-
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.
Sodding hell. I dont have a conroe after all?
- Thread starter FatRakoon
- Start date
You sure?
have a look at the processors in OCUK and you will see that the 6300 and 6400 are both "Allendale" and that the 6600 and above are "Conroe"
Cant remember what CPUZ says but Im sure that also pointed it out too!
Will need to go and check that in a minute...
have a look at the processors in OCUK and you will see that the 6300 and 6400 are both "Allendale" and that the 6600 and above are "Conroe"
Cant remember what CPUZ says but Im sure that also pointed it out too!
Will need to go and check that in a minute...
Yes, they're both wrong (according to Intel in any case).
-- quoted from Wikipedia --
For a very long time, it was considered that stripped down versions of the Conroe processors were code-named Allendale. In actuality, Allendale is a code-name for a different processor. Many suggest that E6300 and E6400 are actually code-named Allendale, however, the E6300 (1.86 GHz) and E6400 (2.13 GHz) processors are not code-named Allendale because they physically have 4 MB cache, same as their big brothers E6600 and E6700 - it is just that half of their physical memory is disabled. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled (this allows parts that fail quality control to be sold at a lower rating). The fact that E6300 and E6400 are not code-named Allendale and actually code-named Conroe has been confirmed by Intel themselves.
Quoted from TechReport:
You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2 MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2 MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.
----------
Jon
-- quoted from Wikipedia --
For a very long time, it was considered that stripped down versions of the Conroe processors were code-named Allendale. In actuality, Allendale is a code-name for a different processor. Many suggest that E6300 and E6400 are actually code-named Allendale, however, the E6300 (1.86 GHz) and E6400 (2.13 GHz) processors are not code-named Allendale because they physically have 4 MB cache, same as their big brothers E6600 and E6700 - it is just that half of their physical memory is disabled. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled (this allows parts that fail quality control to be sold at a lower rating). The fact that E6300 and E6400 are not code-named Allendale and actually code-named Conroe has been confirmed by Intel themselves.
Quoted from TechReport:
You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2 MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2 MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.
----------
Jon
The only difference the Allendale has 2 meg cache the other 2 meg has been laser cut so it can't be used, the conroe has 4 meg cache thats it, they are exackly the same in every other department.
The extra cache on the 6600 and above only makes a difference to video encoding apart from that it gives very little extra performance in everyday stuff and gaming.
From what i recally a 6300@ just under 2.5 is outperforming a 6600 at stock, seeing as most have there 6300's @3gig + basically is giving you the same performance as a stock x6800 extreme edition not bad for a £120 cpu.
The extra cache on the 6600 and above only makes a difference to video encoding apart from that it gives very little extra performance in everyday stuff and gaming.
From what i recally a 6300@ just under 2.5 is outperforming a 6600 at stock, seeing as most have there 6300's @3gig + basically is giving you the same performance as a stock x6800 extreme edition not bad for a £120 cpu.
Last edited:
Im only going by my own experience here, but Cache after a certain point, doesnt mean all that much.
I mean, ok, I have had 2 Semprons... A 3100 ( That I still have ) and thats got a 256K Cache, and a 3300 and thats only got a 128K one... The 3300 is a severe pile of junk, while the 3100 is useable, even though the 3300 is 2Ghz and the 3100 is 1.8.
I also got a Newcastle thats got 512K and thats very useable.
The difference from 128k to 256k is big.
The difference from 256K to 512k is still noticable, but not as much as 128 to 256
Now, going over a little here, but I also have a 3800 ( 2x512K ) and a 4400 ( 2 x 1MB ). They both clock fairly well, and, at the same clock speed, there is absolutely no difference that I have found what-so-ever.
There may be with certain things like Video Editing etc, I have not really given them THAT much of a head to head, but I am only going on that idea again, where the cache as it gets bigger and bigger, makes less and less difference.
If there is no real difference between 512K and 1MB, then there is going to be even less difference between the 2MB and 4MB of the C2D CPUs isnt there?
The only real way that we will be able to test this out, is to clock both CPUs to the very same Multi/FSB and hit them with "all you got", but to be honest, I dont think there will be any difference at all.
So, there will be no bloody difference between the C2D CPUs there will there?
There are also many instances where the humble 6300 has proven to be the better CPU £ for £ than its bigger brothers
I mean, ok, I have had 2 Semprons... A 3100 ( That I still have ) and thats got a 256K Cache, and a 3300 and thats only got a 128K one... The 3300 is a severe pile of junk, while the 3100 is useable, even though the 3300 is 2Ghz and the 3100 is 1.8.
I also got a Newcastle thats got 512K and thats very useable.
The difference from 128k to 256k is big.
The difference from 256K to 512k is still noticable, but not as much as 128 to 256
Now, going over a little here, but I also have a 3800 ( 2x512K ) and a 4400 ( 2 x 1MB ). They both clock fairly well, and, at the same clock speed, there is absolutely no difference that I have found what-so-ever.
There may be with certain things like Video Editing etc, I have not really given them THAT much of a head to head, but I am only going on that idea again, where the cache as it gets bigger and bigger, makes less and less difference.
If there is no real difference between 512K and 1MB, then there is going to be even less difference between the 2MB and 4MB of the C2D CPUs isnt there?
The only real way that we will be able to test this out, is to clock both CPUs to the very same Multi/FSB and hit them with "all you got", but to be honest, I dont think there will be any difference at all.
So, there will be no bloody difference between the C2D CPUs there will there?
There are also many instances where the humble 6300 has proven to be the better CPU £ for £ than its bigger brothers
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 2,676
dark4orz said:they should be termed allendales - conroes e6600's and above are in a different league of their own.
urm what do you base this bs remark on? as my 6400 is clocking just aswell as any other 6600/6700 for that matter!
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 2,676
what right button would you mean mr delves?Ths was discussed months and months ago (when Conroes only just came out) and I was under the impression that all of the E6 series were conroes also but a number of people argued against me even after I quoted Intel, wiki and OCUK themselves ( look at OCUK's long description which is the same for the whole range not just the E6600 - E6800 as describing the Conroe) which I have no doubt was copied from Intel at some point
but hey ho each to their own
but hey ho each to their own
Robert said:Bull ****. Although if you're that moronic, go ahead waste your money, the laughs on you!
Yes but I love video encoding thats where my 4mb cache kicks in. Oh and harris - the 6300/6400's hundreds have only 2mb cache, so thats why they should be termed allendales, but it seems my comments are outspoken and have left some intel fan boys bemused .....
I got both an X2-3800 and an X2-4400, and at the same clock speed, but a different Cache ( 512 v 1024 ) I have found very little difference ( if any ) in performance.
It will be the same with the 2v4 of the C2D CPUs
So, does anyone actually care whether its got 2 or 4?
It will be the same with the 2v4 of the C2D CPUs
So, does anyone actually care whether its got 2 or 4?
dark4orz said:Yes but I love video encoding thats where my 4mb cache kicks in. Oh and harris - the 6300/6400's hundreds have only 2mb cache, so thats why they should be termed allendales, but it seems my comments are outspoken and have left some intel fan boys bemused .....
Intel FANBOYS? Bwahaha, this is my first Intel chip after 9 years of using a PC
