Intel E8500 Core2 Duo CPU Review
Posted by Steven Parker via E-mail on 24 March 2008 - 10:35 · 18 comments & 7972 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by WICKO on 24 Mar 2008 - 10:59
- First I've heard of this site... it would be a pretty decent review, except ALL of those benchmarks are synthetic.. http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wol...ks_transistors/ has some real benchmarks, with more processors. Check that out as well.
-
#1.2 Posted by WICKO on 24 Mar 2008 - 17:25
- (Neobond said @ #1.1)Thanks, I added it as an alternative
No problem. I also check http://www.anandtech.com/, and http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/. -
#1.3 Posted by Azmodan on 24 Mar 2008 - 20:11
- Pretty interesting. Tom's Hardware game benchmark.
But it's just insane the price jump it goes from a Q6600 or E6850 to all those models... I guess I'll just stick with the E6850 for a long time.
(The actual Price vs Performance chart doesn't shows up the E8500 in Tom's. Link to the chart.)
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by +DrunkenMaster on 24 Mar 2008 - 14:55
- Yeah, but most of the benchmarks exclude many apps, mostly because there's no demos or they're highly complicated and technical. I'm sure a lot of CAD users would want benchmarks of their program and a lot of Math people would want benchmarks of their programs. I've been looking for the latter and there's a huge lack of reviews on the Net. It makes me wonder if getting a Core2 duo vs a quad would make a difference.
-
#2.1 Posted by Shadrack on 24 Mar 2008 - 23:02
- It is still really fuzzy to me as well. I think, (in general), if you are running programs that are not optimized for multiple-cores (which is most, currently) then:
* More cores are better for multi-tasking a lot of programs.
* Faster cores are better for running single tasks faster (i.e., PC Games).
But I think that newer software is going to favor more cores rather than faster cores. So in a couple of years it will make a lot more sense to have 4 cores at a particular speed than 2 cores at some faster speed. Currently it is very application dependent, but I think overall faster 2 cores is better than quad cores.
I have a Q6600, and I love it.
-
#3 Posted by Killa Aaron on 24 Mar 2008 - 16:52
- WTF 4.5GHZ 2 cpu damn i've never heard of such a thing
i really need to start building my new supercomputer soon.
-
#4 Posted by Hawkeye on 24 Mar 2008 - 17:18
- I want this processor so badly! I'm putting off building my very first PC (all previous PC's were OEM) because it's not available in North America yet, except to reviewers. I already have some of the parts for the PC, but still waiting for this beast to come out.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by RPDL on 24 Mar 2008 - 20:16
- This might be the next processor I buy. Although I have to admit I'm worried by the fact that the lack of competition from AMD.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by Shiranui on 25 Mar 2008 - 04:04
- I gave my wife an ultimatum: I get the QX9770 or nothing!
Now I have nothing.
too bad. well in my case still single core 
The E8500 also overclocks like a beast reaching 4.389 GHz, a nearly 40% overclock on normal air-cooling. Other people have reached over 4.5GHz on theirs. Dual Core processors still have a market as only the Q6600 Core 2 Quad CPU reaches this level of price but performance on the E8500 beats that CPU in many cases.