• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

E2140/E2160 or E4300

carlosvr6

carlosvr6

carlosvr6

Associate
Joined
17 Mar 2004
Posts
805
Location
Walsall
At work we are planning on buying 50 computers for a new library/resource centre. The last computers we bought at the school were P4 3.0 and 3.2 with 512mb ram which seem to be running ok on the RM CC3 network. The only other intensive s/w used is Macromedia 8.

I have got some prices for machines with the E4300 cpu in but these are coming at slightly more than the school want to pay. I was thinking of changing the cpu's to either the E2140/E2160 to bring the cost down.

How would the E2140/E2160 fair with the current P4 machines we have?

Is ther a significant performance difference between the E2140/E2160 and E4300?

All will be running at stock.

Thanks
 
There's very little performance difference associated with the missing 1MB of cache between the E2160 and E4300, it's probably even less pronounced using basic applications like Word etc.


I really can't see the benefit of spending the extra on the E4300.
 
Journey said:
There's very little performance difference associated with the missing 1MB of cache between the E2160 and E4300, it's probably even less pronounced using basic applications like Word etc.


I really can't see the benefit of spending the extra on the E4300.
Click to expand...

How does/would the E2160 compare to the P4 3.2 systems we already have?
 
Chris Beard said:
The slower chips use less power as well, less cash and slower. Cost saving on electricity.
Click to expand...

It's the saving on electricity that has made the school choose the Core2duo processors over others.

How much more power would the P4 cpu's be using than these E2140/E2160 cpu's?
 
It only includes the more senior c2d models (e6300 and above), but from this chart you should see that the power savings will be pretty impressive, especially when you're talking on the scale of 50 pc's.
 
Have you considered going AMD? This artical from Tom's seems to suggest that AMD have better effeciancy.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/05/30/energy-efficiency-intel-left-out-in-the-cold/

The major advantages of C2D is they overclock like crazy or alternatively can be undervolted by quite a bit (but the school will be running them at stock). AMD motherboards are also tend to be cheaper than C2D motherboards.

EDIT:// This is from another artical at Tom's that shows the efficency more clearly. It also looks at the new AMD energy efficent chip:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/...k/page10.html#energy_consumption_measurements
 
Last edited:
Chris Beard said:
Have you considered going AMD? This artical from Tom's seems to suggest that AMD have better effeciancy.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/05/30/energy-efficiency-intel-left-out-in-the-cold/
Click to expand...

Interesting article, but the way I see it all it's saying is that AMD's cool'n'quiet works better than Intel's enhanced speed step at idle, when at full load the X2 energy efficient version is no better than C2D. Besides if you look at the last few pages where it takes performance into account the C2D is up there at the top offering better performance per watt. It suits the OP's requirement though since the computers will be pretty much idle all the time anyway.

Chris Beard said:
EDIT:// This is from another artical at Tom's that shows the efficency more clearly. It also looks at the new AMD energy efficent chip:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/...k/page10.html#energy_consumption_measurements
Click to expand...

This is much more relevant to the OP I think since it directly compares the BE-2350 with E2160. I think the BE-2350 is the answer to OP's prayer since it performs not much worse than E2160 and consumes a lot less power :)
 
steve258 said:
This is much more relevant to the OP I think since it directly compares the BE-2350 with E2160. I think the BE-2350 is the answer to OP's prayer since it performs not much worse than E2160 and consumes a lot less power :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. OP - the answer to your question is E2140 or E2160 (which ever is cheaper). The answer to the question I think you should have asked is BE-2350.

- Not that the OP is reading this thread any longer :P
 
Firstly, thank you to everyone who has posted in this thread.

Unfortunately AMD is not a solution for us as our biggest supplier of h/w only support/supply Intel (county contract). Hence why i was asking if the E2140/E2160 was considerably outperformed by the E4300 as this might be an option to bring down costs. Originally we were quoted for the E4300.

The comparison i was making for power and performance between a E2140/E2160 and an Intel P4 3.2 was so that i could draw up a rough comparison of our last systems and these new ones to put forward to the deputy headteacher. Need to justify change of cpu and choice of h/w etc before i can go out and buy 50+ pc's. If i can show the extra performance and power savings between the two systems then it will make my life a lot easier.
 
carlosvr6 said:
Firstly, thank you to everyone who has posted in this thread.

Unfortunately AMD is not a solution for us as our biggest supplier of h/w only support/supply Intel (county contract). Hence why i was asking if the E2140/E2160 was considerably outperformed by the E4300 as this might be an option to bring down costs. Originally we were quoted for the E4300.

The comparison i was making for power and performance between a E2140/E2160 and an Intel P4 3.2 was so that i could draw up a rough comparison of our last systems and these new ones to put forward to the deputy headteacher. Need to justify change of cpu and choice of h/w etc before i can go out and buy 50+ pc's. If i can show the extra performance and power savings between the two systems then it will make my life a lot easier.
Click to expand...


Performance and anual cost from intel:

http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/eep.htm

EDIT://

Pretty graphs that show the watts used by a range of intel processors - directly compares an old P4 to a new C2D:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2097&page=3
 
Last edited:
carlosvr6 said:
Looking at the links makes me want to get rid of my P4 and buy one of these Core2Duo's.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it's not just the power requirement that's making you think that!

Having had a e2160 up at 3GHz and see it hold it's own with an e6600, there is no excuse not to upgrade :)
 
melbourne720 said:
Having had a e2160 up at 3GHz and see it hold it's own with an e6600, there is no excuse not to upgrade :)
Click to expand...
Totally agree!

Mine's at 3ghz too and it's mighty fast and horrifically cheap.

gt
 
melbourne720 said:
Hopefully it's not just the power requirement that's making you think that!
Click to expand...

Partly the reason i must admit but mainly because of the better performance and the fact that i might be able to get the parts through work to save a little more money.

Chris Beard said:
New chip means new board though. Not so cheap then!
Click to expand...

Not so expensive either if i can sell my old cpu & mobo and pick up a cheap Asrock mobo or similar. Could still use my ddr memory and agp gfx card as i'm not into gaming. Probably a good time to sell the old bits too before they become worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom