Why is an E8440 considered better than a Q8200

Dell wants $110 for this processor:

> Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 (4MB L2, 2.33GHz, 1333FSB) [add $110 or $3/month1]

but want wants $130 more for this processor.;

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor E8400 (6MB L2, 3GHz, 1333FSB) [add $130 or $3/month1]


I thought the quad processors are considered better?

On the Passmark CPU mark, the e400 scored a 3,206, the E8400 a 2,165.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Duo+E8400+@+3.00GHz

The Passmark CPU mark considered the standard for measuring processor performance?

 

You're assuming that prices have to be logical.

 

scarcity also comes into play.

It's obvious that the E8400 has more cache per core and faster clock rate.

I have a couple of E6850s (an older sister of the E8400 with a slower memory clock) at home and have no reason to replace them even though Microcenter has Q9550s on sale for $160 each.

 

Yeah the Q8200 would be the better more future proof processor. The E6850 isn't that a E6600 conroe given a factory OC so it runs at 1333 instead of 1066 fsb. Indeed you are correct the newer penryn duals offer neglegible improvements over the likes of the E6850 not worth buying into anyway

 

Note that the Q8200 does not have hardware virtualization (Intel vT). The E8400 does beat it in that regard.

Windows XP Mode in Windows 7 requires hardware virtualization. Running 64-bit hosts in VMWare also requires hardware virtualization. Worth thinking about --and for this reason, I wouldn't buy a quad lower than the Q9400.

It's also a reason I wouldn't get rid of my Q6600 (which has vT) for a Q8 series.

 

You wouldn't see any performance increase at all going from a Q6600 to a Q8x00 anyway.

 

Very true.

 

try getting a cheaper processor which doesn't need extra money and then upgrade yourself.. just make sure you have a higher power supply when you buy the desktop.

 

This pretty much sums it up. There is no logic in Dell's upgrade pricing. They just price it as high as people are willing to pay.

 

Maybe I'm not reading this properly but I see the Duo costing only $20 more?

For 50% more cache, almost 30% more clock speed and VT enabled, the E8400 is the easy winner.

Unless all/most of your applications need and can fully utilize a four core CPU, or at least your most important or 'core' application needs/uses more than 2 cores, the Core 2 Duo is the best 'buy'.

If you want/need XP mode in Win 7 or x64 guests in VMware, then the Q8200 is effectively obsolete.

Why are we having this conversation for $20?

 

yea, if you dont need virtualization, definatly get the quad core.

 

I don't think 4 cores will make up entirely for such clock speed and cache differences except in very multi-threaded apps.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=56&p2=52

 

Anything that is 2.8Ghz or higher always carries a premium over other. Even lower quad cores. Plus it may sell more then the quad due to people wanting better single thread and/or higher clock rate for bragging rights.

This.