[Stilletto]

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.

[Stilletto]

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.

[OldSkool]

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.

[Stilletto]

Originally Posted by OldSkool

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.

[Breakin Newz]

That sucks to go buy a higher modal and it being slower lol.... Im going with the E8500 myself!!!

[OldSkool]

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

Originally Posted by Breakin Newz

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.

[Freezer7Pro]

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

[Breakin Newz]

Originally Posted by OldSkool

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!

[sno.lcn]

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

[OldSkool]

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

[Breakin Newz]

Bah didnt even notice his title!!!

[jason4207]

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

[Stilletto]

Originally Posted by sno.lcn

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

[Stilletto]

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....

[rdrash]

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.

[Blazing fire]

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

[wingman99]

WoW, i was wondering if the new power saving features would cause a performance hit. It's defiantly not your motherboard.

[@crilicM@n]

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...

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by @crilicM@n

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.

[@crilicM@n]

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!