[H]ard|Forum

Go Back   [H]ard|Forum > [H]ard|Ware > Intel Processors

View Poll Results: Which one is the better value?
E6500 5 22.73%
E7500 17 77.27%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 11-02-2009, 08:38 PM
Aaron11 n00bie, 34 Days
 
Aaron11 is offline
E7500 vs. E6500

I want people's opinions on the Pentium Dual-Core E6500 versus the Core 2 Duo E7500. Which one is better? Is the E7500 better for gaming? How would they perform with say a 4670? What about a 5770? Do you guys think the E7500 is worth it for an extra $25? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  #2  
Old 11-02-2009, 08:52 PM
PC_User 2[H]4U, 2.2 Years
 
PC_User is offline
The question is: is the 1MB of extra L2 cache worth $25 to you? If you are planning on overclocking (which I suggest) for added performance, then consider the E6300 for $81 or the E7400 for $92.
__________________
i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz HT, 1.25v + TRUE-120 || Gigabyte EX58-UD5 || 6GB G.Skill DDR3 1600 || ASUS GTX 285 || WD Black 640GB || 2x WD Green 1TB || Corsair 850TX || Antec P180B || HP LP2475w || Logitech Illuminated + G7 || Logitech Z-2300 || Windows 7 Professional x64
  #3  
Old 11-02-2009, 08:55 PM
Aaron11 n00bie, 34 Days
 
Aaron11 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by PC_User View Post
The question is: is the 1MB of extra L2 cache worth $25 to you? If you are planning on overclocking (which I suggest) for added performance, then consider the E6300 for $81 or the E7400 for $92.
Wouldn't the bigger cache add a little performance to gaming? I wasn't planning on OCing right away, but maybe down the road.
  #4  
Old 11-02-2009, 09:45 PM
PC_User 2[H]4U, 2.2 Years
 
PC_User is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron11 View Post
Wouldn't the bigger cache add a little performance to gaming? I wasn't planning on OCing right away, but maybe down the road.
Probably a minimal gain. I agree with Carlitos that an E8400 would be your best bet and I'm sure you can find a used one for that price.
__________________
i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz HT, 1.25v + TRUE-120 || Gigabyte EX58-UD5 || 6GB G.Skill DDR3 1600 || ASUS GTX 285 || WD Black 640GB || 2x WD Green 1TB || Corsair 850TX || Antec P180B || HP LP2475w || Logitech Illuminated + G7 || Logitech Z-2300 || Windows 7 Professional x64
  #5  
Old 11-02-2009, 10:15 PM
swanysto Limp Gawd, 4.7 Years
 
swanysto is offline
I have had an E8400 @ 3.6 ghz, and an E7400 @3.6ghz and the 8400 had better FPS in every game I have played. It didn't have a higher peak FPS, but it didn't have the lows like the 7400 did.
  #6  
Old 11-02-2009, 10:50 PM
ekuest [H]ard|Gawd, 10 Months
 
ekuest is online now
i love my E6600. its a good match for my 9800GT. obviously an E7XXX is better than an E6XXX. your gpu and what you want to do with the computer are what determine what you should get. with a 4670 the E6500 should be fine. with a 5770 go for an 8XXXor youll be very limited by your cpu and that nice gpu will go to waste.
__________________
Gaming: E6600 @ 3.5GHz | ASUS P5Q Pro | 4GB Mushkin DDR2 1066 | PNY 9800GT 512MB | Ultra X3 600W Modular | Dell 18" 1600x1200 CRT | Logitech G5 | Win XP Pro SP3

2.66GHz Pentium D 805 @ 3.46GHz | Asus P5LD2 | 2GB OCZ Gold DDR2 667 | XFX Zalman Edition Extreme Overclock 8600GT | TT 430W | Win XP Pro SP3

Lappy: Asus Eee PC 1000HA: 10.1" screen | 1.6GHz Atom | 2GB RAM | 160GB HDD | Win XP Home SP3
  #7  
Old 11-02-2009, 11:37 PM
Aaron11 n00bie, 34 Days
 
Aaron11 is offline
How would the E8400 compare to the quad-core q8200?
  #8  
Old 11-02-2009, 11:47 PM
rcf1987 2[H]4U, 5.3 Years
 
rcf1987 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron11 View Post
How would the E8400 compare to the quad-core q8200?
quad will prolly give you better performance in games that can use 4 core and in multitasking but the e8400 would prolly be better in everything else
__________________
Intel E5200 @ 2.8, 1066 FSB
Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L
4x1 GB Crucial DDR2-667
Sapphire HD 4870 512mb GDDR5
Silverstone ST-50F 500W
  #9  
Old 11-03-2009, 12:14 AM
Carlitos714 [H]Lite, 21 Days
 
Carlitos714 is offline
I had a Q8200 and they suck. Dont buy it. Trying to sell it is a pain too cuz nobody wants them. If you are gonna buy a quad might as well get the Q6600. I recommend the E8400. I have a e7200 @4.0G Ghz w/ a gtx 280 SC and I love it.
  #10  
Old 11-03-2009, 03:48 PM
Celestial Avenger Limp Gawd, 4.4 Years
 
Celestial Avenger is offline
Only direct clock for clock comparison I could find was Core 2 Duo E8300 vs Pentium Dual Core E6300. All game benchmarks were 17-35% gains. I'd get an E7500 and overclock the hell out of it. Multiplier is set at 11.

There is a wildcard with that E6500, which is apparently the multiplier is unlocked. Maybe it can easily hit 4 GHz, maybe not. I don't know.

The Q8200 isn't really worth it for gaming, especially for overclocking. Bad multiplier at 7, also bad potential apparently.

Last edited by Celestial Avenger; 11-03-2009 at 04:11 PM..
__________________
-*-*-*-Video Editing PC-*-*-*-
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66 GHz @ 3.5 GHz | Antec SLK3800-B Case with 400W Power Supply | Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro | GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R | G.SKILL 2GB DDR2-1066 RAM | ATi Radeon HD3850 512MB | SATA HDDs (1.5 TB, 1TB, 500GB, 320GB) | HD-DVD ROM - DVD+/-RW Burner | Acer 23" Widescreen Monitor

-*-*-*-Wife Box-*-*-*-
Dell Inspiron 546 | AMD Athlon II X4 620 | 4GB DDR2-800 RAM | ATi Radeon HD4350 | SATA HDDs (500GB, 320GB) | DVD+/-RW Burner + DVD-ROM | Dell E228WFP 22" Widescreen Monitor
  #11  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Koslov [H]ard|Gawd, 6.2 Years
 
Koslov is offline
I'd say get the new E3200 OC'ed at 3.6ghz or more.

I wouldn't buy a E7500 or E6500 right now personally. I'd go core i5 750
Doesn't cost that much more
  #12  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Celestial Avenger Limp Gawd, 4.4 Years
 
Celestial Avenger is offline
Quote:
I wouldn't buy a E7500 or E6500 right now personally. I'd go core i5 750
Doesn't cost that much more
The processor by itself costs double that of the E7500, and that's not even factoring in the motherboard and DDR3 RAM. You can't just plug an i5 into his 775 board. Upgrading to i5 would cost him at least $350-$400, well over 300% the cost of the E7500 and almost 400% of the E6500. It does cost that much more.
__________________
-*-*-*-Video Editing PC-*-*-*-
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66 GHz @ 3.5 GHz | Antec SLK3800-B Case with 400W Power Supply | Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro | GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R | G.SKILL 2GB DDR2-1066 RAM | ATi Radeon HD3850 512MB | SATA HDDs (1.5 TB, 1TB, 500GB, 320GB) | HD-DVD ROM - DVD+/-RW Burner | Acer 23" Widescreen Monitor

-*-*-*-Wife Box-*-*-*-
Dell Inspiron 546 | AMD Athlon II X4 620 | 4GB DDR2-800 RAM | ATi Radeon HD4350 | SATA HDDs (500GB, 320GB) | DVD+/-RW Burner + DVD-ROM | Dell E228WFP 22" Widescreen Monitor
  #13  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:06 PM
Grentz [H]ardForum Junkie, 3.6 Years
 
Grentz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekuest View Post
i love my E6600. its a good match for my 9800GT. obviously an E7XXX is better than an E6XXX. your gpu and what you want to do with the computer are what determine what you should get. with a 4670 the E6500 should be fine. with a 5770 go for an 8XXXor youll be very limited by your cpu and that nice gpu will go to waste.
The e6600 C2D is better than the E7XXX series, it has more cache. The only advantage of the E7XXX series is that they are 45nm.

The old e6XXX C2D series is in between the current E7XXX and E8XXX series.
__________________
Win7 x64 - Canon 30D
  #14  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:29 PM
MrWizard6600 [H]ardness Supreme, 3.9 Years
 
MrWizard6600 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial Avenger View Post
The processor by itself costs double that of the E7500, and that's not even factoring in the motherboard and DDR3 RAM. You can't just plug an i5 into his 775 board. Upgrading to i5 would cost him at least $350-$400, well over 300% the cost of the E7500 and almost 400% of the E6500. It does cost that much more.
Yeah its a pretty shitty situation, but spending the money on another LGA775 is really kicking the dead horse. Intel is on a hardcore money grab here.

I seem to be in that situation that everyone else is in: Early Core 2 and Geforce 8 series wondering why L4D2 is giving me <5FPS on max settings +2XAA/AF. Being a broke student I cant afford to upgrade to core i5 and putting any more graphical horsepower on a little 3.3Ghz C2D w/ 2MB L2 is slamming that exponentially decreasing return curve really hard.

It really does suck, and that suckage is provided soley by Intel --I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, this is possibly one of the most successful money grabs intel's made in years (its not like anybody here is considering Phenom II as a serious alternative). But yeah, at this point, suckage all round.

to the OP, if you are in the situation I'm in, and you really cant wait, I'd go for a Q9550 or Q6600 on the FS/T forums or ebay. The used Q9550 resale prices are grossly inflated right now (ahem, all money I might add that Intel isn't making) because they're selling so well, and there's just something so profoundly un-[H] about buying a processor with 2/3rds is L2 locked away (ie Q8000's)...

this suffering doesn't end any time soon. AMDs (possibly running-out-of-R&D-funding) bulldozer --the next would-be serious competitor to intel, is due out only in 2011. Meaning sandy-bridge is just going to happily skim the market, you wont see 32nm core i5 hit anywhere below $150 until, well 2011.

I keep digressing: My point is the upgrade costs sucks now and its going to suck for some time. But I would pause before buying anything new for an LGA775 rig.
__________________
my HDMI cabling has only the finest gold-plated gas-injected free-range copper.
  #15  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:48 PM
ekuest [H]ard|Gawd, 10 Months
 
ekuest is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grentz View Post
The e6600 C2D is better than the E7XXX series, it has more cache. The only advantage of the E7XXX series is that they are 45nm.

The old e6XXX C2D series is in between the current E7XXX and E8XXX series.
according to this and this, they are both 45nm and the E7500 has 3mb L2 cache, more than the E6500's 2mb L2 cache. youre thinking of the E6600, which does in fact have 4mb L2 cache, and is 65 nm. thats what im using and its great. you can pick one up for $70 off the forums, OP.

EDIT: ok maybe i missed some of the thread. OP was asking about E6500 in the title. yes E6600 is better. gotta overclock it though, which is pretty easy to do to like 3.2GHz or so.
__________________
Gaming: E6600 @ 3.5GHz | ASUS P5Q Pro | 4GB Mushkin DDR2 1066 | PNY 9800GT 512MB | Ultra X3 600W Modular | Dell 18" 1600x1200 CRT | Logitech G5 | Win XP Pro SP3

2.66GHz Pentium D 805 @ 3.46GHz | Asus P5LD2 | 2GB OCZ Gold DDR2 667 | XFX Zalman Edition Extreme Overclock 8600GT | TT 430W | Win XP Pro SP3

Lappy: Asus Eee PC 1000HA: 10.1" screen | 1.6GHz Atom | 2GB RAM | 160GB HDD | Win XP Home SP3
  #16  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:54 PM
ekuest [H]ard|Gawd, 10 Months
 
ekuest is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWizard6600 View Post
Yeah its a pretty shitty situation, but spending the money on another LGA775 is really kicking the dead horse. Intel is on a hardcore money grab here.

I seem to be in that situation that everyone else is in: Early Core 2 and Geforce 8 series wondering why L4D2 is giving me <5FPS on max settings +2XAA/AF. Being a broke student I cant afford to upgrade to core i5 and putting any more graphical horsepower on a little 3.3Ghz C2D w/ 2MB L2 is slamming that exponentially decreasing return curve really hard.

It really does suck, and that suckage is provided soley by Intel --I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, this is possibly one of the most successful money grabs intel's made in years (its not like anybody here is considering Phenom II as a serious alternative). But yeah, at this point, suckage all round.

to the OP, if you are in the situation I'm in, and you really cant wait, I'd go for a Q9550 or Q6600 on the FS/T forums or ebay. The used Q9550 resale prices are grossly inflated right now (ahem, all money I might add that Intel isn't making) because they're selling so well, and there's just something so profoundly un-[H] about buying a processor with 2/3rds is L2 locked away (ie Q8000's)...

this suffering doesn't end any time soon. AMDs (possibly running-out-of-R&D-funding) bulldozer --the next would-be serious competitor to intel, is due out only in 2011. Meaning sandy-bridge is just going to happily skim the market, you wont see 32nm core i5 hit anywhere below $150 until, well 2011.

I keep digressing: My point is the upgrade costs sucks now and its going to suck for some time. But I would pause before buying anything new for an LGA775 rig.
i disagree. just because intel is making a money grab doesnt mean you have to succomb to their will. just buy some used parts. i have an E6600 ($70), P5Q Pro ($80), and 4GB mushkin ($50) running basically anything just fine. if i wanted to i could trade up my cpu for a Q6600 or a Q9550 but i dont. LGA775 is not dead. if you have the money, i5 and i7 are both great platforms, but there are NO games that you cant run just fine with a socket 775 setup.
__________________
Gaming: E6600 @ 3.5GHz | ASUS P5Q Pro | 4GB Mushkin DDR2 1066 | PNY 9800GT 512MB | Ultra X3 600W Modular | Dell 18" 1600x1200 CRT | Logitech G5 | Win XP Pro SP3

2.66GHz Pentium D 805 @ 3.46GHz | Asus P5LD2 | 2GB OCZ Gold DDR2 667 | XFX Zalman Edition Extreme Overclock 8600GT | TT 430W | Win XP Pro SP3

Lappy: Asus Eee PC 1000HA: 10.1" screen | 1.6GHz Atom | 2GB RAM | 160GB HDD | Win XP Home SP3
  #17  
Old 11-05-2009, 06:25 PM
Grentz [H]ardForum Junkie, 3.6 Years
 
Grentz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekuest View Post
according to this and this, they are both 45nm and the E7500 has 3mb L2 cache, more than the E6500's 2mb L2 cache. youre thinking of the E6600, which does in fact have 4mb L2 cache, and is 65 nm. thats what im using and its great. you can pick one up for $70 off the forums, OP.

EDIT: ok maybe i missed some of the thread. OP was asking about E6500 in the title. yes E6600 is better. gotta overclock it though, which is pretty easy to do to like 3.2GHz or so.
Ya, I was talking about the E6600. You really have to compare clock for clock speed since everyone is so overclock happy with these newer intel chips...clock for clock the E6600 is faster than the E7XXX series, but the E6500 is slower.

I have no idea why intel was stupid enough to reuse the same names over again...the Original C2Ds were E6XXX series for those that did not know...and that was what they ALL were (there were not that many chips out). It just got very complicated in the years since as more and more and more chips came out.

Core 2 Duo used to be simple, now it is a mass cluster of chips
__________________
Win7 x64 - Canon 30D
  #18  
Old 11-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Grentz [H]ardForum Junkie, 3.6 Years
 
Grentz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekuest View Post
i disagree. just because intel is making a money grab doesnt mean you have to succomb to their will. just buy some used parts. i have an E6600 ($70), P5Q Pro ($80), and 4GB mushkin ($50) running basically anything just fine. if i wanted to i could trade up my cpu for a Q6600 or a Q9550 but i dont. LGA775 is not dead. if you have the money, i5 and i7 are both great platforms, but there are NO games that you cant run just fine with a socket 775 setup.
Very true, the Core 2 Duo 775 chips are still plenty for most gaming with a good video card. Frankly they are overkill for most things still.

i5 and i7 are awesome, I almost upgraded to i5, but right now there are other better bang for the buck items that are still very potent.

In most cases you would be better off putting the saved money towards a better GPU for gaming or other things depending on your usage.
__________________
Win7 x64 - Canon 30D
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2009 KB Networks, Inc.