Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- In a bar, gettin' ******
These need to come down to sub £100.
Then they'll be real value for money.
Then they'll be real value for money.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
FAO Gibbo - Intel E4300 ETA?
- Thread starter Dark_Angel
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,581
- Location
- Rutland
GuruJockStrap said:
Yeah I think I'll hold out for a 4MB chip, look like they'll be spot on value wise.
yeah I was really looking forward to these cpu's but bit disappointed with Intel's pricing to be honest - to be that close in price really should mean its a 6*** chip - (or conversely if you want to label it E4*** then reduce *** price more significantly)
I know Gibbo does the best he can (and usually does a sterling job ~no pun intended) , and UK pricing probably doesnt help at all - but double drat!!!!
I know Gibbo does the best he can (and usually does a sterling job ~no pun intended) , and UK pricing probably doesnt help at all - but double drat!!!!
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
ETA reads just before Feb.
As for the 4300, I *ASSUME* (not really sure) that they are labeled that because their FSB speed is 800 rather than 1000.
As for the 4300, I *ASSUME* (not really sure) that they are labeled that because their FSB speed is 800 rather than 1000.
The 4000 series will have lower performance than the comparable model in the 6000 series at the default settings, due to the lower FSB speed, so it's right to label them with a lower series number.Amp34 said:
Of course, you don't have to run them at the default settings. There appears to be a remarkable amount of headroom on Core 2 CPUs below the Extreme models. With the lower models, it seems that the limiting factor is normally the motherboard's limit on FSB. The 4000 series will come with higher multipliers...which means you can crank the CPU speed up further before hitting the board FSB limit.
e.g.
Bottom model 6000 series is 7x266.
Bottom model 4000 series is 9x200.
As a plausible example, say you have two bottom model chips that could run stably at 3.2GHz, one of each series, and a motherboard that tops out at 425MHz FSB.
Your 6300 can be run at 7x425 = 2975MHz.
Your 4300 can be run at 8x400 = 3200MHz and keep a nice easy memory ratio to keep the memory in spec too.
The higher the clock speed limit of the CPU, the bigger the advantage 4xxx has over 6xxx. If, by some lucky chance and high-end cooling, you had a 6300 that would run at 3.5GHz, you'd still be limited to 2975 by that board...but a 4300 that could do 3.5GHz could be run at 3.5GHz on that board.
Maybe it would have been better to drop the number and call the new models Overclock It 300, Overclock It 400, etc
Angilion said:The 4000 series will have lower performance than the comparable model in the 6000 series at the default settings, due to the lower FSB speed, so it's right to label them with a lower series number.
Of course, you don't have to run them at the default settings. There appears to be a remarkable amount of headroom on Core 2 CPUs below the Extreme models. With the lower models, it seems that the limiting factor is normally the motherboard's limit on FSB. The 4000 series will come with higher multipliers...which means you can crank the CPU speed up further before hitting the board FSB limit.
e.g.
Bottom model 6000 series is 7x266.
Bottom model 4000 series is 9x200.
As a plausible example, say you have two bottom model chips that could run stably at 3.2GHz, one of each series, and a motherboard that tops out at 425MHz FSB.
Your 6300 can be run at 7x425 = 2975MHz.
Your 4300 can be run at 8x400 = 3200MHz and keep a nice easy memory ratio to keep the memory in spec too.
The higher the clock speed limit of the CPU, the bigger the advantage 4xxx has over 6xxx. If, by some lucky chance and high-end cooling, you had a 6300 that would run at 3.5GHz, you'd still be limited to 2975 by that board...but a 4300 that could do 3.5GHz could be run at 3.5GHz on that board.
Maybe it would have been better to drop the number and call the new models Overclock It 300, Overclock It 400, etc
Completely agree - I just wish Intel's pricing was reflected in respect to the default performance against the 6 series.
looks tempting, would there be a performance difference between ddr2 5300 and 6400, im assuming from reading everything that for the same overclocks you would only need 5300 and not 6400 for the new chip??
Any ideas of ETA for the 6300 refresh? Looks promising also.
Any ideas of ETA for the 6300 refresh? Looks promising also.
It doesn't bother me. Core 2 6 series lower models are outstanding value for overclockers. Core 2 4 series lower models are the same price and have even better overclocking potential, so they're even better value for overclockers.FrankJH said:
4 series pricing compares badly with 6 series pricing if you're running at stock speeds, but the last CPU I ran at stock speeds was a Cyrix 5x86-100 and that was only because it was unstable with any overclocking.
I'm not sure why Intel are releasing the 4 series at all, though. They're not targetted as improvements over the comparable 6 series models, as they're a bit worse, not better (at stock, which is what the marketing takes into account). They're not targetted as a budget Core 2 range, as they're not cheaper than comparable 6 series models. So what is the market that Intel is targetting with the 4 series?
As an aside...has anyone been limited in overclocking a Core 2 6300 by the CPU itself, as opposed to being limited by the motherboard? Obviously each CPU will have a limit, but is the motherboard FSB maximum always the limiting factor?
Angilion said:
The only reason I dont agree with you is that pricing is set by default settings. Otherwise you would expect the 6600 to be as expensive as the 6800 as the former usually outperforms the latter
Therefor how can Intel ask the same money for a chip that at default is a worse performer
(I overclocked my C2D the moment I got it, but I still expected the 4 series to be considerably cheaper because of their much lower default fsb)
FrankJH said:
This comes back to my question of why Intel is releasing the 4xxx series at all. The only section of the market it has an obvious appeal for is overclockers. Surely Intel wouldn't deliberately market an overclocker-friendly range of chips? That would explain the pricing, though.
Angilion said:
Have a look at this thread ... http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17611316
On some good boards, the FSB is nearing 500 MHz.
Anandtech ran at 3.375GHz (375MHz x 9.0). It would have been nice if they had had another entry on the benchmark charts with the same chip at 482 x 7.0 so that we could see the impact of a higher FSB.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 8,194
- Location
- North East
TheDean said:
2nd quarter as has been stated - june-ish