# Why is the Core 2 Duo E8400 still $169?



## 2048Megabytes (Sep 4, 2010)

People are out of their minds.  Why are they paying $169 for a Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual-Core?

The Phenom II 555 Dual-Core (3.2 gigahertz) C3 Revision Processor beats it in processing power and it is presently $89.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=Phenom_II_processor-_-19-103-846-_-Product

The Intel Core i3 540 Clarkdale (3.06 gigahertz) Dual-Core is only $125.


----------



## fastdude (Sep 4, 2010)

The E8400 is no slouch, and was one of the most powerful mainstream CPUs in it's day.
Passmark = 2243
Phenom II X2 555 = 1957

Still, benches mean little, and the 555 offers far more bang-for-buck.
I guess intel just haven't got round to reducing the MSRP just yet. Even the lowest-end i3 scores over 2700 in passmark, however. On the plus side for system builders, 775 Mobos cost less than 1156 Mobos, if that's any consolation. (775) Sales are going down of high end C2Ds and are going more in favour of 775 quads (Q6600 in particular, Q83/400. Still...


----------



## bomberboysk (Sep 4, 2010)

Same reason a Q9650 costs more than an i7....so they can charge exuberant prices for people who want to upgrade their 775 systems.


----------



## Twist86 (Sep 4, 2010)

Supply and demand I think....little supply anymore thus the price goes up. Look at the older GPUs on the net...7600GT for $80-$100. Plus I think it forces people with common sense to move on since they could get a far better setup for the same price.


----------



## spynoodle (Sep 4, 2010)

Definitely just for LGA775 compatibility. It makes some sense, IMO. 33% seems about the price Intel should charge for compatibility. By that measurement, I think it is a bit overpriced, but for example: if you look on ebay for socket 478 Pentium 4s vs. LGA775 Pentium 4s, the socket 478 ones (specifically 3.4GHz) are a good $10 more expensive than the LGA775 3.4GHz ones, mainly because that's about the highest clock speed for a non-extreme 478 Pentium 4. The same goes for the E8400. It's one the highest-clocked Semi-reasonably-priced LGA775 Core2 Duos, and if someone has some E4300 or something, that's one of the fastest dual-cores that they can upgrade too. The Pentium Dual-Cores are still way better deals anyway, but some people can use the cache, I guess.


----------



## bubblescivic (Sep 5, 2010)

see this thread...

http://www.computerforum.com/182212-stupid-lga-775-limitations.html


----------



## 87dtna (Sep 5, 2010)

The E8400 is without a doubt noticeable stronger than a Phenom II 555 even at lower clocks.  But no it still shouldn't be that much.  Used ones go for right around $100.


----------



## 2048Megabytes (Apr 7, 2011)

The Core 2 Duo E8400 is still on NewEgg for $170.  You could get a Core i5 2400K Quad-Core for $20 more.  (The Core i5 2400K is almost three times more powerful than a Core 2 Duo E8400.)  Or one could buy the AMD Phenom II 945 Quad-Core for only $135.  

I cannot believe people are still buying the Core 2 Duo E8400.  I think it is hilarious and interesting that this processor is still selling on NewEgg.  It has been there since early 2008.


----------



## FuryRosewood (Apr 7, 2011)

take into effect your buying board, ram and cpu...and the price difference evaporates


----------



## Aastii (Apr 7, 2011)

FuryRosewood said:


> take into effect your buying board, ram and cpu...and the price difference evaporates



but the price to performance doesn't. You would have to pay 3 times more for the mobo and for the memory + $320 before it would be more worthwhile from a price standpoint to go for the dual core


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 7, 2011)

Just get an I3, they are definitely the best bang for the buck right now.  I3's rock, I'd take one over an AMD quad anyday.

I was extremely disapointed with the gaming performance of an E8400, guess I was spoiled by the I3 which seems to be far superior as a gaming CPU imo.


----------



## 2048Megabytes (Apr 7, 2011)

The Core i3 540 Clarkdale (3.06 gigahertz) Processor is only $120 right now.  The Core 2 Duo E8400 is just not worth a $170 price tag.


----------



## PohTayToez (Apr 7, 2011)

Twist86 said:


> Supply and demand



This^

The E8400 is the best rated LGA775 processor on Newegg.  I'm sure plenty of people are still buying it, not everyone does their research and shops around, some people just go straight for the first decent thing they find.

Also keep in mind that everyone isn't out to build an entire new system, some people are just looking to make a single upgrade, in which case the E8400 probably isn't a terrible choice.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 7, 2011)

If you're buying from Newegg, the Q8400 is directly below it at the same price!!!  Or the Q8300 is only $150.


----------



## PohTayToez (Apr 7, 2011)

87dtna said:


> If you're buying from Newegg, the Q8400 is directly below it at the same price!!!  Or the Q8300 is only $150.



Yes, but with a higher clock and bigger cache, the E8400 is going to perform better except when heavily multitasking or using a program that would actually be able to utilize a quad core.

Obviously the Q8400 has more raw processing power, but whether or not it would provide better performance would depend on the context.


----------



## BroncoBuff (Apr 8, 2011)

It seems like there's always a few pricing quirks. When I bought my i7-950 last summer, it cost less than the 940, 930, even the 920.  Even now the i7-940's average price is about $375-400, which is almost double the 950, which you can get for less that $250 now.

What I don't get is these Sandy Bridge processors with their gaudy speed numbers ... how the heck are they so cheap right out of the gate?  That's not the Intel I know ... what happened to price-gouging the early adopters?


----------



## tech savvy (Apr 9, 2011)

PohTayToez said:


> This^
> 
> The E8400 is the best rated LGA775 processor on Newegg.  I'm sure plenty of people are still buying it, not everyone does their research and shops around, some people just go straight for the first decent thing they find.
> 
> Also keep in mind that everyone isn't out to build an entire new system, some people are just looking to make a single upgrade, in which case the E8400 probably isn't a terrible choice.





BroncoBuff said:


> It seems like there's always a few pricing quirks. When I bought my i7-950 last summer, it cost less than the 940, 930, even the 920.  Even now the i7-940's average price is about $375-400, which is almost double the 950, which you can get for less that $250 now.
> 
> What I don't get is these Sandy Bridge processors with their gaudy speed numbers ... how the heck are they so cheap right out of the gate?  That's not the Intel I know ... what happened to price-gouging the early adopters?



no, its because they want people to move on to the newest and greatest, thats why new is cheap and old is expensive.


----------



## FuryRosewood (Apr 9, 2011)

Aastii said:


> but the price to performance doesn't. You would have to pay 3 times more for the mobo and for the memory + $320 before it would be more worthwhile from a price standpoint to go for the dual core



would joe schmo notice the power difference? thats who im only considering this for, joe schmo is the person who will be buying the e8600, not a enthusiast, mostly a person who just wants to stretch a little more money out of their purchase, kinda like a guy who buys a car, keeps it for a few years and decides to put an exhaust system on it for a little more power...sure they could buy a whole new goddamn car but why? their current car suits them fine...so their happy with it...

also take into consideration that not everyone also likes to reinstall windows each time they want to do a hardware upgrade....the windows isnt the annoying thing...its installing the software, hell i really hate reinstalling and reconfiguring visual studio, it takes me an extra 10 hours sometime to get it up to where i was before i reinstalled the operating system...


----------



## Mishkin (Apr 9, 2011)

One of the classic cpu matchup battles was the E8400 vs Q6600, back when they were mainstream.  Slower quadcore vs faster dualcore.  Back then for gaming, the E8400 was all the rage, and the Q6600, while certainly passable, was almost considered a waste of 2 cores, only viable vs the E8400 if you used your system for programs that could utilize more than 2 cores, or were a heavy multitasker.  Back then I remember one of the big debates was viable longevity, which would outlast the other.

I would say the Q6600 has successfully "outlasted" the E8400.   Makes one wonder if the current AMD hexacores are fast enough to pull the same move on faster modern-day quads, in the future.  I would almost say no, but back in the day the E8400 was a screamer per core compared to the Q6600.  And in the end, core-count ended up ruling the day.  Then again, in a way there's a much bigger difference between 2-4 cores than 4-6 cores.  Interesting to think about.


----------



## paulcheung (Apr 10, 2011)

Maybe the E8400 is old stock that newegg.com have from long time and maybe even forgotten ones. It might happen for a busy business place that have a few old stock left which does not affect the inventry counts (not alot to caught sight to the management and is not worthing to get rid of it by undersale the cost).  
Cheers.


----------



## Russ88765 (Apr 10, 2011)

fastdude said:


> The E8400 is no slouch, and was one of the most powerful mainstream CPUs in it's day.
> Passmark = 2243
> Phenom II X2 555 = 1957
> 
> ...



Not exactly a fair comparison, considering the wide price differences. Cool thing about amd though is the backwards compatibility they got going for them.


----------



## 2048Megabytes (Apr 11, 2011)

I just looked at NewEgg.  They must still be selling a lot of the Core 2 Duo E8400 processors.  They have at least 99 of them in stock presently.


----------

