Which C2D really? in the grand sceme of things.

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:10

Shocky-FM said:
They probably wouldnt, but they probably wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a C2D clocked at 3GHz and one at 3.8GHz either....

You would notice a big increase in encoding speed due to the higher clock.

The extra cache however does not have the same dramatic increase that clock speed does.

Shocky-FM · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:10

Kaiju said:
I'd say 800MHz would at least give you some more FPS on a 8800GTX SLI which is CPU bottlenecked.

Maybe but you would still need a framerate counter up to know theres a difference.

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:10

Kaiju said:
I'd say 800MHz would at least give you some more FPS on a 8800GTX SLI which is CPU bottlenecked.

Yes I agree,

Clock speed for the win over cache IMO.

clv101 · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:11

E4300 every time - set the mult to 7 and it's an E6300. Set it to 9 and it's an E6600 with only 2MB cache. Can't see why anyone would buy an E6300 or E6400 over the E4300 unless virtualisation was important.

The C2D will get 3.2-3.6 GHz - the higher the mult the eaiser it is on motherboard and RAM.

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:17

clv101 said:
E4300 every time - set the mult to 7 and it's an E6300. Set it to 9 and it's an E6600 with only 2MB cache. Can't see why anyone would buy an E6300 or E6400 over the E4300 unless virtualisation was important.

The C2D will get 3.2-3.6 GHz - the higher the mult the eaiser it is on motherboard and RAM.

The E4300 runs at 800 MHZ FSB so it will never be like a 6600 with only 2 mb cache due to the lower FSB.

E4300's don't clock aswell as the 6 series range.

6 series C2D are just speed binned 6800's.

They run cooler and need less vcore for the same clocks.
My 6400 is sitting happily at 3.8ghz

My 4300 would not boot at 3.6ghz with any vcore.

The 4300 is only the chip to get if you are limited by FSB.

If not the clear choice with say a DS3 or 650i is the 6300/6400

clv101 · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:30

easyrider said:
The E4300 runs at 800 MHZ FSB so it will never be like a 6600 with only 2 mb cache due to the lower FSB.

Eh? Run the FSB at whatever you like, that's what overclocking is all about.

E4300's don't clock aswell as the 6 series range.

I don't think that's clear, everyone seems to be getting 3.2-3.6 with all C2D.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter - it has to be between the E4300 and E6300 (same cash) and then I'd get the x9 rather than the x7.

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:38

clv101 said:
Eh? Run the FSB at whatever you like, that's what overclocking is all about.
I don't think that's clear, everyone seems to be getting 3.2-3.6 with all C2D.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter - it has to be between the E4300 and E6300 (same cash) and then I'd get the x9 rather than the x7.

I dont see any stabilty shots in orthos of 3.6ghz with E4300 in the overclocking thread.

You will get better performance with 6300/or 6400 at the same clocks due to the initial higher FSB.

7x 500 = 3.5ghz

is faster then

9 x 390 =3.5ghz

The 6 series need less vcore at the same clocks then E4300 meaning lower temps etc...

A DS3 and E4300 for example is maddness as this mobo will be ok for very FSB.Unless you have slow ram or a limited FSB mobo there is no reason to get a E4300.

A 6300 or 6400 is the better choice for all the reasons I mention.

Shocky-FM · 27 Feb 2007 at 01:48

easyrider said:
You would notice a big increase in encoding speed due to the higher clock.

You seriously think you could tell the difference without direct comparisions or some kind of benchmarking?

Tute · 27 Feb 2007 at 02:24

I do think Easyrider is right here.

Normally i'm of the opinion that you can overclock to faster speeds but you can't add more cache. However, in this case, the extra cost from E6300 to E6600 just isn't worth it. They're both going to overclock to near the same speed anyway.

And, regarding the E4300, i'm not much of a fan of them. It's a lot tougher to get the E4300 to the high FSBs that the E6300 can reach. Given the price difference between the two amounting to a few quid, and it's really a no-brainer!

zedzed · 27 Feb 2007 at 09:13

From the Techspot website:

Reaching 3.20GHz using either the E4300 or E6300 was quite easy and I believe most of these Core 2 Duo processors will at least reach this frequency. That said, we were able to push our E6300 to 3.50GHz and the E4300 to 3.47GHz. While both processors achieved similar frequencies they used very different settings to achieve them, nevertheless real-world performance was much the same.
The advantages of the E4300 other than being slightly cheaper, is that the FSB (front side bus) does not need to be nearly as high to achieve the overclock. The advantage of this is that the DDR2 memory frequency can be lowered below 800MHz whereas the E6300 is forced to run DDR2-1000 memory.

So those wanting to overclock the E4300 processor to the max will not require more expensive DDR2 overclocking memory. Essentially the E4300 can be altered to operate at exactly the same specifications as the E6300 with the only difference being the lack of VT technology. If you were to increase the FSB from 200MHz to 266MHz and reduce the clock multiplier from 9x to just 7x, the E4300 would in fact become an E6300.

So i think there is some advantage of the E4300 depending on the system.

Dez

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 09:18

zedzed said:
From the Techspot website:

So i think there is some advantage of the E4300 depending on the system.

Dez

Yes,

Like I have explained,

If you have slow ram and a limited mobo with FSB then the 4300 is the cpu to get.

However most people with the intention of overclocking will get 6400 ram and a nice mobo like the DS3.

This makes getting a 4300 the wrong thing to do.

WJA96 · 27 Feb 2007 at 10:18

Essentially the E4300 can be altered to operate at exactly the same specifications as the E6300 with the only difference being the lack of VT technology. If you were to increase the FSB from 200MHz to 266MHz and reduce the clock multiplier from 9x to just 7x, the E4300 would in fact become an E6300.

Not really. According to my colleage who used to work for Intel, the E6x00's are produced on the same production lines and every chip is checked to see if it will run an 12x multiplier and 266FSB. Those that do become X6800s. Those that don't are speed binned further. 10x 266 = E6700's etc. Chips with defective Cache go for selection as E6300 and E6400's irrespective of their ability to run 12x 266. Once all other production quotas have been fulfilled, all chips go to have 2MB cache disabled and their multipliers fixed as E6400's and E6300's. What that means is that every E6300 started out with the potential to be an X6800. Every E4300 started out to be an E4300 and that means to pass quality control it only has to do 9 x 200MHz with all it's Cache working. So your chances of getting a high performing chip are significantly worse than with an E6300 or E6400.

ArchAnGeL · 27 Feb 2007 at 10:34

6400 and 650i mobo such as p5n-e. You will spend little extra on the 6400 over the 6300 but overclocking to the maximum will be far easier due to the higher multi.

My 6400 is at 3.8 at 475 fsb

to get the 6300 to that I would need 543 fsb which is not going to happen on the p5n-e. So you go for a 965 chipset (say ds3 if it will go that high stable or the more expensive p5b-deluxe) and therefore have to spend more on ram to run 1:1 as they don't run async

clv101 · 27 Feb 2007 at 10:46

ArchAnGeL said:
6400 and 650i mobo such as p5n-e. You will spend little extra on the 6400 over the 6300 but overclocking to the maximum will be far easier due to the higher multi.

My 6400 is at 3.8 at 475 fsb

to get the 6300 to that I would need 543 fsb which is not going to happen on the p5n-e. So you go for a 965 chipset (say ds3 if it will go that high stable or the more expensive p5b-deluxe) and therefore have to spend more on ram to run 1:1 as they don't run async

All points to the E4300 with its higher multiplier and lower price than the E6400 (and E6300).

easyrider · 27 Feb 2007 at 10:57

clv101 said:
All points to the E4300 with its higher multiplier and lower price than the E6400 (and E6300).

Thats why the E4300 is cheaper.

Its an inferior chip!

Shocky-FM · 27 Feb 2007 at 12:26

easyrider said:
Thats why the E4300 is cheaper.

Its an inferior chip!

What? Like E6300/E6400 are cheaper because there inferior chips compared to conroe?

WJA96 · 27 Feb 2007 at 12:33

Shocky-FM said:
What? Like E6300/E6400 are cheaper because there inferior chips compared to conroe?

E6300 and E6400 are now designated as Conroe's. Only the E4x00 series are Allendales now. E6300's and E6400's are cheaper than E6600's because they run slower at stock. E4300's are cheaper because they have a lower memory bandwidth at stock. E4300's are fine, and many overclock very well, but I would maintain that E6x00 series processors are manufactured to run at higher FSBs and are a better bet for serious overclockers. The price difference is pretty small now anyway. £3-£10 depending on the retailer usually.

Shocky-FM · 27 Feb 2007 at 12:45

WJA96 said:
E6300 and E6400 are now designated as Conroe's. Only the E4x00 series are Allendales now.

Whatever, in CPU-Z and other software there called allendale not conroe.

ArchAnGeL · 27 Feb 2007 at 12:48

clv101 said:
All points to the E4300 with its higher multiplier and lower price than the E6400 (and E6300).

I would agree with you if there was the same chance of reaching the same clock speed.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case although some 4300 will clock high.

Starfall · 27 Feb 2007 at 13:05

E6300 and E6400 are now designated as Conroe's. Only the E4x00 series are Allendales now.

E6300 and E6400 as of a several weeks ago can be either Conroe or Allendale.

Older versions of CPU-z misread the E6300/E6400 - 4MB Conroe (B2 and earlier), with 2MB L2 dissabled, as Allendale, which may be confusing things for users.

The 'L2' stepping E6300/E6400 are true Allendales, native 2MB. However Conroe (B2's) are still in production alongside these as they provide and outlet for failed Conroe 4MB CPU's.