Product face-offs
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
 | |||
| Socket | 775 | ||
| Number of cores | 2 | ||
| Clock rate | 3.16 GHz | ||
| Cache | 6 MB | ||
| Thermal Design Power | 65 W | ||
 See all specifications | |||
| Technology | 45 nm |
 Hide specifications | |
Intel's E8000 Range
The Core 2 Duo E8000 line made its debut in January 2008 with just three processors. Later in the year, though, the range was extended all the way up to 3.33 GHz with the E8600.
These dual-core processors all have a 6 MB cache and fit into 775 sockets, and, like their counterparts the E7000 family (we tested the E7200 and E7300), their 45 nm engineering keeps their Thermal Design Power down to just 65 W.
These dual-core processors all have a 6 MB cache and fit into 775 sockets, and, like their counterparts the E7000 family (we tested the E7200 and E7300), their 45 nm engineering keeps their Thermal Design Power down to just 65 W.
Régis Jehl
Test date: 2008-10-27
Test date: 2008-10-27
Running at 3.16 GHz, the E8500 is the penultimate processor in Intel's Core 2 Duo E8xxx line, just 6% slower than the 3.33 GHz E8600 at the top of the range.
In our tests, though, we found that the discrepancy between the two processors was closer to 3%.
To give an example of how negligible the difference is, let's look at how they performed on our audio encoding test, ripping an audio CD to MP3: the E8500 took 1 minute 30 seconds while the E8600 only shaved off six seconds to do the same task in 1 minute 24 seconds.
For regular users of intensive multimedia applications, though, upgrading to a quad-core processor would be a better move.
One such processor is Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9400, with a clockspeed of 'only' 2.66 GHz--it still only averaged 2 minutes exactly on our 3D rendering tests, compared to 2 minutes 25 seconds on this E8500, whose two cores are, in theory, a lot faster at 3.16 GHz.
The E8600 is fairly reasonable in its power consumption given how much performance it delivers, but it's a long way from being an energy efficient processor.
Up against Intel's great rival AMD, the Phenom X4 9750, a quad-core processor, comes close to the E8300 on certain tests, but their respective performances are too close to give a definitive answer about which one is better.
In our tests, though, we found that the discrepancy between the two processors was closer to 3%.
Compare the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 with the AMD Phenom X4 8750 and other CPUs in our
Product Face-Off
Product Face-Off
To give an example of how negligible the difference is, let's look at how they performed on our audio encoding test, ripping an audio CD to MP3: the E8500 took 1 minute 30 seconds while the E8600 only shaved off six seconds to do the same task in 1 minute 24 seconds.
For regular users of intensive multimedia applications, though, upgrading to a quad-core processor would be a better move.
One such processor is Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9400, with a clockspeed of 'only' 2.66 GHz--it still only averaged 2 minutes exactly on our 3D rendering tests, compared to 2 minutes 25 seconds on this E8500, whose two cores are, in theory, a lot faster at 3.16 GHz.
The E8600 is fairly reasonable in its power consumption given how much performance it delivers, but it's a long way from being an energy efficient processor.
Up against Intel's great rival AMD, the Phenom X4 9750, a quad-core processor, comes close to the E8300 on certain tests, but their respective performances are too close to give a definitive answer about which one is better.
-
Speedy results on almost every test
-
Sometimes as fast as entry-level quad-core processors
-
Reasonable energy efficiency
-
For demanding applications, quad-core processors will do better
The E8000 series is an excellent bunch of dual-core processors with reasonable power consumption. For more demanding tasks, though, a quad-core CPU will do better.
