-
L2 cache comparison roundup - E7200 vs E8500 plus QX9770 - lets take a look
-
Well a E7200 is on my shopping list for my HTPC. Looks like the extra cache doesn't make all that much difference for the extra $ for the E8500!
-
thx so much for this test, been looking for something like this
good to know that games almost don't take advantage from the extra cache
-
Very interesting. Thank for your effort.
-
Have you run any demo's of games? Whats the real world performance difference like?
-
Nice comparison :up:, however would had like to see some comparsion in some Games if it was possible
-
thx guys
Crysis ,Call of Juarez DX10 & Company of Heroes will be tested soon
:)
-
this is cool! it shows how much the cache actually does.
-
Thanks for the review. I so want a E7200 [or a 7300 by the time I get around to buying it].
-
Great comparison :)
But, Graphs that don't start at 0 are hard to interpret at a glance, this one for example:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8139/aquaim5.jpg
I was like OMG WTF CACHE CAKES, then I realized the graph didnt start at 0 :)
-
nice comparison,just realize the difference between L2 cache
E8500 just want i need
-
It would be nice if the graphs crossed at 0, so ppl could make a better judgment.
But, awesome information, nonetheless!
-bZj
-
Graphs at 0? Why, didnt you learn to read them in school?
If you cared to look at the scale used starting at 0 would make some really really poor graphs, hence why the numbers are included (graphs are just quick visual references to most anyone who knows how to use them anyways).
-
excellent comparison PcCI2iminal.. i bet that alot of people will find this really helpful. :up:
-
so the only reason the quad wins in most is because it has double number of cores instead of double the cache right?
-
Thank you for the writeup, lots of good info :) .
If its not too much to ask, do you think you could include some game benchmarks where you show MIN / MAX FPS?
You can buy an E8300 for $30 more than an E7200, I think the extra cache is worth it. You lose the 9.5x multiplyer, but i think 8.5x is fine if you can tweak your board well enough
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
STEvil
Graphs at 0? Why, didnt you learn to read them in school?
If you cared to look at the scale used starting at 0 would make some really really poor graphs, hence why the numbers are included (graphs are just quick visual references to most anyone who knows how to use them anyways).
I think you'll find graphs started at 0 in school, Graphs for advertising / marketing start elsewhere...
If the graph starts at 0 you can look at the bars or whatever and say "hmmm that one is about 10% faster." What use is a graph as a "visual reference" if it implies that the e8500 is twice as good as the e7200
Also stop being so :banana::banana::banana::banana:y, you were incorrect...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
down8
It would be nice if the graphs crossed at 0, so ppl could make a better judgment.
But, awesome information, nonetheless!
-bZj
I agree, it's great to see a user comparison but the graphs skew the perception - 'marketing' vs 'real performance difference.' Scores as a percentage along with the absolute scores would give a more realistic impression.
-
I see all these people hawking the E6xxx, E4xxx and E2xxxx chips and they all are
asking for $100, + OR - $20 and i think to myself, i could get a.....
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Wolfdale 2.53GHz 3MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
for $126 delivered..... and it makes me wonder.....
New or Old, Think I take the New....
-
dont make your graphs look like ther eis such a HUGE difference in the scores, its really confusing visually. the scores are very minor, make the graphs show the differences are only minor.
-
The game benchies still going to come out?
-
Found this in a german hardware mag :
http://users.pandora.be/OAP/cache.JPG
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leeghoofd
eh? 2fps difference seems pointless to upgrade, I'm kinda eh about this graph
-
Very nice info bro..... this afternoo i'll read all this info slowly..... it's very interesting!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glow9
eh? 2fps difference seems pointless to upgrade, I'm kinda eh about this graph
It's at only 1.8Ghz sir, if you use the CPU's at 3ghz gaps will be bigger
-
If they are al at 1.8, why would they different at 2, or 3? Seems like if there is differences they should be sorta consistent? No? I dunno. I guess I'd figure technology in the chips would be the determining factor *shrug*
-
If I ran a game on my 100% Oc'ed E2140 at 3.2Ghz and would try the same game on my E6600 or even Q6600 the gameplay would feel totally different... beleive me I have found out on a LAN myself... 1Mb cache is too low for gaming, from 4mb on differences start to become less noticeable...
