That Dang Gas Attack, cost me money

[gimpyguy]

Due to that gas attack ( or so I tell that guy in my shaving mirror ), I went to I BUY Power and got a starter rig, I can actually fit my hands into, and it fits my computer desk, and is in XP

I figure the way they make their money, is the crazy prices of stuff

Example a 9800GT is +$380. . Tiger Direct will sell the card for $150

Only place I got taken to the cleaners was the CPU

The Q6600@2.4 just won't do anymore, it might be fine for the Dwarfs that built it, not me

I know it wasn't needed but I got a E8600 w/ extra cooling

[Siggi]

Due to that gas attack ( or so I tell that guy in my shaving mirror ), I went to I BUY Power and got a starter rig, I can actually fit my hands into, and it fits my computer desk, and is in XP

I figure the way they make their money, is the crazy prices of stuff

Example a 9800GT is +$380. . Tiger Direct will sell the card for $150

Only place I got taken to the cleaners was the CPU

The Q6600@2.4 just won't do anymore, it might be fine for the Dwarfs that built it, not me

I know it wasn't needed but I got a E8600 w/ extra cooling

The E8400 would have done you just as well, and cost a lot less. Did you miss all the posts about it or were they just out of stock? See if you can't take it back for a refund and get the 8400 instead.

[Gousgounis]

Go for an 8400 or an 8500 and O/C it.

[Dirk98]

Due to that gas attack ( or so I tell that guy in my shaving mirror ), I went to I BUY Power and got a starter rig, I can actually fit my hands into, and it fits my computer desk, and is in XP

I figure the way they make their money, is the crazy prices of stuff

Example a 9800GT is +$380. . Tiger Direct will sell the card for $150

Only place I got taken to the cleaners was the CPU

The Q6600@2.4 just won't do anymore, it might be fine for the Dwarfs that built it, not me

I know it wasn't needed but I got a E8600 w/ extra cooling

Gympy, you did the right thing. E8600 is the FASTEST dual-core available, and not that much expensive anymore. But it is a monster in overclocking today. To open up its potential you need to overclock it carefully (good fan-cooler and fast brandname DDR2). Let me know if problems, pls note this thread and reference to IntelBurnTest:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...124#post129124

You can't overclock E8400 or E8500 as high as E8600 and keep the flow smooth. I can assure you that extra 200-300Mhz can make difference, in older-code games like SH3, BoB2, IL-2, Black Shark, OFF3 etc. Congratulations.

Dirk.

PS: there's a guy coolaler who broke the world record with this processor @ 6146,9 Mhz, for what it matters.

[Siggi]

Gympy, you did the right thing. E8600 is the FASTEST dual-core available, and not that much expensive anymore. But it is monster in overclocking today. To open up its potential you need to overclock it carefully (fan-cooler and fast brandname DDR2). Let me know if problems, pls note this thread:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...124#post129124

You can't overclock E8400 or E8500 as high as E8600 and keep the flow smooth. I can assure you that extra 200-300Mhz can make difference, in older-code games like SH3, BoB2, Black Shark, OFF3 etc. Congratulations.

Dirk.

PS: there's a guy coolaler who broke the world record with this processor @ 6146,9 Mhz for what it matters.

The 8600 is around £100 more than the 8400 here in the UK. And the 8400 can do 4ghz with ease. Is more than 4ghz needed for any game currently available? Certainly not for OFF. And won't be for RoF or any other game on the horizon I think.

The chap who broke the world record, did he play any games at 6ghz, or just grab a screenie before his system BSOD'd?

There are two types of overclockers, those who want to use it in the real world and those who love a good screenie.

[Dirk98]

The 8600 is around £100 more than the 8400 here in the UK. And the 8400 can do 4ghz with ease. Is more than 4ghz needed for any game currently available? Certainly not for OFF. And won't be for RoF or any other game on the horizon I think.

4.3 Ghz is better, visibly better than 4.0 Ghz in OFF3. You can create a few test situations and see. In Il-2 better as well. But for that you'll need about $150 more if you can afford it. In RoF- moot point, it may come out multithreaded. And if you get faster RAM you can easily go to 4.5Ghz with no problem with E8600.

Gympy you'll test it yourself, it's easy to check and see, lol. I myself upgraded from E8400 to E8600.

[Siggi]

4.3 Ghz is better, visibly better than 4.0 Ghz in OFF3. You can create a few test situations and see. In Il-2 better as well. In RoF- moot point, it can be multithreaded. And if you get faster RAM you can easily go to 4.5Ghz with no problem.

Gympy you'll test it yourself, it's easy to check and see, lol. I myself upgraded from E8400 to E8600.

What are the specific differences in OFF between 4ghz and 4.3ghz? This sounds seriously interesting.

[Dirk98]

Higher FPS (~8-10), less TIR triangles.

[Siggi]

Higher FPS (~8-10), less TIR triangles.

I have almost zero TiR triangles at 4ghz, and I seriously doubt they're a CPU issue anyway. The triangles are a GPU rendering issue specific to the CFS3 engine (I get them in no other TiR-enabled game, and didn't at 3ghz on the old CPU either).

The CPU in OFF is dealing with the computations of other objects in the game, most noticeably the up-to 300 a/c. If the CPU is under-par for that it will indeed impact on frames, but once the CPU has clear overhead available (as 4ghz does) it's no longer an issue. As indicated by others who are running 4ghz chips AND have better cards than me (they're getting far more frames than I am).

But it's all muddy water. The point is, are you going to get any worthwhile bang-for-buck out of spending £100 more on the chip for the sake of an extra 300mhz? In my opinion, no.

Not to mention that at 4.3ghz you're starting to push even 1066 RAM. It's always wise to leave a decent bit of overhead.

[Gremlin_WoH]

My E8400 runs on 4.15 GHz with a pretty cheap cooler (Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro) and the one core which runs OFF reaches about 53 °C under full (OFF-)load. With Intel Burn Test the temperatures are higher but I do not play Intel Burn Test, I play OFF :d Waiting for a new BIOS with additional timing parameters then I will see what may be possible for stable and continuous operation. When I bought this CPU the E8500 came on the market but was barely available. I am very satisfied with my E8400.

[Dirk98]

But it's all muddy water. The point is, are you going to get any worthwhile bang-for-buck out of spending Ј100 more on the chip for the sake of an extra 300mhz? In my opinion, no.

In our hobby it's all about can you afford it or not. One way or another E8600 is the fastest today for non-multithreaded games. And all they want is raw Mhz+.

[Dirk98]

My E8400 runs on 4.15 GHz with a pretty cheap cooler (Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro)

Gimpy will run it @ 4.5Ghz with a good cooler and very fast DDR2. It's worth, it is fast.

[Dirk98]

The CPU in OFF is dealing with the computations of other objects in the game, most noticeably the up-to 300 a/c. If the CPU is under-par for that it will indeed impact on frames, but once the CPU has clear overhead available (as 4ghz does)

OFF would easily take up another 1Ghz above 4 for thick situtations. I agree for IL-2 it may be overkill, but depends on what you're flying. (AAA mods are amazing but more intensive).

[Siggi]

OFF would easily take up another 1Ghz above 4 for thick situtations. I agree for IL-2 it may be overkill, but depends on what you're flying. (AAA mods are amazing but more intensive).

I can't imagine what real-world benefit it would have for OFF. My card is now the bottleneck, but the game runs smooth as silk 95% of the time, on stupidly high settings. If I put a 260 in it'd run smooth as silk 100% of the time. But bang-for-buck, am I going to spend £250 for a 5% improvement? No, I'm not.

Nor would I spend £100 more for an extra 500mhz on the CPU, unless it was going to make a significant improvement (a darn sight more than 5%).

[Dirk98]

Nor would I spend Ј100 more for an extra 500mhz on the CPU, unless it was going to make a significant improvement (a darn sight more than 5%).

Siggi, I'm not the first year in flightsims, have flown them all. I know what extra 500mhz can mean for any of the flightsims. If you noticed Gimpy bought this chip already, and I can assure you it was wise decision for the money he could afford himself. You can try it too, you won't regret, but I don't know your circumstances. The difference will be marginal but still very pleasing, lol. Seriously, I think E8600 is the last ultimate (dead-end) chip in the direction of older games.

PS: and sounds like your system is very-well tuned, my compliments, this is also a very important factor.

[Siggi]

Siggi, I'm not the first year in flightsims, have flown them all. I know what extra 500mhz means for any of the flightsims. If you noticed Gimpy bought this chip already, and I can assure you it was a wise decision for the money he could afford himself. You can try it too, you won't regret, but I don't know your circumstances.

I had a choice, 8400, 8500 and 8600. I did the research and found most people were clocking all three chips to a max 4ghz for real-world useage. Sure, some people were claiming 5ghz stable, on all of the chips. Then I figured the stock speed-differences (300mhz between the 8400 and 8600) would translate directly into OC differences, and for the extra cost of the 8600 vs 8400 the choice became a no-brainer for me.

And the proof in the pudding, for me at least, is OFF flies now, and that's with the card now lagging behind the CPU. So what benefit would the extra £100 for the 8600 have given me? Absolutely none. Better put towards a new card, if I felt I needed one (which I don't).

The 8600 is the same chip, but one they've tested at being a little more stable under higher speed, so they put a faster multiplier on it and called it a 3.3ghz 8600 instead of a 3.0ghz 8400. Maybe it'll clock a little better (500mhz more clock vs 300mhz better stock), but it still comes down to the bang-for-buck ratio.

I've got a 4ghz chip for £150, instead of a 4.5ghz chip for £250. To me the math is obvious.

[Dirk98]

I've got a 4ghz chip for £150, instead of a 4.5ghz chip for £250. To me the math is obvious.

I can hear you. In my case where I am the upgrade from 8400 cost me less than that.

[Siggi]

I can hear you. In my case where I am the upgrade from 8400 cost me less than that.

Yep, I see USA prices and my eyes shed tears. Well, they did before the exchange-rate went to hell. But you still get stuff a lot cheaper than us.

[Dirk98]

Please follow this link to see the 'costs' involved:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw...E8600&x=6&y=21

And make your own inference on the price difference between the chips vs Mhz.

[Dirk98]

Lol, when GG wakes up he'll learn he has become the champion of the speed with his mega-monster brand new E8600.

[Siggi]

Please follow this link to see the 'costs' involved:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw...E8600&x=6&y=21

And make your own inference on the price difference between the chips vs Mhz.

Shows the 8400 at $164.90 and the 8600 at $325.41. That's a difference of $160.51.

You reckon that's not a lot? You could buy two 8400s for the price of a single 8600.

[Cameljockey]

When I was looking to buy a new CPU, it came down to the three choices mentioned here, the E8400, 8500, or 8600. At the time the E8400 was $169US, and the E8500 was $189US, but the E8600 was $269. $20 for an extra .16Ghz was minimal but the $80 for an extra .16Ghz was a bit too much so I went with the E8500 and have been a happy camper ever since. I don't really care about astronomical fps because IMO it's not necessary. I keep my fps capped at 30. The game looks great (54451), runs great with that setting and no stutter etc.

CJ

[Dirk98]

Shows the 8400 at $164.90 and the 8600 at $325.41. That's a difference of $160.51.

You reckon that's not a lot? You could buy two 8400s for the price of a single 8600.

You'll notice there are some other options where the difference is about $50, depends on how you can deal with it. And as I mentioned, in our hobby you always look into your pockets first, but no sence to challenge the ultimate truth that faster CPU = better game experience.

[Siggi]

...but no sence to challenge the ultimate truth that faster CPU = better game experience.

To a point that's true, and I agree. But once natural terminal velocity is achieved there's no point polishing more wax over your dropsuit.

Or, how many more frames above 30 do you want? Or need.

To be honest I viewed the 8600 as just an 8400 with 300mhz of OC already applied.

4ghz for £150, bargain. 4.5ghz for £250, not such a bargain. And I wouldn't be happy running at 4.5ghz anyway, and already knew that. There's more than just the CPU involved with an OC, as you found out at 4.5ghz already.

[Dirk98]

To a point that's true, and I agree. But once natural terminal velocity is achieved there's no point polishing more wax over your dropsuit.

Or, how many more frames above 30 do you want? Or need.

To be honest I viewed the 8600 as just an 8400 with 300mhz of OC already applied.

If I were upgrading at this point like GG, I would go for E8600 with somewhat better RAM than I have now. And, as I mentioned already, the price difference between E8400 and E8600 cost me less, than you're trying to instill, lol. So I'll replace my 2x2Gb ram sticks shortly and go back to 4.5Ghz, no matter if you can afford extra 150 quid for it or you can not, lol.