Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Im planning on buying a new pc. I want a really fast cpu so i can use ps2 emulator. So my question is which of the dual cores is better. E8400 or E8600 and is there much of a difference between the two to be noticed for a user that is not experienced with overclocking?
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Having owned both, I'd advise the E8400. The E8600's exponentially increased price with the much smaller actual performance increase in comparison to that extra third of the cost isn't worth it if you aren't overclocking. Even with a program like PCSX2, which scales linearly with clock speed, as a primary reason for the purchase, it's still hardly worth it. The E8500 would be better than both in such a case. You get a bit more speed than the E8400 for a bit more cost, not a little more speed for a lot more cost like the E8600.

Secondly, if you're going to play PCSX2, overclocking really does help (even if it's a mild one to 400MHz FSB for 3.6GHz, 3.8GHz, or 4.0GHz for the E8400, E8500, and E8600 respectively). Even if you don't overclock though, any of the E8x00s would do well enough.

So, I'll say my recommendation is the E8500 if you're set on not overclocking. The E8400 would be a good choice too. If you ever decide to overclock later, both would be ready for it, so you have future room to expand with both just by overclocking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
well, i was under the impression that current software don't take advantage of quad cores yet. In addition the highest speed on quadcore is currently 3.0ghz. Will that handle ps2 emu? I hear that a 3.6ghz is needed to run most games at full speed.
 

·
Your resident reaper...
Joined
·
6,031 Posts
3Ghz is fine for PCSX2 if you have it set up correctly. And a lot of current software take advantage of multi core. A lot aren't, but the extra load quad cores can handle just gives your system an overall performance boost.

If this is mainly for PCSX2, yeah, you are better off with a high speed Intel dual core :)
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I have to chip this in, and I'm not trying to start yet another "dual versus quad" argument, but I have to say this.

While quad cores are only going to become more useful in time, I notice alot on these forums that the benefits they currently give at this time is often vastly overstated. Hype and the enthusiast society wants you to believe it's quad cores that are faster most of the time, but you'll most of the time have more performance from a faster speed dual core, unless you're one of the few who regularly use many things that really benefit greatly from a quad core CPU. There's just not enough things, especially mainstream, that benefit from more than two cores, if from more than even one.

If money isn't a issue, then why ask "E8400 or E8600"? It's obvious the latter is better, but price often makes the former the better buy. If money isn't an issue, go with the E8600. It's among the best for PCSX2. 3GHz might be "okay", but you really want 3.5GHz to 4GHz or maybe even more. If you can get that with an E8x00, and this upgrade is for PCSX2 (that is the key part there), why settle for less?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Askavenger

Go to Intel web site and take a closer look to E8400 E8500 and E8500. U will notice that only difference is minor speed improvement, 3 GHz, 3,16 GHz and 3,33 GHz. And one more thing, multiplier, 9... 9,5... and 10... Basicly it's the same CPU in different "price/performance" ranking.

So, If money is not an issue get that E8600. Read some tutorials about overclocking and clock it far beyond 4 GHz.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
How "far beyond" do you mean? For 24/7 use, most people have to settle between 4.4GHz and 4.5GHz. You're lucky if you get the latter or beyond for 24/7 use, especially on the newer batches (unless there's newer beyond mine which I'm unaware of that are better, since the batch I have isn't the best for the E8600).

I still would had liked to see that 10.5 multiplier, 3.5GHz E8700 come to light though (with a better stepping and/or batch, of course, for some ~4.7GHz standards).
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I'm willing to argue that most people would choose to opt for the alternative (of software mode) if given that, which they are. Hardware rendering for better visuals is one of the front features of emulation in general.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top