Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 Duo E4300 review

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 26, 2006 12:40:18 PM

http://xtreview.com/review161.htm

It seems that E4300 is really worth waiting and a x2 3800+ killer.

More about : core duo e4300 review

December 26, 2006 12:43:22 PM

Sorry. Couldn't get through the first paragraph:

Do u know about all those surprises which are capable of presenting processors with the micro-architecture intel core? They are sold already sufficiently long time ago, and everyone with the impatience waited for the appearance Of conroe on the counters stores. we had published numerous articles, which demonstrate the power of new new desktop CPU as families core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme.

They can go take an English class before I'll waste my time trying to decipher their hieroglyphics.
December 26, 2006 12:47:53 PM

Maybe the text is machine translated. Just look at the figures and features.


Enhanced speedstep for lower power conumption than e6300.

Overclock to 2.9 GHz without any changes on voltage. That is exactly what I needed.
Related resources
December 26, 2006 12:48:53 PM

Hey, no doubt about it, the E4300 is gonna be an amazing CPU especially for the price!
December 26, 2006 7:24:38 PM

Looks pretty interesting, but the graphs are confusing, since they use colors in their key/legend that don't correspond with anything on the graphs, especially with the E4300/E6600 bar graphs.

Otherwise, it does look like a pretty nice CPU.
December 26, 2006 7:33:41 PM

Quote:
Sorry. Couldn't get through the first paragraph:

Do u know about all those surprises which are capable of presenting processors with the micro-architecture intel core? They are sold already sufficiently long time ago, and everyone with the impatience waited for the appearance Of conroe on the counters stores. we had published numerous articles, which demonstrate the power of new new desktop CPU as families core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme.

They can go take an English class before I'll waste my time trying to decipher their hieroglyphics.
Just pretend it's a Hustler...mag. Look at the pretty pictures. :wink:
December 26, 2006 7:43:42 PM

Quote:
http://xtreview.com/review161.htm

It seems that E4300 is really worth waiting and a x2 3800+ killer.
As can be expected, and reflected in SANDRA Whetstone...FPU is the property most lacking, and a healthy O/C will help resolve that. Nice overclock for stock cooling/vCore. 100% O/C's are coming. :D 
December 26, 2006 7:46:26 PM

Quote:
Just pretend it's a Hustler...mag. Look at the pretty pictures. :wink:


Nah. I dropped my Hustler subscription years ago. I only read BDSM magazines now, and the occasional manual on fire hose enemas. :D 
December 26, 2006 8:00:57 PM

Quote:

Nah. I dropped my Hustler subscription years ago. I only read BDSM magazines now, and the occasional manual on fire hose enemas. :D 


I think I just threw up in my mouth.
December 26, 2006 8:05:26 PM

Quote:

Nah. I dropped my Hustler subscription years ago. I only read BDSM magazines now, and the occasional manual on fire hose enemas. :D 


I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Nah. I'm not into that. But there are scathology clubs in NY and LA where that skill is highly regarded. :lol: 
December 26, 2006 8:36:16 PM

I'll drop you a PM. I'm always recruiting new eager kids 8)
December 26, 2006 9:16:53 PM

1.8Ghz overclocked to over 3Ghz @ 1.45vcore running over 80c! Now that's a good overclocking cpu.
December 27, 2006 12:00:54 AM

Low price and x9 multiplier ftw.

The only reason to buy and AMD CPU right now is that you already have an AM2 platform system. If you are on 939 and want to upgrade, C2D makes more sense than AM2, and a new 939 CPU is a dead end upgrade.

That's kinda sucky, I like it when AMD/Intel are competitive :/ 
December 27, 2006 12:20:23 AM

The wait is worth it it seems. I'm glad I resisted the e6300/6400.
Low stock FSB + high multiplier + native 2mb (instead of 4-2mb) cache should all lead to great OC'ing and lower heat. This is somewhat similar to what the d805 was at the time (in terms of OC value), only it's a Core2, a 65nm, and has all the advantages that that implies.
December 27, 2006 12:53:54 AM

Is it just me or are they comparing it to an Athlon 64 3800+ (single core)?
December 27, 2006 1:19:53 AM

There goes AMD's budget appeal, good find. Core derived Celerons are all that's left.
December 27, 2006 4:14:31 AM

Quote:
I'll drop you a PM. I'm always recruiting new eager kids 8)


If you're looking for kids, I'd better hurry up and finally reproduce...

:lol: 

OK, let me ask everyone a question.

You are building a system from scratch for more or less general purpose prosumer/enthusiast use. You don't even have as much as a mouse. Price/performance is paramount.

Would anyone go for an AMD CPU? If so, which one and why?
December 27, 2006 4:18:52 AM

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (35 watt SFF).

Why? Because it doesn't use much electricity.

Other then that, quad core chips for a 4x4 motherboard.

Why? Because you can never have enough cores. Well, maybe a normal person could, but I can't. Then again, that would be a power hog, and I don't want that.

Meh, might as well just get an 8-core chip from sun microsystems. It's only 1.4 ghz, or something like that, but it could help me out.
December 27, 2006 4:24:55 AM

Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (35 watt SFF).

Why? Because it doesn't use much electricity.

Other then that, quad core chips for a 4x4 motherboard.

Why? Because you can never have enough cores. Well, maybe a normal person could, but I can't. Then again, that would be a power hog, and I don't want that.

Meh, might as well just get an 8-core chip from sun microsystems. It's only 1.4 ghz, or something like that, but it could help me out.


Aha, mon chere, but electric consumption or lack thereof was not a consideration. The US Avg. Electric Price/KW shows that the difference between a 35 and 65 W CPU at full tilt is about 2 cents per hour. Neither was a quadcore that doesn't exist yet. The purchase is today.
December 27, 2006 4:39:16 AM

Quote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (35 watt SFF).

Why? Because it doesn't use much electricity.

Other then that, quad core chips for a 4x4 motherboard.

Why? Because you can never have enough cores. Well, maybe a normal person could, but I can't. Then again, that would be a power hog, and I don't want that.

Meh, might as well just get an 8-core chip from sun microsystems. It's only 1.4 ghz, or something like that, but it could help me out.


Aha, mon chere, but electric consumption or lack thereof was not a consideration. The US Avg. Electric Price/KW shows that the difference between a 35 and 65 W CPU at full tilt is about 2 cents per hour. Neither was a quadcore that doesn't exist yet. The purchase is today.

:)  :)  Isn't this hilarious --- a 65 nm AMD CPU idles 8-12 watts lower than a C2D. If you run 7x24, and don't use your computer, this amounts to about 12 bucks a year difference in electricity costs.... in otherwords, buy an AMD CPU if you plan to turn your computer on but never use it :) 

Please congratulate me. I've resisted the temptation of making the obvious joke about the AMD buyer not being smart enough to use his PC anyway. :lol: 

This whole energy-saving nonsense (on the desktop at least) is nothing more than marketing hype and scam. Does anyone really buy a processor that can cost upwards of a thousand bucks because it uses ten bucks more or less electricity per year? Now when electricity=heat as in the late and unlamented Pentium 4/Ds it is certainly a factor. But even that can be dissipated by a good air system well south of a hundred bucks.
December 27, 2006 5:17:06 AM

You dirty snitches. Okay, you got me.

If I had to choose any processor on the market, it'd probably be an X5355 Xeon, preferably two of them, with 32 gigs 677 mhz DDR2 ECC ram to back it up.

There, you happy now. :razz:
December 27, 2006 5:27:06 AM

Not really.
Hey btw, when's the last time anyone here bought a CPU "upwards of a thousand dollars". Never? Me neither.
Isn't the E4300 supposed to be priced somewhere around 115$?

Saving 20-30$ on your yearly bill makes a bit more sense in this context.
December 27, 2006 5:36:51 AM

From what I've read, the E4300 will start out at about $160, then drop down to around $120 in the second quarter of 2007.
December 27, 2006 5:40:55 AM

Quote:
You dirty snitches. Okay, you got me.

If I had to choose any processor on the market, it'd probably be an X5355 Xeon, preferably two of them, with 32 gigs 677 mhz DDR2 ECC ram to back it up.

There, you happy now. :razz:


Yeah, real happy since that's pretty well the system I'm angling for, as soon as I can manage to rip the ATM out of the bank wall with my pickup truck. Although I'm gonna go cheap and only get 16GB RAM. Even that way it's still gonna cost over ten grand. Do you have any ideas how many blonde/nights I can buy for that kinda money, and I'm gonna go blow it on a humming metal box? I must really be getting old and senile!

Quote:
Not really.
Hey btw, when's the last time anyone here bought a CPU "upwards of a thousand dollars". Never? Me neither.
Isn't the E4300 supposed to be priced somewhere around 115$?

Saving 20-30$ on your yearly bill makes a bit more sense in this context.


I dunno. DaSickNinja goes through $1000+ processors like condoms at an Viagra orgy. :lol:  There are more people on this forum than you might think that are using a QX6700 right now and if there's anywhere that's selling it for three figures lemme know and I'll run over and buy one right now.

According to the costs on that electric utility site I just quoted let's assume that a PC user in Louisville buys Processor A since it uses 30W less electricity in overall usage 24/7 than Processor B. His annual electric savings are (spot on Jack!) $12.70. I don't think that's gonna break anyone who can afford a new PC. It definitely falls into the irrelevant category.
December 27, 2006 5:46:22 AM

Quote:
Now when electricity=heat as in the late and unlamented Pentium 4/Ds it is certainly a factor. But even that can be dissipated by a good air system well south of a hundred bucks.


Power=Heat=Noise

I have drawn the line at a 500W PSU for my desktop. I do not give a rats bottom about the annual electric cost. I do care mightly about the turbo jet shriek that emanates from the other side of my desk! Anything that the CPU & GPU vendors can do to limit power consumption while increasing computing horsepower is a large step in the right direction by my standard.
December 27, 2006 5:50:07 AM

Quote:
You dirty snitches. Okay, you got me.

If I had to choose any processor on the market, it'd probably be an X5355 Xeon, preferably two of them, with 32 gigs 677 mhz DDR2 ECC ram to back it up.

There, you happy now. :razz:


Yeah, real happy since that's pretty well the system I'm angling for, as soon as I can manage to rip the ATM out of the bank wall with my pickup truck. Although I'm gonna go cheap and only get 16GB RAM. Even that way it's still gonna cost over ten grand. Do you have any ideas how many blonde/nights I can buy for that kinda money, and I'm gonna go blow it on a humming metal box? I must really be getting old and senile!

Well, if you're lucky you can get by with a couple drinks and a stick of chewing gum. So lowballing it you could go for almost four years. If you're an ugly chud like I am and keep running into high tolerance levels in women, figure seven or eight drinks, and new carpetting because they can't hold it in... Well, then the money would go a lot faster. :lol: 

But for the computer, think of it in terms of saving poor people like me money. You buy the expensive stuff so that in the long run it gets cheaper and I can later afford it. But then again I doubt I'll ever buy a Xeon processor, or ECC RAM, so maybe it won't help me as much as I'd like. Eh, oh well.
December 27, 2006 5:52:59 AM

Quote:
Now when electricity=heat as in the late and unlamented Pentium 4/Ds it is certainly a factor. But even that can be dissipated by a good air system well south of a hundred bucks.


Power=Heat=Noise

I have drawn the line at a 500W PSU for my desktop. I do not give a rats bottom about the annual electric cost. I do care mightly about the turbo jet shriek that emanates from the other side of my desk! Anything that the CPU & GPU vendors can do to limit power consumption while increasing computing horsepower is a large step in the right direction by my standard.

There are many ways of building a silent PC, and watercooled PSUs are a key element. Combine that with a silent pump and high-end whisper casefans and you're in business. I didn't go that route though. I knocked a hole in the wall, ran my cables through it and put my Pratt & Whitney F100 TurboFan in the next room! Aaaaah... silence!
December 27, 2006 5:57:23 AM

Quote:
Well, if you're lucky you can get by with a couple drinks and a stick of chewing gum. So lowballing it you could go for almost four years. If you're an ugly chud like I am and keep running into high tolerance levels in women, figure seven or eight drinks, and new carpetting because they can't hold it in... Well, then the money would go a lot faster. :lol: 

But for the computer, think of it in terms of saving poor people like me money. You buy the expensive stuff so that in the long run it gets cheaper and I can later afford it. But then again I doubt I'll ever buy a Xeon processor, or ECC RAM, so maybe it won't help me as much as I'd like. Eh, oh well.


Look darious, by the time you've factored in the drinks and the carpet, you might as well just hire a ho for the night. Satisfaction guaranteed. And you don't have to listen to her talk about her sisters or tell her over and over that her butt really isn't too big in that dress. Besides, it adheres to Andrew Dice Clay's description of a perfect date: "UUUUUGH. Now get out." :lol: 

I've been lettin' my fingers do the walkin' through the Froogle pages and elsewhere, and I've been pricing out my components. FB-DIMMs are running about $80/GB more than standard RAM. That's not that much of a premium when you really get down to it.
December 27, 2006 5:58:14 AM

"I knocked a hole in the wall, ran my cables through it."

That's pretty much what a local radio station did for their noisier computers. Though it's kind of a necessary if you don't want to have a constant whirr going when a DJ/Interviewee is on the air.
December 27, 2006 6:04:28 AM

Quote:
"I knocked a hole in the wall, ran my cables through it."

That's pretty much what a local radio station did for their noisier computers. Though it's kind of a necessary if you don't want to have a constant whirr going when a DJ/Interviewee is on the air.


Same here. My computer room serves as a media room about 3 hours a day and the last thing you want when you're watching video is BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

I've found that the problem with people building silent systems is that they often forget that even with killer WC you've still gotta cool the case! They figure that since they have waterblocks on their CPUs, GPUs, Northbridge, etc. the rest of the electronics can sizzle. That's a major problem!

Now to return from hijackland... the E4300 is gonna be some deal at around $120! You almost wonder if Intel isn't selling these things out as loss leaders!
December 27, 2006 6:08:14 AM

I must be lucky with my set-up, since when I've got a friend over to watch a movie the speakers do a good job of drowing out the sound.

As for the E4300 becoming a loss leader, I'm not quite sure that would work for the material costs. From things I've heard it could cost $50 to create a CPU, ignoring marketing and R&D and such. So they should still be able to seel it at a decent profit margin, but I think you might be onto something. It probably won't get as good of a return as something brand new like the QX6700 does.
December 27, 2006 6:13:39 AM

Quote:
it could cost $50 to create a CPU, ignoring marketing and R&D and such.


Well, R&D has to be factored in as it's in the billions of dollars. Plus we also have to consider markups, volume sales, etc. Not really a whole bunch of margin in a $120 processor of this performance. But it just belays the "secret" tactic that Intel is conducting tabula rasa against AMD.
December 27, 2006 6:20:29 AM

Not really sure there'd be too much of a difference in cost between the E4300 and the D820. The E4300 could have just slightly more material costs then the D820, but be like Celerons were to Pentiums. And I'm certain Intel made money off the Celeron line.
December 27, 2006 6:26:57 AM

Quote:
Not really sure there'd be too much of a difference in cost between the E4300 and the D820. The E4300 could have just slightly more material costs then the D820, but be like Celerons were to Pentiums. And I'm certain Intel made money off the Celeron line.
The 820 was 90nm, 4300=65nm. E4300 will be quite a bit cheaper to mfgr. :wink:
December 27, 2006 6:31:03 AM

Well, there you go, even more money then'll go to Intel.
December 27, 2006 6:37:55 AM

Quote:
It must suck to have to go to another room every time you need to insert a DVD.


Don't use DVDs. Don't even have a DVD drive. Only a CD-ROM and I haven't touched it in months. I get everything through that little RJ11 in the wall.
December 27, 2006 6:38:23 AM

Quote:
You almost wonder if Intel isn't selling these things out as loss leaders!
I have a feeling that these are going to be big sellers (in the enthusiast camp), therefore, although they might not make a lot per chip...if they can mfgr. them fast enough...they should still rake in lots of moola. :) 
December 27, 2006 6:39:32 AM

Quote:
You almost wonder if Intel isn't selling these things out as loss leaders!
I have a feeling that these are going to be big sellers (in the enthusiast camp), therefore, although they might not make a lot per chip...if they can keep volume high..they should still rake in lots of moola. :) 

Dude, I'd hate to be the head of the enthusiast dept. at AMD when he's gotta face the CEO to make his quarterly report. OUCH!
December 27, 2006 6:40:44 AM

Quote:
You almost wonder if Intel isn't selling these things out as loss leaders!
I have a feeling that these are going to be big sellers (in the enthusiast camp), therefore, although they might not make a lot per chip...if they can keep volume high..they should still rake in lots of moola. :) 

Dude, I'd hate to be the head of the enthusiast dept. at AMD when he's gotta face the CEO to make his quarterly report. OUCH!40 lashes with a wet noodle. :x
December 27, 2006 7:07:57 AM

It would be interesting to see the idle power of E4300. I believe it would be comparable with that of AM2 X2 if not better. Removing 2 Mb of unused cache may reduce leakage power and Speedstep is now go to lower speed. If that is true, AMD will lose the last selling point.
December 27, 2006 7:35:48 AM

Quote:
It would be interesting to see the idle power of E4300. I believe it would be comparable with that of AM2 X2 if not better. Removing 2 Mb of unused cache may reduce leakage power and Speedstep is now go to lower speed. If that is true, AMD will lose the last selling point.
Yeah, that should definetely help, but i'd still like to see Speedstep drop idle speed to below 1GHz, and i think they will likely need that to compete with the 65nm Brisbane(once the process matures)....for idle speed..that is. Load looks to be all wrapped up with the E4300.
December 27, 2006 9:06:27 AM

Quote:
You almost wonder if Intel isn't selling these things out as loss leaders!
I have a feeling that these are going to be big sellers (in the enthusiast camp), therefore, although they might not make a lot per chip...if they can keep volume high..they should still rake in lots of moola. :) 

Dude, I'd hate to be the head of the enthusiast dept. at AMD when he's gotta face the CEO to make his quarterly report. OUCH!40 lashes with a wet noodle. :x

In the immortal words of Joe Rogan, the CEO would "wrap his d**k around his neck and start him like a lawnmower." :lol: 
December 27, 2006 9:44:51 AM

Quote:
Theology deals with abstract mysteries that can never be proven by science. Therefore, string theory is theology.


LOL
!