Intel Core2 Duo E8500 

Released January, 2008
  • 3.16 GHz
  • Dual core
5 Out of 10

The additional L2 cache and the higher clock frequencies make it hands down a better choice than Conroe when it comes to building a new system.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
Benchmark Results: Photodex Proshow software obviously scales very well with processor clock frequency as you can see above.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)

CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of the Intel Core2 Duo E8500 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Core2 Duo E8500
5.4
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Core2 Duo E8500
6.0
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Core2 Duo E8500
0.0
Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

Core2 Duo E8500
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Core2 Duo E8500
5.0
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Core2 Duo E8500
5.1
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Core2 Duo E8500
5.0

Benchmarks Real world tests of the Intel Core2 Duo E8500

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core2 Duo E8500
2.5 mHash/s
Core2 Duo E8400
2.41 mHash/s

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8500
3,230
Core i3 3220
5,399

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8500
1,773
Core i3 3220
2,501

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8500
129,700 MB/s
Core i3 3220
173,000 MB/s
Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8500
2,970
Core i3 3220
5,351

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Duo E8500
3,088
Core i3 3220
5,707

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core2 Duo E8500
2,311
Core i3 3220
4,229

PassMark (Single Core)

Core2 Duo E8500
1,321
Core i3 3220
1,764

Reviews Word on the street for the Intel Core2 Duo E8500


8.0
Just for grins, we'll also toss in performance numbers of an Intel Core 2 E8500 dual core CPU, which also costs around $300.

8.0
The top E8500 model is clocked at an impressive 3.16GHz, which translates into single and dual-threaded performance to match any processor on the planet.

Overall

8.5 Out of 10

What People Are Saying Give it to me straight

Socket Type

Just for fun we changed the bus speed from 333MHz to 400MHz and the system was stable and solid.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
It's also impressively efficient compared to the outgoing 65nm generation of Core 2 Duo CPUs from Intel.
by Tech Radar (May, 2008)
At launch a little over 18 months ago, the X6850 was the world's fastest PC chip and cost a cool £600.
by Tech Radar (May, 2008)

Socket

If you consider that the original Pentium processor, which ran at 66MHz (and that was the high-end model), was built using an 800nm process, with a measly 3.1 million transistors—well, you get the idea.
by PCMag (Jun, 2008)
The numbers here show a ~1.24x gain from E6750 (CNR 2.66) to E8500 (WFD 3.16), which comes partly from the frequency gain (~19%) and partly from the architecture gain.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
With a die size of just 107mm2 and 410 million transistors, it is smaller than its predecessor, the Conroe, as it had a die size of 143mm2 with 291 million transistors.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)

Performance

Results: POV-Ray Real-Time Raytracing is a great benchmark that we love to use on Legit Reviews and it does a great job at showing how performance scales with CPU cores.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
It's also significantly quicker in every benchmark than the X6850.
by Tech Radar (May, 2008)
The Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 that we specifically looked at in this article did very well in the benchmarks and consistently beat the AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition quad-core processor.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)

Multicore

It's worth putting all this in perspective before we dive into the performance numbers of these two quad-core CPUs in our showdown today.
by PCMag (Jun, 2008)
This goes to show how well the Wolfdale core has been developed and also how bad of a position AMD is in when it comes to processors.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
It's also true that for under $300, you can buy an Intel quad-core CPU manufactured on a 45 nanometer (nm) process.
by PCMag (Jun, 2008)

Applications

Microsoft Office Excel 2007 is a powerful and widely used tool with which you can create and format spreadsheets and analyze and share information to make more informed decisions.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
The input file is a 70.1 MB spreadsheet and with 10 times the calculations of the first test, this one should take a bit longer to complete.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)
On a two-CPU system, the rendering speed in some scenes almost doubles.
by Legit Reviews (Feb, 2008)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Clock speed 3.16 GHz
Cores Dual core
Socket type LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes
Has virtualization support Yes
Instruction set extensions
  1. Supplemental SSE3
  2. SSE2
  3. SSE
  4. MMX
  5. SSE3
  6. SSE4.1
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 2.22 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W

bus

Architecture FSB
Clock speed 1,333 MHz

details

Architecture x86-64
Threads 2 threads
L2 cache 6 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm
Transistor count 410,000,000
Max CPUs 1
Clock multiplier 9
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 33
Overclocked clock speed 4.46 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.24 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.46 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus