E2160 vs E4500

Rich43 · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:28

Am I correct in thinking that the extra money on E4500 isnt worth it?

The E2160 will overclock to similar speeds right?

gt_junkie · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:34

I'd say that's about right! My old 2160 would do 3.6ghz which is quite high (and rare) but most successfully clock to 3.2ghz without much trouble.

Is it to replace the 6320 in your sig or is it for another PC?

gt

Rich43 · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:38

Im upgrading my friends Pentium D 3.2Ghz (yes that is a crap slow cpu he has! and runs too hot!)

NoobieOCer · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:38

gt_junkie said:
I'd say that's about right! My old 2160 would do 3.6ghz which is quite high (and rare) but most successfully clock to 3.2ghz without much trouble.

Is it to replace the 6320 in your sig or is it for another PC?

gt

0.0 my mates one only reached 2.8GHz lol

Rich43 · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:41

NoobieOCer said:
0.0 my mates one only reached 2.8GHz lol

Perhaps it has something to do with Memory and Motherboard?

I was thinking of giving him:
Abit IP35
GeIL 2GB (2x1GB) PC2-6400C4 800MHz Ultra Low Latency DDR2 Dual Channel Kit
Thermalright Ultima-90i CPU Cooler
And the E2160
(Only most important parts listed!)

Edit: Is it better paired with 1000Mhz+ memory?

iKettles · 2 Apr 2008 at 22:19

Rich43 said:
Perhaps it has something to do with Memory and Motherboard?

I was thinking of giving him:
Abit IP35
GeIL 2GB (2x1GB) PC2-6400C4 800MHz Ultra Low Latency DDR2 Dual Channel Kit
Thermalright Ultima-90i CPU Cooler
And the E2160
(Only most important parts listed!)

Edit: Is it better paired with 1000Mhz+ memory?

The E2160 has a 9x multiplier so you won't need FSB's over 400 usually, unless you have a golden chip which can do 3.6ghz+. Of course you can still go with 1066mhz memory, but if it was my choice I'd save the cash and get an E2180/E2200 instead.

Rich43 · 2 Apr 2008 at 23:11

Apart from higher initial clock speed what advantages do the E2180/E2200 have over the E2160?

bayo000 · 2 Apr 2008 at 23:17

Higher multi. So it may be "easier" to clock than e2160.
Which ever you go for should do 3ghz+ unless you get unlucky.
pc2-6400 is all you need

krooton · 3 Apr 2008 at 14:38

bayo000 said:
Higher multi. So it may be "easier" to clock than e2160.
Which ever you go for should do 3ghz+ unless you get unlucky.
pc2-6400 is all you need

Yep, my E2160 does 3.2Ghz at 1.5v, Orthos was kept under 60ºC too

MoRT489 · 3 Apr 2008 at 17:25

krooton said:
Yep, my E2160 does 3.2Ghz at 1.5v, Orthos was kept under 60ºC too

Same, boots at 3.4 but there is no real performance boost between 3 and 3.2GHz so save £10 and get the e2160. Gfx card is where the reall boosts can be found

dazz25 · 3 Apr 2008 at 21:52

I had the E2180 which clocked to 3.2GHz with ease!

roadie · 25 Apr 2008 at 11:58

I just ordered an e4500 and an abit IP35 for the grand total of £107. I'm hoping to reach 3.3Ghz.

Crowze · 25 Apr 2008 at 12:40

Got an e4500 myself but struggling to get it over 2.95GHz - it's more than capable at that speed but I was hoping to get a little more out of it. Would like to hear how other people are faring with the 4500, not sure whether it's the CPU itself or mobo/memory that's holding it back.

The Asgard · 25 Apr 2008 at 13:22

I'm running my E2180 at 3.4 with 1.35 volts prime stable. Very impressed with the E2XXX considering the price.

Waiting for my Q9450 to arrive just hope I'm equally impressed.

gt_junkie · 25 Apr 2008 at 13:27

The Asgard said:
I'm running my E2180 at 3.4 with 1.35 volts prime stable. Very impressed with the E2XXX considering the price.

Completely agree! My e2160 @ 3.6ghz easily matched any of the 3x e6600's i've had. Wonderful chips that can take a real beating too!!!

Only the e8500 i have now was a noticeable upgrade - however it was just over 3x the price.

gt

roadie · 25 Apr 2008 at 13:42

I would have gone for an e2xxx chip had I found one at a decent price. However, I thought the e4500 was worth the £5 premium, as at the same clock speed it should give higher minimum frame rates in games. As all the decent e2xxx chips and all e4xxx chips are M0 steppings, they shouldn't be much difference in the maximum stable clock speed if I get a good one. I have my fingers crossed!

manic111 · 25 Apr 2008 at 14:03

Go with the 2180-I have the E4500 and regret spending the extra money on it to be honest.

Cob · 25 Apr 2008 at 23:24

roadie said:
I would have gone for an e2xxx chip had I found one at a decent price. However, I thought the e4500 was worth the £5 premium, as at the same clock speed it should give higher minimum frame rates in games.

The extra cache is worth the extra fiver in your case.

Tee Hee Johnson · 26 Apr 2008 at 00:33

Cheaper the better

Read many reviews about this kinda thing, yes the extra cache ones do perform better, but its not by that much... usually only a few percent!

When your talking of such a saving getting a budget chip over a mid range one, its somewhat silly not to!

I just got a 2180... expecting it to do 3.2 easily... hopin for 3.4-3.6

Cob · 26 Apr 2008 at 08:40

It all depends what you use the CPU for.

If it's just for games then any more than a fiver isn't worth it. But software that loves cache (video editing/converting etc) will perform better with an E4*00 than an E2*00.

For example, those of us that Fold are aware than clock for clock, a 4mb cache E6600 attains almost 70% more points per day than a 1mb cache E2180.