E6400 vs E5200

[wanger]

I'm building a new system for my Mum. I'm ordering up an E5200 for her, but noticed that it runs on 12x multiplier as opposed to the 8x multiplier on my E6400.

I have overclocked my E6400 to 3Ghz, but am wary of taking the fsb further due to the hot NB on my Asus PN32-e SLI (I have already fried one of these boards by taking it beyond 400MHz). I understand that the E5200 can easily do 3.4 to 3.6Ghz on air at stock voltages.

It seems that the E5200 will run faster and cooler whilst using less power, but I'm aware that the E6400 has some additional features like Virtualisation and Trusted Execution Technologies. As well as being a true Core2Duo as opposed to the E5200 being "dual core". I'm not sure if these feature differences will make much differences over the raw speed potential of the E5200.

So I was thinking should I give her the E6400 and use the E5200 myself?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jimbo Mahoney]

Play with both and keep whichever overclocks better?

I would be inclined to think the higher multi would mean you could overclock the E5200 more easily, as you say.

 

[pastymuncher]

Have a read of my review. I compared a E4300, E5200 and E6600 at stock, 2.4Ghz, 3Ghz and 3.6Ghz (3.4Ghz for the E4300). I also threw in a couple of Q6600 and E8500 comparisons.

The E5200 is a cut down 45nm Wolfdale core so is still a "proper" core2 although rebadged as a Pentium dual core. Your expectations are unrealistic though. They will not do much past 3-3.2Ghz on stock voltage. For 3.6Ghz (if you are lucky to get one stable at that speed) you will be looking at 1.3-1.35v to get prime stable. Anything over that needs a big increase in voltage. Be warned though that other's have not been able to get past 3.2Ghz for some reason. Mine on the other hand, boot's into Windows at 4Ghz and will even run some benchies but is by no means stable. It fails prime straight away and being 45nm you cannot simply increase the vcore until it's stable. Mine is currently running at 3.6Ghz and is very cool and draws 10w less power than the E4300 it replaced.