• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

e8600 Slower than e8500???

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I meanm, if the multiplier isn't locked, the e8600 is running 9,5x422=4009mhz and the e8500 is at 445,4x9 to reach the same 4009 mhz... 445>422mhz bus, more data availlable, more core efficiency ?


What do you mean with "EXACT same BIOS settings."
Is it 9x422=3798 and 9,5x422=4009?
If the e8500@3798 is being faster than e8600@4009, than it would really be a mystery!

The E8500 has a max multiplier of x9.5. The E8600 is x10. He means the multiplier on the E8600 was lowered to be the exact same as the E8500. That way, both the multiplier and the fsb are identical.
 
The E8500 has a max multiplier of x9.5. The E8600 is x10. He means the multiplier on the E8600 was lowered to be the exact same as the E8500. That way, both the multiplier and the fsb are identical.

Thank you sir:beer:

Yes, to level the playing field, both CPU's were configured identically in the BIOS. (BOTH at 422*9.5). Effectively, this makes them the same piece of silicon, save the E0 stepping on the 8600.
@crilicM@n: I believe I see the what you are asking. The multiplier IS locked on all intel chips upward (except for the extreme edition, of course) but not downward. This was what allowed me to test them equally.

Clarification: Guys, I do not feel justified in stating that the 8600 is a slower CPU than the 8500 in terms of FLOPS or general speed...I am not ready to make such a bold statement. I DO feel however, that either the added instructions or the E0 stepping has reduced the effectiveness of the 8600 in graphics related performance, at least that is my current working theory.
 
Hi everyone, I've really got my eye on this thread because I've been without a system (postal disaster) for a few months and I've been steadily watching and waiting for the new E0 chips to arrive. Is it possible you got a 'wanker chip'? That is, an underperformer from a lesser quality batch?
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... As I sayd, I was "out" of the market for some time... I Didn't realize they were downwards unlocked!!!!!


than... the mystery remains...
 
I have been thinking the same thing somehow lately about my new e8600..

i have been getting faster super pi times,, but I am having trouble beating some of my old benches on my 3110...like Vantage for example.

I have the cpu side creamed, but just cannot catch my record in jan nash at all..

I think its all about the fsb...

going to try to match my oc now with a lower multi and see what happens!
 
Thank you sir:beer:

Yes, to level the playing field, both CPU's were configured identically in the BIOS. (BOTH at 422*9.5). Effectively, this makes them the same piece of silicon, save the E0 stepping on the 8600.

I assume you're using the 0205 BIOS, right?
The 0105 BIOS works fine for the E8500 C0, but for E8500 and E8600 E0, you need 0205.
That's first and foremost.

The next thing you have to do is to focus on performance testing with software that is purely CPU-intensive. Forget about synthetic benchmarks that give you meaningless results, and forget about anything that's graphics-related. Get yourself some large files, and time their compression rates with WinRAR. Then, using those same large files, run them through various encryption and hash algorithms. These will give you VERY reliable results, because they depend entirely on your CPU and -- most importantly -- will not fluctuate wildly from one run to the next.

All things being equal, there's no possible way for a slower CPU to produce faster results on compression/encryption. So you have to look at the most likely culprits, such as your BIOS and motherboard.

If compression and encryption algorithms don't give you the expected results, then you should definitely take both CPUs and put them into a different motherboard (preferably as different as possible: not ASUS, not X48 chipset).

If a different motherboard gives you the same results you're currently getting, then you have to test a completely different CPU, because it's possible (however unlikely) that your E8600 is damaged somehow.
The only way to convincingly say that the E8600 in general is somehow slower is to reproduce the results through several different chips. If you get 20 or 25 chips and they ALL show that the E8600 is slower than the E8500, then clearly there's something wrong with the entire E8600 product line. This is definitely the least likely scenario...so I would first focus on the more likely possibilities.
 
So you have to look at the most likely culprits, such as your BIOS and motherboard.
What the heck does the same Bios have to do with the same type CPU in any bench mark, Bios only starts your CPU then you can take over the bios settings it's simple.

There are two people having the same problem, face the facts the E-0 stepping sucks balls. :eek:
 
Last edited:
What the heck does the same Bios have to do with the same type CPU in any bench mark, Bios only starts your CPU then you can take over the bios settings it's simple.
The BIOS has everything to do with your CPU. If you don't have a BIOS that actually SUPPORTS your processor, then guess what -- you're going to have all kinds of erratic issues. Do you think motherboard manufacturers release new BIOS versions when new CPUs come out because they're bored?
No. They release them because they're NECESSARY. They also release them when they discover critical bugs in the BIOS code.
The BIOS affects ALL aspects of your system, whether you realize it or not, long after you've booted up. And as such, a bug in your BIOS can wreak havoc on system performance and stability.

There are two people having the same problem, face the facts the E-0 stepping sucks balls. :eek:
Wow...two people seem to be having the same problem, so automatically we have to declare, in the most scientific terms, that the E0 "sucks balls". Yeah...you're a true intellectual. No doubt about it.

Ever heard of bad batches? It happens in ALL areas of manufacturing: cosmetics, food produce, car parts, etc etc etc. That's why manufacturers put lot numbers on their products, so that in case there's a problem, they can quickly identify which lot (batch) was at fault. Just because TWO people claim to be having the same problem doesn't mean that one million E0 CPUs are affected. It could quite simply be a localized phenomenon which affects a small handful of CPUs (assuming there's anything actually wrong with them in the first place). The most likely scenario -- by far -- is that there's a simple explanation for this issue, and in all likelihood, it'll be traced back to something that can be fixed by the user, such as a BIOS upgrade from the motherboard manufacturer.
 
I think its all about the fsb...

going to try to match my oc now with a lower multi and see what happens!

Bingo. Sigh...the E0 is not slower than C0 or anything crazy like that. (This is coming from a guy who's owned 4 E8500's and 3 E8600's)

Vantage Performance is very GPU bound, the OP's lower scores are probably due to some graphics driver settings/issues.

Vista vs XP for SuperPi is a no-no, XP is much faster.
 
First of all, I am sorry, I haven't had time to do any more testing, what with the Tropical Storm we just had, work, all that stuff:beer:
I am getting to it...wingman, thanks for the link, that's good info and I will be getting back to you with some results. Now...

tuyen, I know you are trying to help, but these are some pretty obvious tests, and some innaccurate information.

I assume you're using the 0205 BIOS, right?
The 0105 BIOS works fine for the E8500 C0, but for E8500 and E8600 E0, you need 0205.
That's first and foremost.

Yes, of course, updated to that BIOS the day it came out.

The next thing you have to do is to focus on performance testing with software that is purely CPU-intensive. Forget about synthetic benchmarks that give you meaningless results, and forget about anything that's graphics-related.


Um, a difference is a difference, even with Synthetic Benchies...I don't care if I record my FPS from solitare, if there is a drop, I am skeptical. And, myself and a hundred other people here probably care MOST about graphic related performance.....:bang head

All things being equal, there's no possible way for a slower CPU to produce faster results on compression/encryption...

Define "Slower CPU"...I have stated numerous times that I am running them clock for clock the exact same, so I am a little lost here..


If compression and encryption algorithms don't give you the expected results, then you should definitely take both CPUs and put them into a different motherboard (preferably as different as possible: not ASUS, not X48 chipset).

So, I have to possibly ditch my board, and Asus alltogether to enjoy the speed of this new chip?:beer:

If a different motherboard gives you the same results you're currently getting, then you have to test a completely different CPU, because it's possible (however unlikely) that your E8600 is damaged somehow.

I agree, but the chances of a damaged but "working" CPU are practically impossible.

The only way to convincingly say that the E8600 in general is somehow slower is to reproduce the results through several different chips.

I do not agree. These things are precision produced, and there is likely no discernable difference between two chips....save in the OC process, of course. I am not sure that I have ever heard of a CPU being slower than another of the same product in my entire life.

Let me re-interate..I kind of wish I hadn't titled this thread so bluntly with a question like I did...I wish I could rename it, "Is the 8600 less adept at handling graphical apps and instructions due to it's changes in power handling, manipulation of voltage regulators, and other E0 variations?"...But that would be just way too long of a title:beer:

I am working on a tell-all test result batch. I will post something as soon as I get something conclusive.
 
Bingo. Sigh...the E0 is not slower than C0 or anything crazy like that. (This is coming from a guy who's owned 4 E8500's and 3 E8600's)

Vantage Performance is very GPU bound, the OP's lower scores are probably due to some graphics driver settings/issues.

Vista vs XP for SuperPi is a no-no, XP is much faster.

I am wondering, exactly how does a powerdown, chip-swap, and power on create a driver/settings issue?

Anyway, I have had several 8500's but this is my only 8600...so far..:beer:

BTW, I tested SuperPi in both XP and Vista. I have done that several times since posting my original results. The 8600 is consistenly 9/100'ths of a second behind. That is a pretty good indicator that there is something amiss, but not very serious at all. However, it makes me wonder if the difference is lost in the "spin-up" time from a lower powerstate...This feature cannot be turned off, it is integrated into the stepping itself.
And then there is the new "XSAVE and XRSTOR instructions intended to save and restore parameters of the FPU/SSE unit."
Don't know how this may affect performance , but anything that address floating point handling makes me VERY nervous from Intel, after the Pentium Disaster...
 
Last edited:
Your results were done back to back on the same install? I guess I didn't read carefully enough but it sounded like you pulled the E8500, reinstalled Windows, then put the E8600 in.

Nonetheless you piqued my interest. I'll try both chips in a P5E64 Evolution tonight...should be somewhat comparable.
 
The BIOS has everything to do with your CPU.
If the Bios is not right the pc wont post, a Bios update has nothing to do with cpu bench tests end of story .

Do some reading what bios updates will and wont do.
Ever heard of bad batches?
Yes intel recalls them when they are defective by the batch.:eek:

They don't check the chips in batches, they check each 45nm die with a laser then they check each package individually,every die ever made varies greatly from bad, good, great, and so on, every chip made is slightly unique, but they all have to pass inspection. Go to the intel site a read up and watch the videos.
 
Back