.

[Pestalence_XC]

The information above isn't actual for total cache on my chip or for the Core 2 Duo's themselves..

Core 2's and Quad Cores actually have 3 levels cache...

My chip is the E6750 2.66 Ghz Core 2 Duo @ 1333 Mhz FSB (Stock) .. Cache is

64 Kb lvl 1

2 Mb lvl 2

4 Mb lvl 3

although on all benchmarks systems.. it reads the 3rd lvl as 2nd lvl and skips the 2nd lvl all together.. but it is the 3 lvls of cache that makes the Intel Core 2's the best overclockers..

I'm currently running my system at 3.86 Ghz at 1920 Mhz FSB with vcore at 1.42v

4 Gb Patriot Extreme Dual Channel DDR2 Kit (4 x 1024 Mb) stock @ 800 Mhz with latency at 4-4-4-12 voltage stock at 1.8 .. overclocked to 1068 Mhz, 4-4-4-12, voltage at 2.25

Stable as a rock for 2 weeks now... and I am running Vista 64 bit with SP 1 RTM..

I'm getting between 120 to 140 FPS under DirectX 10.1 on here using a BFG Geforce 8800GTX OC2 (2 x 626 Mhz GPUs) w/ 768 Mb gDDR3 all on Max settings in card and in game at a resolution of 1400 x 900 @ 75 Hz for Hellgate London. (FPS may vary due to lag in server) (FPS based on single player game mode)

I can't complain about that...

I'm pretty set for the next couple of years with this machine.