E4300 vs E6300

Kaiju · 12 Jan 2007 at 14:38

Jihad said:
Remind me what the T stands for and I might be able to help

Memory Command Rate if my memory serves me correctly. S'ok though man, doesn't really matter.

Jus' curious as i've been on a knowledge mission the last few days. *sighs*

paniK · 12 Jan 2007 at 15:28

I've just seen OCs CPU page and the E6300 has gone up in price to £129 and the E4300 is £117 on pre order

I'm going to buy components beginning of February so shall wait and see what is out by then. Hopefully the E6320 and possibly more of the E4xxx range.

By the way does the Gigabyte DS3 Mobo do overclocking well i.e. can it handle the high FSB speeds without getting fried?

sampo · 12 Jan 2007 at 15:29

They do look good, gotta admit it.

However I am very happy with my [email protected] (1.275V). I don't they'll be much point in upgrading from it for a while yet! Also, 4mb cache doesn't seem to make much of a real world difference, other than in encoding, so i guess for most there won't be much of a difference between the 6300 and 6320.

jrodga2k5 · 12 Jan 2007 at 15:33

Il pick up an e4300 after i goes down in price, Gibbo is expecting as much as £10 at the moment, im just waiting for that crucial £100 mark!

joeyjojo · 12 Jan 2007 at 17:35

I don't understand the intel fsb thing. What does the 1033 to 800MHz fsb difference really mean?

oweneades · 12 Jan 2007 at 17:53

joeyjojo said:
I don't understand the intel fsb thing. What does the 1033 to 800MHz fsb difference really mean?

I think its down to the fact that the memory controller is external of the processor connected via the fsb. So the faster the fsb the faster cpu - memory access is.

AMD's 64 processors still in theory have better cpu - memory throughfare as the memory controller is internal running at the full clock speed of the processor (or the speed of the HT bus I can't remember) - which in both cases is faster than the direct FSB.

tm1210 · 12 Jan 2007 at 19:03

Took this from the description of the E4300 on OcUK. Is this true...

Only compatible with new Intel 965 and 975X socket 775 Motherboards (Older 975 boards are not compatible)

No joy with the ASRock Conroe 945G I take it?

Goody_GTI · 12 Jan 2007 at 20:11

I think i might still go for the E6300 as i planned all along to get the DS3 and expensive ram, most likely team extreem, and get good results, as im sure a E6300 with fast ram and high fsb would be faster than a E4300 :confused:

Goody_GTI · 12 Jan 2007 at 20:13

paniK said:
I've just seen OCs CPU page and the E6300 has gone up in price to £129 and the E4300 is £117 on pre order

I'm going to buy components beginning of February so shall wait and see what is out by then. Hopefully the E6320 and possibly more of the E4xxx range.

By the way does the Gigabyte DS3 Mobo do overclocking well i.e. can it handle the high FSB speeds without getting fried?

Yes the DS3 can

paniK · 12 Jan 2007 at 21:16

thanks for that. all the help i have gotten on this forum has been second to none and just absolutely top.

thanks to everyone on this forum!!

will wait then to see whats what and then post a final spec something along the lines of Core2Duo, DS3, 7700GT, OCZ or Ultra Geil 1GB RAM, Akasa fan controller, thermaltake case (decided to go OcUK for everything), Sony DVDRW, Logitech Optical Keyboard/Mouse, 420W PSU, OCUK Widescreen 17" LCD.

Big.Wayne · 12 Jan 2007 at 21:56

The e6300 is a cpu that failed to get into the e6600 academy, it also has 4MB cache onboard but some of it is faulty so INTEL disable 2MB and sell them with just 2MB working.

the new INTEL chips are made from scratch as 2MB chips so they are a little cheaper to produce.

From their specs these chips look promising although I'm not sure where INTEL is aiming them, I wonder if the 800MHz-FSB chips can be used on slightly older mobos that have a natural FSB of 800Mhz also (i945PL etc).

They should be good overclockers but I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist until the first batch arrive . . .

The difference between 2MB cache and 4MB cache is not as good as some people are making out

steve258 · 13 Jan 2007 at 01:07

Big.Wayne said:
From their specs these chips look promising although I'm not sure where INTEL is aiming them, I wonder if the 800MHz-FSB chips can be used on slightly older mobos that have a natural FSB of 800Mhz also (i945PL etc).

If the mobo doesn't have VRM11 then C2D just won't work doesn't matter what chipset is used. Thus mobos that won't support 6*** still won't support 4***.

Lolcb · 13 Jan 2007 at 01:42

Big.Wayne said:
...

If what you're saying is true, I like the way you say it. I never liked people going for low end cpu ( E6300 ).

E6600 is a MINIMUM IMO. :cool:

Big.Wayne · 13 Jan 2007 at 02:03

steve258 said:
If the mobo doesn't have VRM11 then C2D just won't work doesn't matter what chipset is used. Thus mobos that won't support 6*** still won't support 4***.

I'm not sure if your familar with the Intel® 945PL chipset, but there are a fair few of these boards around and as far as I know they can run a CD2 processor fine. It's just the native FSB of these boards is 200MHz FSB (quad pumped to 800MHz-system bus) so to run a normal CD2 you have to actually overclock the board just to run the cpu at stock.

With a CD2 that can run at stock using a 200MHz-FSB these boards become more useful.

I'm just looking for reasons why Intel would release such a chip, apart from getting in with the overclocking crowd that is?

Kaiju · 13 Jan 2007 at 02:42

Big.Wayne said:
I'm just looking for reasons why Intel would release such a chip, apart from getting in with the overclocking crowd that is?

They had to do something huge, AMD fanboys were runnin' riot across the community forums.

Bolerus · 13 Jan 2007 at 04:22

oweneades said:
The E6300 only really makes sense if you have a board and ram capable of high FSB. However the E4300 seems to be hitting roughly the same level in terms of overclocking that the average E6300 is managing ~ 3ghz with no volt adj. (although clock for clock the E6300 should be slightly quicker due to its quicker FSB - although this difference would be tiny).

I have the Asrock Dual Vsata (uber cheap) and it maxes out at 340fsb although most people have found anything over 300fsb is unstable.

This is why for me the E4300 makes much more sense.

Gah now I am really confused, I have an asrock dual Vsta on the way to me, was going to get a n E6300 conroe

I dont overclock, have no intention of starting, so what woudl be better "stock"

At least for a while i will be using DDR 1 memory and an AGP 6800.

Primarily I play a few games(nothing too heavy at the moment) and some photshopping.

At the moment I have a 2.8 nothwood and that copes fine with any game i have tried, so far that is.

Margaret · 13 Jan 2007 at 04:26

Lolcb said:
If what you're saying is true, I like the way you say it. I never liked people going for low end cpu ( E6300 ).

E6600 is a MINIMUM IMO.

Calling 6300 a low end CPU, comedy gold!

Bennah · 13 Jan 2007 at 13:46

Hehehe, its low end in the terms of cpu power, but it is within the C2D range.

I like the sounds of the E4300, may possibly try one of them for a little fun. I guess its going to be better with it being a full Alendale with 2MB cache instead of the 'Conroe' E6300 with 2MB disabled.

Just wanting for price to see if I get one or a couple of he E4300 to overclock

didgemaster · 13 Jan 2007 at 14:11

Article

Article that you may find interesting

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903

Goody_GTI · 13 Jan 2007 at 14:15

Bennah said:
Hehehe, its low end in the terms of cpu power, but it is within the C2D range.

I like the sounds of the E4300, may possibly try one of them for a little fun. I guess its going to be better with it being a full Alendale with 2MB cache instead of the 'Conroe' E6300 with 2MB disabled.

Just wanting for price to see if I get one or a couple of he E4300 to overclock

The price is on OcUK website as they are available to pre-order, about £10 cheaper than E6300