• 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.

intel core 2 duo e6320 1.86

martynsimo

martynsimo

martynsimo

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
339
Anybody have an E6320 1.86mhz 1066fsb 4mb cpu? Just wondered if anybody had got one clocked at all as I fancy getting one up to at least 3ghz. Might be getting one so anything better for £85?
 
Overclocked the one in my brothers computer to 3.5Ghz, but there are easier overclocks out there.

The E21** range be something to look at unless you need the cache that the 6320 has.
 
To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if i need 4mb of cache? Whats it going to do for me over a cpu with say 1mb of cache? Infact, I dont even know what its for only 4mb is better the 1mb?!?
 
seriously, spend the extra on the 6420 for the 8x multi. it will take a lot of strain away from the mobo when trying to hit 3ghz+

or if your not too bothered about cache,
e4500 has 11x multi 2mb cache
e2180 has 10x multi 1mb cache

and both will hit 3ghz without much trouble at all.
 
I saw some UT3 benchmarks a few months ago which compared the differnt size cahce and ther was visible benefits of having the larger cache.

Taken from http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2

To see how dependent Unreal Engine 3 and the UT3 demo are on low latency memory accesses we ran 4MB, 2MB and 1MB L2 Core 2 processors at 1.8GHz to compare performance scaling

15791.png
 
The graph above was the main reason I sold my E6400 that does 3.6ghz for an E6320, plus I was bored and wanted something new to play with.
 
pegasus1 said:
Dave, at work so cant get the pic or video, can you explain your above statement.
Cheers
Click to expand...

E6400 = 2MB cache
E6320 = 4MB cache

Even though the E6400 was a faster chip, they will both clock to 3.2-3.4ghz, but the point MinstaDave is bringing across is games take more advantage of the larger L2 cache as proven in the ^above^ graph.

The graph compares three chips all running at the same 1.86GHZ speed with the only difference being different sized level 2 cache.

1) 1MB L2 cache @ 98.3 FPS
2) 2MB L2 cache @ 111.3 FPS
3) 4MB L2 cache @ 117.2 FPS

So basically games do take advantage of the bigger cpu L2 cache.
 
Last edited:
Garyj881 said:
I saw some UT3 benchmarks a few months ago which compared the differnt size cahce and ther was visible benefits of having the larger cache.

Taken from http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2

To see how dependent Unreal Engine 3 and the UT3 demo are on low latency memory accesses we ran 4MB, 2MB and 1MB L2 Core 2 processors at 1.8GHz to compare performance scaling

15791.png
Click to expand...


Very interesting was looking for something like that.
 
Cache tbh doesn't have much of an impact in most games, certainly not enough to buy a 4mb cache one just for gaming, an E2160/80 @ 3GHz is still plenty faster enough, if you wanna get a chip with more cache then splash out on a Q6600, excellent value for money, me personally wouldn't spend any more than a E2180 for a dual core chip.
 
Last edited:
Garyj881 said:
E6400 = 2MB cache
E6320 = 4MB cache

Even though the E6400 was a faster chip, they will both clock to 3.2-3.4ghz, but the point MinstaDave is bringing across is games take more advantage of the larger L2 cache as proven in the ^above^ graph.

The graph compares three chips all running at the same 1.86GHZ speed with the only difference being different sized level 2 cache.

1) 1MB L2 cache @ 98.3 FPS
2) 2MB L2 cache @ 111.3 FPS
3) 4MB L2 cache @ 117.2 FPS

So basically games do take advantage of the bigger cpu L2 cache.
Click to expand...

Explained it perfectly, thank you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom