E4300 3.1Ghz vs. E2140 3.1Ghz

[rxmac]

Nice work seems for the most part theres practically nothing to choose between the 2 and in the real world you probably wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[steve258]

Why not try lowering the multi on the e4300 see if hoe theycompre at similar bus speeds.

I was going to do that but my mobo didn't like overclocking with lowered multi unfortunately.

 

[Ragnarok]

It does seem a bit pointless at the mo going for a E6xxx processor unless you looking for raw CPU speed because the Q6600 is so ( relativly) cheep. But the E4400 is half price of a Q6600 and I couln't justtify getting a quad at the mo. Plus the Dual core is plenty of CPU spped for the moment.
Even before I was this artical and seeing these excelent benchmarks 1mb cache looked a little low so I went with the E4400, they only confirmed my suspissions, some Apps love the extra cache others perform pretty much the same. Generaly it's better to have it.

 

[pastymuncher]

Excellent review there. I really thought the extra bandwidth of the 2140 would have made a bit more of a difference, but as it stands there is not a lot between them at all.

 

[MoBo]

Great review matey

 

[Artic7]

superb review

 

[MADEinSTOKE]

was thinking of getting 1 of of these 21** chips might go for something with a bigger cache now ....excellent review ...cheers

 

[nicksource]

I would pay for these sort of reviews, awesome work!

Very helpful.

 

[Dougsnake]

Very good work and very useful

 

[muon]

Why not try lowering the multi on the e4300 see if hoe theycompre at similar bus speeds.

edited, nvm, just realised RAM speeds are unlinked.

good work

 

[Stelly]

VERY nice thread

Stelly

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hi Steve, nice work there!

I am intrigued by the results above, The extra 1MB of cache appears to be making a much more noticable difference in the frame rate? Particularly the max FPS.

Would switching to low quality be the same as installing a super powerful 'next-gen' graphics card? Hard to explain what I mean there but in essence what I am trying to say is once you take away the GPU bottleneck and the emphasis is placed onto the CPU, do you think the gains seen above would still hold true?

 

[Minstadave]

I would have thought on low graphical settings the change would be even more obvious.

 

[Big.Wayne]

I would have thought on low graphical settings the change would be even more obvious.

Because of? . . . The extra 1Mb of cache?

 

[Minstadave]

Because of? . . . The extra 1Mb of cache?

On low graphics the system will be entirely CPU bound, so any difference between the two CPUs will be highlighted, such as the extra cache

 

[SDK^]

This is also worth a read : Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance

 

[Minstadave]

This is also worth a read : Does Cache Size Really Boost Performance

Link is broken, but a good read

 

[Richdog]

Great benchmarks, and very thorough, 5* form me!. Now go do an E6600 vs a Q6600.

 

[steve258]

Would switching to low quality be the same as installing a super powerful 'next-gen' graphics card? Hard to explain what I mean there but in essence what I am trying to say is once you take away the GPU bottleneck and the emphasis is placed onto the CPU, do you think the gains seen above would still hold true?

Thanks

I think that's exactly what happened there, with all graphics on minimum the games become CPU bound so the differences between the two chips were magnified, but it's not like you can tell the difference between 410 and 353fps without fraps. And yes I think I know what you meant that in essence it's the equivalent of installing a powerful graphics card where the bottleneck becomes the CPU.

 

[Namistai]

Very interesting and useful review, thanks! The 21xx looks like an extremely viable upgrade option for me having read this!