[review]Intel 45nm wolfdale processor Core 2 Duo E8400
PAGE 1: Introduction
PAGE 2: Improvements in Wolfdale
PAGE 3: E8400 utilities reading, and test bed
PAGE 4: OC, temprature & power consumption
PAGE 5: E8400 vs E6850 Comparison
PAGE 6: x0.5 multiplier benches
PAGE 7: Final thoughts
Easily OC to 450*9=4.05GHz, stable enough to pass SP2004 15minute test .
change multiplier to x8 and OC bus speed to 500MHz, also passes SP2004 15 minute test.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Nice review. Where the hell did you get an E8400?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:41 am
I wants one of those. WOW a 4.0GHz conroe that runs cool.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 am
I like it! pretty amazing how much cooler the 45nm chips are
December 1st, 2007 at 9:40 am
lower temperature,I like.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
UT3 has an built in Frame limiter, so it can’t get higher than 62 fps. So theres no surprise about the results of both cpus in this test.
You have to turn it off in the ini to get higher frame rates than 62 fps
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
@r4ul,
thank you for pointing that out
checking for the results again..
December 1st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hii man u put a lot of effort in this this review KEEP IT UP!
December 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
#2: It’s not a conroe…
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 am
Kralho, bom pra porra.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:41 am
[...] Zum Review bei Expreview [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:27 am
Hi. I’d like to know why is 45nm CPU cooler than 65nm while it has the same taking-in (while idle and non-loaded). Bit mystery isn’t it?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 am
By the way, Jeff, could you give me your email adress/ICQ? I’m also redactor of HW mag, but in Czech Rep. I’d like to have a talk
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:50 am
very impressed…not so much by the performance then the power savings despite the massive increase in L2 cache!
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
to Majk Says:
the TDP of E8400 and E6850 is same from Intel,but while loaded,we also can see the difference between 45nm and 65nm
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
ok, I said it wrong. How is possilbe, that power consumption equals while not loaded, but temperature is not the same (while not loaded)
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
@majk,
power consumption DO NOT 100% equal to temperature…
anyway…i send you some mails dont know you can receive it or not..
December 4th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Maybe the temperature infortmation comes of two different temperature sensors, seem to me that one is not correctly calibrated…
December 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
ok god job!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I Like E8400
December 4th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Strange Wolfdale draws the same amount of power at idle as Conroe. Based on Yorkfield vs. Kentsfield reviews, I’d expect the Wolfdale system to draw about 7W less. Could you retake those measurements just to make sure?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
nice test!
there is a small glitch in the list of the upcoming CPU’s.
the Q9300 only has 6 MB of L2 cache.. not 12 MB.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Simple write-up – I like. You focus on multimedia encoding. What about applications like office and photoshop, and more games, not that games are CPU-dependent.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am
@ EMkaEL:
thanks for the heads up!
@chrispycrunch,
i think PCmark can simulate those applications quite well
December 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
@chrispycrunch
in Photoshop CS3 10,E8400 is a little better than E6850,just 2.81%
December 6th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
these are the avc coolers for lga775 http://www.avc.com.tw/products/intel%20cooler.htm
Which one is the napoleon???
December 6th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
@psolord
this one
http://www.avc.com.tw/products/Z9H741K.htm
December 12th, 2007 at 2:40 am
To the problem with the differences in temperature, the difference comes from the lowered process size. 45nm vs. 65nm. Since the process is smaller, it wastes less energy due to resistance. Wasted energy as resistance is translated into heat. The 8400 uses the same energy likely because it has alot more transistors packed into a smaller area, but due to the size of the process and the high-k material used in the transistors, the temperature is lower. This is partly why intel is saying it is more efficient (less energy is wasted as heat).
December 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
[...] we reviewed Intel 45nm Wolfdale E8400, i am in love with these kind of little things. But it still needs to take several weeks to wait [...]
December 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Great review. I especially liked future pricing. Changing my E6600 for QX9300 will be very affordable. But how the hell somebody (out of Intel) even lay his hands on this now????
December 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am
@Majk if it is more efficient under loads it will draw less power and cause less heat, although impossible if you could make it 100% efficient your temp would be ambient no matter the clock or load, simple thermodynamics.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
cuando van a estar a la venta?? ya es enero
January 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
EXCELLENT – muy buena velocidad, buen precio, no calienta -
Great Review
January 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] Click here to read our E8400 review. [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
EMkaEL wrote:
“nice test!
there is a small glitch in the list of the upcoming CPU’s.
the Q9300 only has 6 MB of L2 cache.. not 12 MB.”
I think you’re right. Another note to the editor, that up to 9550 they are Q, not QX (Extreme).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Core_2_Quad
Review:
“L2 cache of 65nm Conroe only have 2MB, 16 way set. But wolfdale have 6MB, 24 way set.”
2MB Conroes have 8-way set associative cache, with 4MB Conroes it’s 16-way.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:11 am
wanna know one thing is E8400 compatible with 33chipset INTEL motherbaord
January 13th, 2008 at 5:31 am
sam, yes intel made i35/33 series also for full 0.45nm proc support. And look for it in your motherboard’s CPU compatibility list on vendor’s site.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
i don’t get it. If cpu-z says the clock is 8×500=4000mhz and orthos says it’s 4450 mhz, which one do you have?
January 20th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Pretty lame difference in benchmarks if you ask me, considering all the hype these new Intel cpus are getting. If this were AMD, the Intel fanboys would be all over AMD for it.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:52 am
to erikdee: that’s orthos frequency detec error being a long time.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:39 am
The good thing about the E8400 is that it’s significantly lower power – the fact that it performs like an E6850 for the price of an E6750 is just a bonus.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 am
Thanks for the review, but just a suggestion, you should spend a little bit more of time proof-reading your articles; it doesn’t read very well (doesn’t flow)
January 25th, 2008 at 6:04 am
can anyone recommend to me a good pair of ddr2 800 memory sticks i can use with this board and cpu to get to 4ghz? what exact model was the ram in this test? i’m just trying to find the best memory for this board and cpu that will let me get to 4ghz.
thanks!
January 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
With corsair xms2 DDR2 pc6400 ver2.1 @ 2.2v i have taken mine to 4203Mhz (9*467) with timings 5-5-5-15. With 4sticks (4x1GB)!
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 am
Considering I found a site that’s selling the 6750 and the 8400 for pretty much the same price, and the 6850 is almost $100 more, it’s a no-brainer which way to go if you want to save money (as long as there aren’t compatibility issues with your mobo)
February 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
“# TC Says:
January 20th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Pretty lame difference in benchmarks if you ask me, considering all the hype these new Intel cpus are getting. If this were AMD, the Intel fanboys would be all over AMD for it.: STFU AND GTFO! Your an amd fanboy no doubt (no I am not a fanboy of either) And the reason is because AMD cpus suck compared atm they use to be ahead till intell pulled ahead of them by a great leap
February 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Saving 10 to 15 watts — only a 10% savings is not all that much. Is that what they were saying all along?
February 7th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I just purchased an E8400 for a new build. Kind of excited to see how it runs and what temps it runs at… Tried to stay within my budget on the other components but still get the best bang for my buck in performance. Ended up getting a Sapphire HD Pro 2900 x16 PCI Express, a Gigabyte P35-DS3L MOBO a Sata II 500 gb hd and 4 gig OCZ 1066 mem. Want to try some over clocking and see how it benchmarks. Been a while since my last build and I’ve always used AMD CPU’s. Been reading up on these new Intel CPU’s and am very impressed with the engineering that has gone into them.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
just remember, your ram would be running at 800 mhz doing these tests and the e8400 is 1333/1066fsb also the e8400 is 64 bit not 32 like the e6850 its still a good review though.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
my bad you didnt have fsb at 800 mhz but the potential down the line is even better for the e8400 when 1333ddr2 is ready
February 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
# nate Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
just remember, your ram would be running at 800 mhz doing these tests and the e8400 is 1333/1066fsb also the e8400 is 64 bit not 32 like the e6850 its still a good review though.
SO do you mean we can realistically use 4GB of ram on this processor and it accepts the whole thing, or is it still limited to 2GB when using a 32bit windows? sorry im not literate with the 32/64bit differences between CPU and OS’s.
Anyone got any input? thanks!
February 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I am running the E8400, found at Microcenter for $189.00, Newegg is still selling the E6850 for $274.99. E8400 is sweet with my ASUS PK5. This review was very helpful.
Thanks
Tom
March 18th, 2008 at 3:40 am
I have got one and the speed i experienced was amazing ,the frame rates in games and overclock up to 3.86 stable on abit ip35-e
April 21st, 2008 at 9:58 am
[...] E8500: The Best Just Got Better AnandTech: The Penryn Preview – Part I: Wolfdale Performance [review]Intel 45nm wolfdale processor Core 2 Duo E8400 – Expreview.com This should help you decide to wait or not Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9450 – 45nm Prevails – Tactical [...]
June 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
[...] [...]
June 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Why did you do this test on a 32bit os?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
i just bought one of these and im hoping its going to be good. at least better than my current 3.0GHz celeron d :s
July 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
i am impressed with my core 2 dou machine.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
can any body try encoding with dvd shrink or vista dvd encoder maker
all this numbers does not mean any thing till u actually use a program and what about programs that only uses one core
i got an old p4 3.6 ht i wanna upgrade and i wanna know if it is gonna benefit me specially with encoding videos to diff formats plus what about pc games
August 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
The good thing about the E8400 is that it’s significantly lower power – the fact that it performs like an E6850 for the price of an E6750 is just a bonus
August 16th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
i just bouht it looks cool hope thats its gonne work that cool aswell E8400 it was at a very low price ==165,04 euro
thanx for the comments make me feel more relaxed.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Hi there.
I am intrested in buying one in the following days.
I have chosen for motherboard the ASUS P5N-EM/HDMI.
My question is about RAM.
Will I need a 800 Mhz or a 677 DDR2 mem?
I dont want to overclock or anything I just need the system to run at it’s “standard” speed.
I know this question sounds kinda stupid but with all these standards I am confused
August 18th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
of course go for 800MHz lar, memory is cheap these days.. and P5N-EM/HDMI supports up to 800MHz if you are not a overclocker.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thanx Jeff
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
really i have proven that e8400 is coool and quiet you can hardly hear its sound as if your rig is turned off, especially if you use 12mm cooling fan..
October 28th, 2008 at 6:50 am
So what is better??? E6850 or E8400???? I see people have said the E8400 uses less energy and has 2 more mb of cache so why is the E6850 having some better results on the testing???? Also I see someone mentioned something about the E8400 being 64bit and the E6850 being 32bit. This doesnt have anything to do with how much ram you can use does it??? Cause I know windows xp supports only 3 gigs and vista (64bit) supports more.. Someone, anyone!?!? My aim screen name is “Ftptcp” and email is chris@painkill.net . Let me know!
March 19th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
In response to #55 “Chris”, yes the E8400 is 64-bit. 32-bit processors and Operating systems are limited in the amount of RAM they can recognize and use. I currently have 8gb of DDR2 (dual-channel, ganged mode) and use Windows XP x64 in order to fully benefit from the additional memory. The major drawback to using a 64-bit Operating system is the lack of drivers and support from hardware manufacturers, but this situation has improved greatly in recent years. Another benefit comes from the increased speed/efficiency of data processing, in that 64-bit systems process data in 64-bit blocks rather than the 32-bit blocks in older systems.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Lol,I adore Mr.Jackson! He was the best to ever do it! We will never ever have someone like MJ! Rest in Peace to the GREATEST!
October 4th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Interesting read , I’m going to spend more time learning about this subject