# [SOLVED] E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

I just ran headlong into a wall of CPU lag. 

It seems my old Pentium Dual Core E2200 can't handle a modded Fallout 3 when there's a lot of enemies on the screen, even overclocked at 2.97GHz. Everything vanilla it plays just fine, never dipping below 30fps (except in VATS, which seems framerate locked at 20fps), but after adding some mods I found myself running 10fps when I had nine raiders on the screen at once. I'm pretty sure it isn't a graphics card thing, as even if I underclock the card by 50MHz or overclock by 25MHz I'm still settling at about the same framerate when running from that save game, which says to me it's a CPU bottleneck. I'm Prime testing an overclock of 3.18GHz now to try to overcome this, but I'm thinkin' it's about time to get a new CPU.

So I've got a question for y'all: I know we usually recommend the E8400 for performance gaming rigs, but I'm just a "leeeeetle" strapped for cash, and even $20 will make a difference. So how does an E7600 3.06GHz compare to an E8400GHZ 3.0GHz? I know the extra 3MB of L2 cache and higher FSB helps the E8400 have better performance-per-clock than the E7600, but just how much performance difference is there? Is it worth the extra $23? Or will I be fine with an E7600, or even E7500? Keep in mind I'll probably overclock up as high as I'm Prime stable either way, so that's a factor as well.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

If your gonna overclock then I think you would be fine with the E7500 although if you can hold out until you have the extra cash I recommend the E8400 E0 stepping which is what I have and it overclocks like a beast and doesn't require loads of tweaking to get to 4GHz either.

PS I run fallout 3 with the greenworld mod etc and I have never had any slow down yet. I ran the Resident evill 5 benchmark program the other day and the cpu test part of it said there would be no issues in the game what so ever and that has loads of enemies and things on screen at once.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

I think it was a combination of an AI mod I was using, some higher res textures I added in, and the fact that the Gamebryo engine renders particle effects (like the Point Lookout close-up fog) using the CPU, rather than GPU. I upped the clock to 3190MHz and my lowest framerate at that save was 22fps, rather than 10fps, so an improvement but still far from ideal. I'm also running a bit hotter than I'd prefer, though not as hot as I thought at first (for the record, the TJMax for Pentium Dual Core CPUs is 85C, not 95C, so keep that in mind when setting up RealTemp or you'll have a panic attack when running Prime95).

I'm liking the price on the E7500, especially compared to the E7600. ESPECIALLY compared to the E7400. $5 for more clocks? Yes, please. The E7500 is definitely doable for me, and I bet I could get it up to 3.6 or 3.8GHz with some effort. I'll have to think on it, though.

And meh, current overclock settings:
FSB: 290MHz
Multi: x11
VCore: 1.50V (max rated voltage)
RAM clock: 967MHz
RAM timing: 5-5-5-15
RAM voltage: 2.2V

CPU idle: 32C
CPU gaming load: 40-55C
CPU Prime95: 63C

I know those aren't exactly "hot", but when you compare it to the temps at stock (24C idle, 46C Prime95) you'll see what I mean. :wink:

These Allendale CPUs have a very definite bus wall at 300MHz, I managed to boot at that clock *once* and it was unstable as hell. Haven't managed it since.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



Phædrus2401 said:


> I think it was a combination of an AI mod I was using, some higher res textures I added in, and the fact that the Gamebryo engine renders particle effects (like the Point Lookout close-up fog) using the CPU, rather than GPU. I upped the clock to 3190MHz and my lowest framerate at that save was 22fps, rather than 10fps, so an improvement but still far from ideal. I'm also running a bit hotter than I'd prefer, though not as hot as I thought at first (for the record, the TJMax for Pentium Dual Core CPUs is 85C, not 95C, so keep that in mind when setting up RealTemp or you'll have a panic attack when running Prime95).
> 
> I'm liking the price on the E7500, especially compared to the E7600. ESPECIALLY compared to the E7400. $5 for more clocks? Yes, please. The E7500 is definitely doable for me, and I bet I could get it up to 3.6 or 3.8GHz with some effort. I'll have to think on it, though.
> 
> ...


I always though it was 95 for Real Temp for c2d if it 85 then my temps are a hell of a lot lower than what I thought.

Your temps aren't bad, I have never played a game yet that pushes the cpu like prime


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

No, I think it's 95 for the C2Ds, I think Intel set the TJ Max lower on the PDCs for some reason. They probably figure along the lines of it's a budget CPU, thus everything must be lower, including the thermal junction. :4-dontkno


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



Phædrus2401 said:


> No, I think it's 95 for the C2Ds, I think Intel set the TJ Max lower on the PDCs for some reason. They probably figure along the lines of it's a budget CPU, thus everything must be lower, including the thermal junction. :4-dontkno


ahh right got ya.

I think you will be fine with the 7500 they overclock pretty well and it should give you a bit more cpu power when it comes to fall out 3 and other cpu intensive games like world in conflict.


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

They do OC well but for $23 you can beat the FSB speed and extra Cache. I would hold out for the E8400, Remember FSB speed will also effect video card performance.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

The overclock seems to have helped greatly in all my games, I'm noticing a 5-20fps improvement across the board. So buying a new CPU isn't as urgent as I thought it was. I just didn't realize how much I was bottlenecking my 4870...


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Thats good know, what have you got it running at?


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

FSB: 290
Multi: x11
VCore: 1.500V (maximum allowed according to Intel's spec sheet)

CPU Clock: 3190MHz

Memory clock: 967MHz
Memory timing: 5-5-5-16
Memory voltage: 2.2V

CPU core temperatures (according to RealTemp):
Idle: ~27C
Gaming: ~30-55C
Prime95: 63C

Runs pretty good, Prime95 stable for ten hours. It's a shame I have to push the voltage so high, but it failed Prime95 a half hour in when it was at 1.48V. I tried to get 3300MHz, but after it still failed to boot after pushing the voltage to 1.525V, I decided it wasn't worth it. My CPU will run at those voltage levels, but I'm worried about burning it out before I can get a replacement.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

have you thought about maybe dropping the multi to 9 and then upping the FSB more?


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

I hadn't actually tried it, trying it now. Seems to be stable at 300x9, let's see how far it will go.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



Phædrus2401 said:


> I hadn't actually tried it, trying it now. Seems to be stable at 300x9, let's see how far it will go.


If your stable now I reckon you might get to 333 before it starts maxing out.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

That's what I'm hoping, though 333x9 is only 2997MHz.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



Phædrus2401 said:


> That's what I'm hoping, though 333x9 is only 2997MHz.


you might get better memory timings out of it though, which would help.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Hello from 320x9, 1.45V, ten minutes into Prime95 and it seems to be working well so far.

That's true, and the higher bus should help my video card perform better. We shall see though, won't we?


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

looking good, keep me posted. I am hoping once my new thermal compound beds in that I will get lower idle temps than the 37 degrees c I had so I'm hoping to get 450 x 9 out of it. I have had 433 x9 and 443 x 9 but I was getting 60 according to prime on the 443 x 9 so I dropped it to 433 x 9 but am back at stock until the paste beds in.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

350x9 @ 1.49V = 3150MHz, it's looking good and is so far passing my "quickie" stress test (Python script -- while True: print "Hello") which I use to tell if something is extremely unstable or not. Now to Prime test.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

You might get further yet. I'd run a proper prime test now if I were you then if it passes put it 360


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Looking good. I want to run Prime95 a bit longer before upping the FSB again, but I think I could take this higher. However, I'm running out of overhead for the voltage. I'll try 355 next (which by the way gives me a RAM clock of 1065--about the closest I'll get to 1066 without dropping back down to 333MHz again).


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

thats still a 1-1 ratio though, yuou can't get much better than that.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

FSB: 354MHz
Multi: x9.0
VCore: 1.5V

Clock: 3186MHz

RAM clock: 1065MHz
RAM timing: 5-5-5-18
DIMM voltage: 2.20V

Idle temperature: 30C


Prime testing now.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

I'll look in later to see how your doing, going for a curry with some mates now


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Cool.

Failed Prime95, gonna drop back to 350MHz. Seems that's as high as I can go without going over the voltage spec. Still pretty good though.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



Phædrus2401 said:


> Cool.
> 
> Failed Prime95, gonna drop back to 350MHz. Seems that's as high as I can go without going over the voltage spec. Still pretty good though.


350 is pretty good anyway. You should definetly notice a difference in fallout 3 now


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Noticing about a ~1-3fps increase in framerate in Fallout 3 now, over 290x11. So the higher bus/RAM speed definitely helps a bit and makes up for the slightly lower CPU clock (3150 instead of 3190), but it isn't a huge difference. Worth the experience anyway. Thanks for the suggestion. :grin:


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

no problem. Have you tried tweaking the RAM timings to 5-5-5-15 or better?


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Nah, I've tried before. At an 800 clock I can get 4-5-5-15, and at 900-1000 I get 5-5-5-15, but at the rated clock I can only manage the rated timing (5-5-5-18), and I'm afraid to put much more voltage into it.


----------



## gamemaniac (Aug 24, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

If it is stable at 300X, do you think you need to push it further?


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*



gamemaniac said:


> If it is stable at 300X, do you think you need to push it further?


overclocking is addictive and faster is always better especially if you can get it completley stable


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

300x9 is only 2700MHz, which is slow enough to bottleneck my graphics card. 350x9 gives me 3150MHz, a bit slower than my original overclock (290x11 = 3190MHz) but the faster bus and RAM speed make up for that. 

I'm at the best mid-point I can find between speed and stability. I passed six hours of Prime95 at my current settings (before deciding it was stable), and that's as good as a stock clocked CPU.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

I always do prime for 7 hours then memtest for 1 or 2 passes then I know its stable.

Thats a good overclock.

I still have to wait for my paste to bed in before I can re-overclock my system it's only been 56 hours since I did it. Only 144 more hours to go


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

I have one final comment to make on this thread, and I'm too lazy to retype all of this so here's the IRC chat:



> (11:39:00 AM) Phae: WOAH
> (11:39:04 AM) Phae: Something is screwed up
> (11:39:11 AM) eb4642: What?
> (11:39:23 AM) Phae: Hahaha!
> ...


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

lol @ lazy MS

That would be some overclock if it were 3.85GHz :grin:


----------



## gamemaniac (Aug 24, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Even I like faster machines and no doubt overclocking is addictive but all I am concerned with is that it is not potentially harmful to the components.


----------



## Phædrus241 (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

It _is_ potentially harmful to the components. Overclocking is a calculated risk. You have to gamble: will overclocking to this level give me the performance I need (or want) without killing my CPU before I get a new one? Generally if you keep the CPU voltage at or below the rated maximum the CPU will last at least 5-10 years, which is about how long it takes for a CPU to become obsolete. I'm running my CPU at 1.50V, the rated max, so I figure it will last a while. I did have it overvolted for a while, but I figure that with 2 years at 1.2-1.3V (stock), three months at 1.54V, and now a few months at 1.50V, I've still got quite some time before this CPU kicks the bucket.

*computer screen goes blank as CPU dies*

:wink:

Anyway, I have a high quality power supply with more power than I need (I need ~650-700W, it's rated at 750W and can go up to 900W before failing), a high end aftermarket CPU heatsink, a high quality motherboard, a well-cooled case, and I know what I'm doing. So I've minimized the risk as much as I can.


----------



## greenbrucelee (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: E7600 vs. E8400, and skip the ironic comments please*

Yep if you have quality components and don't go mental with the voltage then you should get around 2500000 hours out of your cpu thats longer than a CRT TV will last.


----------

