Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > Intel CPUs
Intel CPUs
Forum Jump

e8600 Slower than e8500???

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-20-08, 10:23 PM Thread Starter   #1
Stilletto
Member

 
Stilletto's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yulee, FL

 
e8600 Slower than e8500???


I am starting to think, clock for clock, the new E0 stepping is actually SLOWER than the previous chips. Here's why.

Clock for clock, same settings in Vantage scores 400 points lower with the e8600 than with the e8500. The superPi time is also a tad bit slower.

Perhaps I am missing something, but here is what brought my attention to this matter. This was a run in vantage with the 8600 at 4.02 (422x9.5) followed by a run with the e8500 at the EXACT same BIOS settings.
Attached Images
  

__________________
XEON W3520 4.0ghz and climbing....So are temps..
e8600@4.42GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
e8500@4.02GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
6GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3
GSKILL 128GB Falcon/3 1TB WD Black RAID 5
Samsung 215TW/2343BWX
Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Swiftech MCP655-B, Swiftech Apogee GT
2x XFX GTX275 SLI
Stilletto is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 10:27 PM Thread Starter   #2
Stilletto
Member

 
Stilletto's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yulee, FL

 
I have tried everything to get the scores up. Re-installed windows, drivers, you name it. And HERE is the real kicker....if I OC the e8600 to 4.4ghz (440x10) and crank up the OC on the GPU futher, the score is still slightly slower than the original run on the e8500....this is frustrating.

__________________
XEON W3520 4.0ghz and climbing....So are temps..
e8600@4.42GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
e8500@4.02GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
6GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3
GSKILL 128GB Falcon/3 1TB WD Black RAID 5
Samsung 215TW/2343BWX
Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Swiftech MCP655-B, Swiftech Apogee GT
2x XFX GTX275 SLI
Stilletto is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 10:37 PM   #3
OldSkool
Rest In Peace

 
OldSkool's Avatar 

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lewisville, TX

 
Keep in mind that clock for clock, the E8600 is slower as you are operating on a 9.5x rather than a 10x so 4.5 Ghz on say an E8500 is a FSB of 473.68mhz whereas on the E8600 it's 450mhz. This means that the operational frequency at the same clocks is effectively higher on the lower multi. The beauty of the E8600 is the ability to reach higher clocks and beat out the other E8*** chips.

Edit - Wait I totally misunderstood the original post.....you aren't going clock for clock at max multi? Something has to be wrong imo. Don't ask me what, for a second there I felt all smart and proud of myself, but now I realize that you were going literal "clock for clock" in the bios with the 9.5 Multi. Btw 9.5x is bad isn't it? I always read to go with the nearest whole multi i.e. 9.0x or 8.0x.

__________________
No Rig currently :(
New Rig to be built in coming months......i7? Maybe :)

"I Reject Your Reality, and Substitute My Own"
E8400(CO) @ 4.2Ghz with 1.312v/4.5Ghz with 1.38v - Retired
Heatware[/SIZE]
OldSkool is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 10:48 PM Thread Starter   #4
Stilletto
Member

 
Stilletto's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yulee, FL

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkool View Post
Keep in mind that clock for clock, the E8600 is slower as you are operating on a 9.5x rather than a 10x so 4.5 Ghz on say an E8500 is a FSB of 473.68mhz whereas on the E8600 it's 450mhz. This means that the operational frequency at the same clocks is effectively higher on the lower multi. The beauty of the E8600 is the ability to reach higher clocks and beat out the other E8*** chips.

Edit - Wait I totally misunderstood the original post.....you aren't going clock for clock at max multi? Something has to be wrong imo. Don't ask me what, for a second there I felt all smart and proud of myself, but now I realize that you were going literal "clock for clock" in the bios with the 9.5 Multi. Btw 9.5x is bad isn't it? I always read to go with the nearest whole multi i.e. 9.0x or 8.0x.
Damn..I started reading and said, "He's got this figured out, YES!!"....it was pretty intellectual, though

Actually, it doesn't matter...10 or 9.5...I just cannot get the same scores with the 8600 that I did with the 8500. I do have a 4.4ghz 24/7 OC for my extra 100 bucks, but it really doesn't "feel" any faster than the 4ghz on the 8500. I am curious if anybody finds the same result.

__________________
XEON W3520 4.0ghz and climbing....So are temps..
e8600@4.42GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
e8500@4.02GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
6GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3
GSKILL 128GB Falcon/3 1TB WD Black RAID 5
Samsung 215TW/2343BWX
Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Swiftech MCP655-B, Swiftech Apogee GT
2x XFX GTX275 SLI
Stilletto is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 10:52 PM   #5
Breakin Newz
Member

 
Breakin Newz's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2003

 
That sucks to go buy a higher modal and it being slower lol.... Im going with the E8500 myself!!!
Breakin Newz is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 10:56 PM   #6
OldSkool
Rest In Peace

 
OldSkool's Avatar 

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lewisville, TX

 
Try running A cpu-based bench like Super-Pi for each proc, that'll show you the true reality. Fact is, if we are talking about a difference of 400mhz, you may not really feel it, but it may till be there. I think you may see some performance gain, but I'm curious to see for sure. http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breakin Newz View Post
That sucks to go buy a higher modal and it being slower lol.... Im going with the E8500 myself!!!
Too soon to jump to conclusions, we need to test some more to see where the fact truly lay.

__________________
No Rig currently :(
New Rig to be built in coming months......i7? Maybe :)

"I Reject Your Reality, and Substitute My Own"
E8400(CO) @ 4.2Ghz with 1.312v/4.5Ghz with 1.38v - Retired
Heatware[/SIZE]
OldSkool is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:12 PM   #7
Freezer7Pro
Member

 
Freezer7Pro's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: FINLAND. EVERYTHING IS EXPENSIVE HERE.

 
Maybe your BIOS is somehow underperforming with that stepping? Check for a BIOS update.

__________________

E7400 4GHz 1.4V
GTX260 c216 730 Core 1458 Shader 2430 RAM
4GB 800MHz XMS2 4-4-4-12
ASUS P5Q Pro
Xigmatek HDT1283
Xonar DX
Samsung Spinpoint F1 320GB
I fold in honor of those who fight the same deadly battles as my uncle Peter Flinck once did. May he rest in peace.

Freezer7Pro is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:15 PM   #8
Breakin Newz
Member

 
Breakin Newz's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2003

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkool View Post
Try running A cpu-based bench like Super-Pi for each proc, that'll show you the true reality. Fact is, if we are talking about a difference of 400mhz, you may not really feel it, but it may till be there. I think you may see some performance gain, but I'm curious to see for sure. http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=36



Too soon to jump to conclusions, we need to test some more to see where the fact truly lay.
Very very tru!
Breakin Newz is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:19 PM   #9
sno.lcn
Senior2 Member

 
sno.lcn's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

 
Trust me, it's not slower clock for clock.


Every time you run a 3D bench, even at the same settings, it may be a little different. Do a given bench at some given settings. Then reboot and do it again with same settings and everything. You very well may get different numbers

For even more score variation, reinstall windows, flash a different BIOS, or anything else like that

Run SuperPi and your numbers should match up a little better
sno.lcn is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile SETI Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:24 PM   #10
OldSkool
Rest In Peace

 
OldSkool's Avatar 

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lewisville, TX

 
Whoa, confirmation from one of our great and wise benchers. That's it! It has to be true

From here, I'll leave it to the real pros

__________________
No Rig currently :(
New Rig to be built in coming months......i7? Maybe :)

"I Reject Your Reality, and Substitute My Own"
E8400(CO) @ 4.2Ghz with 1.312v/4.5Ghz with 1.38v - Retired
Heatware[/SIZE]
OldSkool is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:26 PM   #11
Breakin Newz
Member

 
Breakin Newz's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2003

 
Bah didnt even notice his title!!!
Breakin Newz is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:27 PM   #12
jason4207
Senior Member

 
jason4207's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Concord, NC

 
Can you try them both at 9x? I'm wondering if the E8600 doesn't like 9.5x for some reason.

__________________
MAIN RIG: 3570K @ 4.5GHz 1.272v H100i Extreme4-Z77 8GB-G.Skill @ 2200MHz 9-11-11-28 1.60v CM_430-Elite
GTX670_DCuII_TOP @ 1358/7244 1.212v Xplosion-DTS 256GB-Samsung_830 1TB-Black Seasonic_X-750
27.5"-1200P-LCD Z5500-5.1 || PLV-Z4_720P_Projector_95" Paradigm_6.1_DTS-ES
G9_Mouse Logitech_Illuminated_KB Logitech_G27_Wheel+Microsim_Racing_Pod ***HEAT***

GAMING HTPC: i3-550 @ 4.5GHz 1.35v H70 MSI_H55M-ED55 4GB-G.Skill @ 1875MHz 7-9-7-23 1T
GTS450 @ 970/1940/2100 240GB_Sandisk_Extreme 640GB_Blue Corsair_CX430
Panny 42S2 1080P Plasma

unRAID FILE SERVER: E5200-M0 @ 2GHz 0.856v MSIP43Neo3-F 4GB-Corsair @ 800MHz CM590 Antec550W
19TB-Parity_Protected_Storage / 1TB-Cache / 2TB-Parity / 10x2TB 2x1TB

jason4207 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-20-08, 11:52 PM Thread Starter   #13
Stilletto
Member

 
Stilletto's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yulee, FL

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sno.lcn View Post
Trust me, it's not slower clock for clock.


Every time you run a 3D bench, even at the same settings, it may be a little different. Do a given bench at some given settings. Then reboot and do it again with same settings and everything. You very well may get different numbers

For even more score variation, reinstall windows, flash a different BIOS, or anything else like that

Run SuperPi and your numbers should match up a little better
Believe me, I have ran this test a hundred times, and the results are very consistent. The 8600 is always 400 points behind the 8500 in vantage, clock for clock. It's only when I give the 8600 a 400mhz boost that it can tie the 8500 (and this is because of the CPU score..the FPS stay 1 frame behind). Now in superPi, here are my latest results to compare: (8500 results were recorded yesterday before new CPU istalled)

Windows XP
e8500 (9.5x422) 1M 11.6sec
e8600 (9.5x422) 1M 11.6sec
e8600 (10x440) 1M 10.6sec

Vista (This is a real pain waiting for this program NOT to crash in Vista...)
e8500 (9.5x422) 1M 11.70sec
e8600 (9.5x422) 1M 11.79sec
e8600 (10x440) 1M 10.79sec

Now this looks promising, (except for the 10th sec difference in Vista) but the Vantage scores are consistently behind..same exact hardware, fresh windows install, same source drivers and same clocks.
Something else weird, but worth mentioning..in checking for stability to get up to 4.42ghz, prime95 never failed, throughout the gazillion different settings attempted....the computer bluscreened and dumped it's memory load, and restarted....but no failed prime runs like I am accustomed to.
That's really not important, just weird. Now that I am Prime stable for 12 hours, this was the clock I was going to stay with. I say "was", but if I am going to get worse graphic benchies, I would almost rather keep the 8500. I am tempted to put the chip back in, but then I would hose my DRM for the second time in two days

__________________
XEON W3520 4.0ghz and climbing....So are temps..
e8600@4.42GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
e8500@4.02GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
6GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3
GSKILL 128GB Falcon/3 1TB WD Black RAID 5
Samsung 215TW/2343BWX
Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Swiftech MCP655-B, Swiftech Apogee GT
2x XFX GTX275 SLI
Stilletto is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-21-08, 03:14 AM Thread Starter   #14
Stilletto
Member

 
Stilletto's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yulee, FL

 
Well, my head is hurting trying to figure this out. There is a possibility that Vantage is so GPU limited that no OC of the CPU will have much effect. It still doesn't explain the lesser performance though....although after changing CPU's out and running several tests on each, I have come up with the following...and you can judge for yourself

First is a test run by the e8500 at 4.02ghz (422x9.5)
Second is the e8600@4.42Ghz (440x10)
Crazy....
Attached Images
  

__________________
XEON W3520 4.0ghz and climbing....So are temps..
e8600@4.42GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
e8500@4.02GHZ@1.36 Dual Prime95 Stable
6GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3
GSKILL 128GB Falcon/3 1TB WD Black RAID 5
Samsung 215TW/2343BWX
Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Swiftech MCP655-B, Swiftech Apogee GT
2x XFX GTX275 SLI
Stilletto is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-21-08, 04:58 AM   #15
rdrash
Senior Member
Benching Team Member

 
rdrash's Avatar 

Join Date: Aug 2003

 
stilletto:

What motherboard are you using? Your P5E?

I've noticed from viewing many of the E8600 posts around the net that quite a few boards (even with the latest BIOS' flashed) do not report the SSE4.1.

Does the lack of SSE4.1 explain the difference in scores...I don't know, but to me it would indicate that such a motherboard may not be using all the features of the processor and performance could be affected I think.

Can you take a screeny of CPUz for your E8500 and E8600, and post those here please? I'm just curious if yours will show the SSE4.1 on both chips or not.

__________________
Want to join the OCF Benchmarking Team? Click Here to find out how

[HEATWARE:
rdrash is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-21-08, 05:27 AM   #16
Blazing fire
Member



Join Date: Sep 2007

 
Why don't you just run game benches, like crysis?

Blazing fire is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-21-08, 06:25 PM   #17
wingman99
Member

 
wingman99's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2003

10 Year Badge
 
WoW, i was wondering if the new power saving features would cause a performance hit. It's defiantly not your motherboard.
wingman99 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-22-08, 05:27 PM   #18
@crilicM@n
Senior Member

 
@crilicM@n's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chapecó-SC

 
Please, correct me, they are working at the same settings, you mean same mhz speed?
-Aren't they're multiplier locked?
-If the multiplier is locked, even at same mhz overall OC, the lowest multiplier is running at a higher fsb, and then the cpu cycles are really , more effective, because of a difference on bandwidth available to the core.... If we extrapolate things a litle bit, it would like compare two 400mhz cpus, one at 1x400 FSB and another at 2x200FSB, the second would suffer from memory limitations on the memory controller more than the 1x400 one... Remember, not all cpu cicles are really useful, some are "lost"waiting for the data... So it's really possible that you ended up with a slower system, clock per clock... To justify the upgrade, you should be able to achieve a higher oc with the 8600 with at least the same FSB achieved with the 8500.

Really forgive me if i'm missing something... I've been away from desktops for a while and I'm building a Dualcore system right now...

__________________
Humberto Hepp \ @crilicM@n

MSX, atari, 386..., P133@166, P200@266, K6II400@450 Ergh, Cely400@573...
Celemine600@1008
Tualeron1100@1605... Sold
Lap: Travelmate c324XMi: moved to asus 1008 netbook...
New desktop: E8400+, 4gb gskill, ocz ssd 64gb + wd640 for data, radeon 4500... 24" monitor, corsair font, CM case etc...


"the lips of wise are closed, except to the ears of the understanding"
@crilicM@n is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-22-08, 05:35 PM   #19
wingman99
Member

 
wingman99's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2003

10 Year Badge
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @crilicM@n View Post
Please, correct me, they are working at the same settings, you mean same mhz speed?
-Aren't they're multiplier locked?
-If the multiplier is locked, even at same mhz overall OC, the lowest multiplier is running at a higher fsb, and then the cpu cycles are really , more effective, because of a difference on bandwidth available to the core.... If we extrapolate things a litle bit, it would like compare two 400mhz cpus, one at 1x400 FSB and another at 2x200FSB, the second would suffer from memory limitations on the memory controller more than the 1x400 one... Remember, not all cpu cicles are really useful, some are "lost"waiting for the data... So it's really possible that you ended up with a slower system, clock per clock... To justify the upgrade, you should be able to achieve a higher oc with the 8600 with at least the same FSB achieved with the 8500.

Really forgive me if i'm missing something... I've been away from desktops for a while and I'm building a Dualcore system right now...
This was a run in vantage with the 8600 at 4.02 (422x9.5) followed by a run with the e8500 at the EXACT same BIOS settings.
wingman99 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 08-22-08, 05:35 PM   #20
@crilicM@n
Senior Member

 
@crilicM@n's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chapecó-SC

 
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!

__________________
Humberto Hepp \ @crilicM@n

MSX, atari, 386..., P133@166, P200@266, K6II400@450 Ergh, Cely400@573...
Celemine600@1008
Tualeron1100@1605... Sold
Lap: Travelmate c324XMi: moved to asus 1008 netbook...
New desktop: E8400+, 4gb gskill, ocz ssd 64gb + wd640 for data, radeon 4500... 24" monitor, corsair font, CM case etc...


"the lips of wise are closed, except to the ears of the understanding"
@crilicM@n is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > Intel CPUs
Intel CPUs
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?