Forums » Processors, Motherboards and Memory » Intel Processors » Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 CPU Review

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 CPU Review

rated by 0 users
This post has 7 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,264
Points 185,380
Joined: Sep 2007
Reply
News Posted: Mon, Jun 22 2009 12:20 PM

It was not too long ago that the web was buzzing with dual-core versus quad-core debates. Sides were taken and lines were drawn. At that time, one of the main arguments against quad-core processors was their high asking price. But as time passed and manufacturing refinements were made, costs steadily decreased and quad-cores found their way into the more mainstream market segments. And before you knew it, a price war was imminent.

Intel and AMD have been going at one another for years. With AMD unable to compete well at the ultra high-end of the market, however, their focus shifted towards the mainstream market segments. As always, Intel responded and their most recent salvo comes in the form the affordable Core 2 Quad Q8400 processor. Since the Q9400, a 2.66GHz Yorkfield quad-core, was already on the market, why did Intel feel the need to release another, affordable quad-core model? One reason could be to increase yield and utilize dies that would otherwise be discarded. Another reason would be to position another product at the same price point as AMD's. Whatever the case may be, competition is always good for the consumer as it usually drives prices lower and provides more options to choose from. With that in mind, let's take a look at the Intel Core 2 Quad 8400 to see if it's worthy of consideration for your next build...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 CPU Review



  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,225
Points 31,760
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: United States, New York
Moderator
Reply
mentaldisorder replied on Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:30 PM

I didn't think that it would beat most, if not all of the Phenom II's, however I was caught off guard by the fact that the intel chips don't do as well in the media areas as the AMD chips...

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Jun 2009
Reply
jjbaulikki replied on Wed, Jun 24 2009 9:02 PM

I agree, and I think Intel might have got ahead of itself a little in technology and actually priced out the consumer.  That has to be the reason for the release of the Core 2 quad 8400

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 230
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Ana
Reply
gamemaniac replied on Fri, Aug 14 2009 2:43 AM

Thanks for sharing such information here. It is nice to know that Intel Core2Quad processor prices are coming down rapidly. I have recently invested in couple of refurbished gaming laptops and I am not sure if I would be able to replace Core2Duo processors installed in them with Core2Quad and don't want to take any risks further as already premium laptop video cards have cost me dear.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,849
Points 14,750
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: United States, New York
Reply
digitaldd replied on Wed, Aug 19 2009 10:42 AM

@ that price point I wonder if a Phenom 2 905e 65W CPU would be better or not?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 230
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Ana
Reply
gamemaniac replied on Fri, Aug 28 2009 9:56 AM

Definitely Phenom 2 905e 65W CPU seems to be better option but what do you like the best about it?

Regards,

ServicedotZtronics,

Ztronics

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,849
Points 14,750
Joined: Jul 2001
Location: United States, New York
Reply
digitaldd replied on Fri, Aug 28 2009 1:39 PM

gamemaniac:

Definitely Phenom 2 905e 65W CPU seems to be better option but what do you like the best about it?

Regards,

ServicedotZtronics,

Ztronics

For me its simply the low power consumption, 65W and quad core combination. i mean Intel has a low power quad core solution but its close to $100 more.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 25
Joined: Sep 2009
Reply
Travisx2 replied on Fri, Sep 25 2009 9:28 PM

Couple things:

1. Did they OC and then undo it for the testing? or did they run the tests @ 3.9 Ghz????

2. If your PC is on all the time like mine, the $100 extra for a 65w version pays for it self in I think approx 1.5 years (30w delta @ 24 cents per kwh)

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS