E4300 v E6300

[TW]Fox

[TW]Fox

[TW]Fox

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
160,229
Hi guys..

Need to decide which of these to buy. Want to try and hit 3Ghz on regular air cooling, and I'll be using the OCZ Memory OcUK have for £115 unless there is a specific reason why not.

Which would you chose and why? Tempted by the ability to just insert a E4300, set it to the stock FSB of a 6300 and instantly have an OC'd system with the rest of the system perfectly in spec.

Going to probably use a Gigabyte DS3, what does the DS3P bring to the table? Says it supports 1333Mhz FSB.. could I run the E4300 at this on the stock multi to get 3Ghz? Can you do that in a regular DS3?

Help me decide :p

Thanks!
 
Hi,

Im not 100% sure what the ocuk ram is limited to when overclocking? What speed is it at stock? PC6400?

Personally I would consider the E6300 with the DS3 as it is a fantastic board and great for overclocking because of its high fsb capability, but then your ram would be the limiting factor.

The only reason to consider a E4300 is if you wanted cheaper mobo and ram, but seeing as you have the DS3 already I would go for the E6300.

EDIT: Sorry misread the post, thought it said you were getting the OcUk ram not 'OCZ from OcUk' lol :p Therefore - E6300 all the way, 3ghz+ willl be easy
 
Last edited:
I just want to make sure I get the right thing as I want my eventual spec to be capable of being ignored for the next 18 months.

Gigabyte DS3
E6300 @ 3Ghz
2048Mb OCZ Memory
BFG GeForce 8800GTS OC
17" TFT

Should do for high end gaming, right?

The memory in questio is the £116 stuff from OcUK. Is this good enough for 3Ghz+ from a 6300 on air cooling?
 
if you want to do it on a budget, you do not need ram that'll do 1:1 fsb with the cpu. thats what dividers are for!

the e4300 has a 9x multiplier, same as my e6600. i have mine clocked at 3.3ghz which isnt great for an e6600 but it's still a good clock. .....im only using some cheap pc5300 ddrII with a divider and guess what? i still score 11k in 3dmark 2006 and 58k in 2001, games performance mirrors this. people place far too much importance in ram IMO:)

as for which cpu, well ironically you'd beed a higher fsb with the 6300 which depending on the fsb needed and dividers available may well mean you need better ram. On the flip side there's the argument that 4300's are the runt of the little and get the worst cores of the lot, meaning less chance of a good clocker. Relatively speaking, there are very few of them that wont do 3ghz, most do much better. In weighing everything up i'd want to try the 4300 tbh.

[TW]Fox said:
Gigabyte DS3
E6300 @ 3Ghz
2048Mb OCZ Memory
BFG GeForce 8800GTS OC
17" TFT

Should do for high end gaming, right?
Click to expand...

you would be stunned by the performance of it in gaming.
 
Last edited:
Just read a review of the E4300 which suggests its very overclockable and a better bet than an E6300, although running memory at 200Mhz gives you 3.6Ghz with an E4300 at default mulitplier and to be honest I doubt the CPU will cope with that.

Does this therefore mean that getting a 4300 will mean my memory will be running under its potential?

With dividers, does it also mean I can rack up the FSB of an E6300 without affecting my memory?

Still not really closer to deciding!

It was suggested that the 4300 was more clockable than the 6300 as it has less power consumption etc.
 
memory dividers allow you to run the ram asynchronously with the fsb. You are correct yes, it means you can ramp the fsb up and with a divider you can run the ram at its rated stock speed, keeping everything in check:) it also means you arent necessarily limited by the top speed of the ram. ill throw some numbers at you

stock speed of an e6300 is 1.86ghz. this is achieved with a stock fsb of 266mhz and a multiplier of x7.
stock speed of an e4300 is 1.80ghz. It's stock fsb is 200mhz and it has a 9x multiplier.

to reach 3.3ghz, you'd need to run at 471 x 7 with the e6300. the e4300 with its 9x multiplier only needs 366fsb. 3ghz would require 428x7 and 333x9 respectively. In that respect yes its far easier on other hardware to clock an e4300, but its more of a gaming on the core itself.
pc6400 has a stock speed of 400mhz, giving you plenty of room for overclocking. So, that is the ram you want to be going for. any pc6400 should be ok but somebody else will give you some good recommendations:) i dont believe there's any need to by buying faster ram than that:)
 
Personally I'd get the cheapest 6400 RAM you can get, and spend the extra on a 6300 or a 6400. The 6XXX series seem to achieve the highest clocks overall, but the 4300 would be slightly easier.

If you spend less on RAM, you get slightly slacker timings but this won't matter too much. I'd rather have a faster clock by spending the money saved on a better CPU. The 6400 is fastest chip you need to consider.

You're also getting a DS3 which love high FSB speeds, so a 6XXX series cpu will be fine. :)
 
If its any help two weeks ago I built my new pc which is very similar yours...

E6300
2048Mb OCZ Memory
BFG GeForce 8800GTS OC
apart from thmy MB which is an Asus P5N-E

I got it effortlessly to 1:1 450 x 7, so ram is 900mhz @ 5-5-5-15 and cpu is 3.150ghz
 
Hmmm the review I read had the 4300 @ 3.3Ghz with the stock cooler which makes 3.1 from a 6300 seem unimpressive especially considering the effort required to get there with regards to Ram etc.
 
If you check out the E4300 overclocking thread there are very few people getting 3.3GHz from E4300's. In the E6300 camp, most folks can do 3.2Ghz. The big difference seems to be the amount of voltage required to get them the last few hundred MHz - most people aren't prepared to pump that much voltage (1.45-1.55V) through their processor to do it. It'll do it, you just need to be brave. If you're not feeling that brave, then the E6300's tend to be a better bet for a 3.2Ghz overclock. In either case, it's a massive hike over the stock speed and the difference of £10 or so is so small as to be almost inconsequential. You can't really go wrong with either.
 
The E6300 asks much more of the other components. There are loads of people on here with E6300 who can't get to 3GHz due to RAM or MB not being able to run at ~430MHz. In my opinion the E4300 is the better chip as it doesn't ask so much from the rest of the system, you can run pretty much any MB and RAM and still get high speeds. My E4300 runs at 3.4GHz on 378FSB, 755MHz RAM – nothing’s too stressed, everything’s happy. To get 3.4GHz from an E6300 needs 486MHz FSB! Let’s be honest there aren’t many boards that’ll do that. That’s why I like the E4300 better than the E6300.
 
clv101 said:
The E6300 asks much more of the other components. There are loads of people on here with E6300 who can't get to 3GHz due to RAM or MB not being able to run at ~430MHz. In my opinion the E4300 is the better chip as it doesn't ask so much from the rest of the system, you can run pretty much any MB and RAM and still get high speeds. My E4300 runs at 3.4GHz on 378FSB, 755MHz RAM – nothing’s too stressed, everything’s happy. To get 3.4GHz from an E6300 needs 486MHz FSB! Let’s be honest there aren’t many boards that’ll do that. That’s why I like the E4300 better than the E6300.
Click to expand...
Whilst you raise some very valid points, you've outlined that you need components that can that can overcome said obstacles.

On my set up I've managed to hit 3.7ghz stable, the performance increase from a 3500+ is staggering especially in gaming, should keep you going for a long time :)

I keep it at 2.8Ghz 24/7 as the performance is more than adequate for my needs!

E6300 with some decent components should hit 3ghz with ease.

So I'm voting for a E63 :)
 
[TW]Fox said:
Hmmm the review I read had the 4300 @ 3.3Ghz with the stock cooler which makes 3.1 from a 6300 seem unimpressive especially considering the effort required to get there with regards to Ram etc.
Click to expand...

I posted due saying "Want to try and hit 3Ghz on regular air cooling" and that near enough 3.2 is easy. If you now want 3.3 then im not sure how easy that will be, once I get a fan for the NB I will continue trying to go up.

For me at least I wanted to run the ram at ia minimum of its rated 400mhz but an e4300 @ 3.6 is a bit to high to start off. Within 2 mins of the brand new rig being switched on it was at 400 x 7, (2.8ghz). And then you can work up.
 
To reach ~3GHz I would go for the E4300, due to the lower stock FSB. DS3 is also a bargin now. You may find this handy :)

[TW]Fox said:
Would an E6300 @ 250Mhz FSB thus 3.1Ghz be faster than a 3.3Ghz E4300 on a lower FSB?
Click to expand...
I'd say the extra 300mhz would be quicker, even with a loss of FSB. Either way there won't be a hugely noticeable difference.
 
[TW]Fox said:
Would an E6300 @ 250Mhz FSB thus 3.1Ghz be faster than a 3.3Ghz E4300 on a lower FSB?
Click to expand...
No - and you can always run the E4300 on a 7 multiplier anyway to get exactly the same setup.
 
So given that I can either run a 4300 @ the 6300's multi anyway or take advantage of its higher stock multi I can currently see nil reason to get an E6300. Is this really right - or does the E6300 generally clock higher than an E4300?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom