E0 slower than C0, clock for clock?

Found an intersting thread over on ocforms. They have compared the e8600 (which is on the new E0 stepping) with the e8500 (which is on the C0 stepping) by underclocking both to 3ghz, and found that the e8500 is slightly faster, due to slacker cache on the e8600. Most affected is graphical performance.

Quote from thread: Stilletto-"Well, my last e8500 topped out at 4.02 stable with acceptable voltage. I am running this 8600 at 4.42, and of course, it smokes on the number crunching at that speed, as it damn well better..HOWEVER, it is giving me less graphical performance(slightly) at 4.42ghz than the e8500 was at 4.02"

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=574883&page=3

Intel has owned AMD in gaming performance because of their cache tech. Doesn't surprise me that they sacrafice a bit of it to save power and increase clocks.. in preparation for whats coming.

i dont think that its from slacker cash, u wouldent see anything like that by changing the stepping

it looks strap related to me

might as well be thermal throttling

maybe just bios related... but would be nice to see some comparisons here :

Anyone with a P5Q Dlx and an E8600 or Q9650 EO stepping ? think it's best to first do a memtest as it reports cache speeds ( if I recall correctly)... winodws setups can differ big time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmad

Intel has owned AMD in gaming performance because of their cache tech. Doesn't surprise me that they sacrafice a bit of it to save power and increase clocks.. in preparation for whats coming.

---

I know its good getting high clocks etc...its just a shame were not getting relative performance gains.

L2 cache has a lower latency in everest so i doubt its slower

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zsamz_

L2 cache has a lower latency in everest so i doubt its slower

---

Dont expect that to give you the whole story ;)

However, his testing is a little flawed because we do not know how intel handles different models. Its best we wait for an e8600 vs e8600 comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmad

Dont expect that to give you the whole story ;)

However, his testing is a little flawed because we do not know how intel handles different models. Its best we wait for an e8600 vs e8600 comparison.

---

that's not possible because there's no such thing as C0 e8600

If this turns out to be true I'm gonna freak the hell out...

I had a retail boxed c0 8400 for $149 and took it back! I could even have tested it first but left sealed to avoid restock fee in anticipation of the mighty all-conquering e0. I hope I didn't piss away a potentially great upgrade from my 7200 :shrug:

There are both c0 and e0 8400's in the wild, so who's gonna test 'em on the same rig?