Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

HKEPC had a preview on E4300

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Performance
Last response: in CPUs
January 6, 2007 5:56:30 AM

Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

More about : hkepc preview e4300

January 6, 2007 10:39:17 AM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.
Related resources
January 6, 2007 10:48:16 AM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.
And they don't even have a celeron price yet; for $30-40 more you can get a beefy E6400.
January 6, 2007 10:51:05 AM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.The big deal is that these will be priced closer to AMD's low-end(x2 3800+), and will still be able to O/C to ~3GHz. Now, the CPU is slightly cheaper than the E6300, and won't need DDR2-800(even when overclocked)..DDR2-667 or decent DDR2-533 will fill the bill. So with the money saved on the CPU, and RAM(combined with running near 3GHz if O/C'ed)..it's going to put a lot of pressure on AMD(and it'll be a great value for Intel enthusiasts). :wink:
January 6, 2007 11:02:12 AM

Quote:
The big deal is that these will be priced closer to AMD's low-end(x2 3800+), and will still be able to O/C to ~3GHz. Now, the CPU is slightly cheaper than the E6300, and won't need DDR2-800(even when overclocked)..DDR2-667 or decent DDR2-533 will fill the bill. So with the money saved on the CPU, and RAM(combined with running near 3GHz if O/C'ed)..it's going to put a lot of pressure on AMD(and it'll be a great value for Intel enthusiasts). :wink:

Mark my words. It'll be most sought after Intel value chip. Esp. by overclockers. The big deal is also in the core.
January 6, 2007 11:34:14 AM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.The big deal is that these will be priced closer to AMD's low-end(x2 3800+), and will still be able to O/C to ~3GHz. Now, the CPU is slightly cheaper than the E6300, and won't need DDR2-800(even when overclocked)..DDR2-667 or decent DDR2-533 will fill the bill. So with the money saved on the CPU, and RAM(combined with running near 3GHz if O/C'ed)..it's going to put a lot of pressure on AMD(and it'll be a great value for Intel enthusiasts). :wink:
I dont expect AMD to sale anything X2 below a 5000+ by the q2 2007 so as I say this will be a sempron killer. Intel refinements to C2D should give around 4GHz O/C for the higher grade CPU's but I truly look for Intel to lay out a complete line of quad cores. I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.
January 6, 2007 11:56:17 AM

Quote:
I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.


I barely think that we will be seeing "low end" Quad Cores by Q2. I don't believe quad cores will become mainstream till mid 2008.
January 6, 2007 12:14:44 PM

Quote:
I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.


I barely think that we will be seeing "low end" Quad Cores by Q2. I don't believe quad cores will become mainstream till mid 2008.
Your correct as the q6600 will move into mainstream by Q2 but only at the upper part of mainstream. I think Intel will cut prices before AMD releases their quads to keep pressure on AMD. Lets not forget Intel will be moving to 45nm by 3rd-4thQ of 2007 so 2008 is octal cores IMO.
January 6, 2007 12:22:33 PM

Quote:

I dont expect AMD to sale anything X2 below a 5000+ by the q2 2007 so as I say this will be a sempron killer. Intel refinements to C2D should give around 4GHz O/C for the higher grade CPU's but I truly look for Intel to lay out a complete line of quad cores. I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.


Nothing below 5000+ by Q2 2007?



The X2 3800+ will still be available in Q2 2007. The E4300 at $113 (Q2 price) will be an X2 killer unless AMD drops the low end X2s to similar prices.

I don't think truly budget quad cores (>$200) from Intel will arrive until 45nm is released.
January 6, 2007 12:47:48 PM

im getting an e4300 as soon as they are I can get my hands on one
about a month til available in AUS i would say

and whoever said they are crappy and are like a Celeron then... LOL...BS

at stock its only 66mhz slower than a e6300 and can get 3ghz with 667 ram easily, beating an e6700 and coming close to a x6800
January 6, 2007 1:11:49 PM

Quote:
im getting an e4300 as soon as they are I can get my hands on one
about a month til available in AUS i would say

and whoever said they are crappy and are like a Celeron then... LOL...BS

at stock its only 66mhz slower than a e6300 and can get 3ghz with 667 ram easily, beating an e6700 and coming close to a x6800


Sweet, didn't know there was a fellow Melburnian in here. Good to see. 8)

Yeah, I'm waiting for the E4300 to be released as well. People can call it all they want, it's gonna rock either way.
January 6, 2007 2:01:30 PM

Quote:

I dont expect AMD to sale anything X2 below a 5000+ by the q2 2007 so as I say this will be a sempron killer. Intel refinements to C2D should give around 4GHz O/C for the higher grade CPU's but I truly look for Intel to lay out a complete line of quad cores. I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.


Nothing below 5000+ by Q2 2007?



The X2 3800+ will still be available in Q2 2007. The E4300 at $113 (Q2 price) will be an X2 killer unless AMD drops the low end X2s to similar prices.

I don't think truly budget quad cores (>$200) from Intel will arrive until 45nm is released.
The November roadmap is old and the x2 would have to be less than $90 to sale against the E4300. I dont see AMD doing a 512K CPU that low just as they wouldnt do a 1mb CPU on the current X2 4400+ to X2 4800+.
January 6, 2007 2:07:36 PM

Quote:
The November roadmap is old and the x2 would have to be less than $90 to sale against the E4300. I dont see AMD doing a 512K CPU that low just as they wouldnt do a 1mb CPU on the current X2 4400+ to X2 4800+.


A x2 3800+ at $90
With 90nm: impossible
With 65nm: possible
January 6, 2007 2:36:55 PM

Quote:
The November roadmap is old and the x2 would have to be less than $90 to sale against the E4300. I dont see AMD doing a 512K CPU that low just as they wouldnt do a 1mb CPU on the current X2 4400+ to X2 4800+.


A x2 3800+ at $90
With 90nm: impossible
With 65nm: possible
If the brisbane EE drop that low AMD will have to drop Lima and Sparta. Who would buy a single core AMD in place of a $90 X2 3800+?
January 6, 2007 3:04:23 PM

Quote:

The November roadmap is old and the x2 would have to be less than $90 to sale against the E4300. I dont see AMD doing a 512K CPU that low just as they wouldnt do a 1mb CPU on the current X2 4400+ to X2 4800+.


Well do you have an updated roadmap to back up your claim then? Or are you just speculating?
January 6, 2007 3:26:02 PM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.

Q3 07 will mark the arrival of Agena/FX, Kuma and Rana. All are variants of Barcelona. Agena/FX and Kuma will include Shared L3 and 2x128bit SSE4A.



I hardly think relegation to the low end will be possible.
January 7, 2007 5:10:52 AM

Quote:

If the brisbane EE drop that low AMD will have to drop Lima and Sparta. Who would buy a single core AMD in place of a $90 X2 3800+?


I don't have the model numbers of AMD's upcoming K8L processors. Here is just my spectulations:

1. Single cores still have their markets at low-end. AMD will just have Semprons in K8L single-core variants.
2. As Intel is pushing multi-core architecture, we will see low-end dual-cores at $80-$100 price range.
January 7, 2007 5:45:05 AM

Quote:
Good speculation --- I would speculate the same. Also, look for Intel to really drive more and more cores much harder to really play up their process node advantage.


Intel is now again playing with their fabrication technology.
AMD once again tries to find another route to beat Intel.

I guess the advantages of SMP will quickly diminish in 2009-2010 with 8-core or 16-cores. Interestingly, AMD will push the first product of Fusion in 2009. :wink:
January 7, 2007 8:55:52 AM

Quote:
Do you know what I found interesting?? It was this commentary by Ed at overclockers.com:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01080/

He is arguing that AMD is looking to push a new, different strategy that frankly is thinking outside the box.... while I am not in total agreement with his opinion, I do think there is something here.....

Further evidenced by AMD's questioning of the 'multi-core race', are they looking to redefine the usage model for advanced logic MPUs? Or are they trying to downplay the multicore race for a while because they are working to catch up in terms of process node?

Who really knows, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.... however, with the acquisition of ATI, and the foot in the door into console/consumer electronics, I can see AMD moving this direction.


AMD surely can't play the multi-core race. :wink:
January 7, 2007 5:11:03 PM

Quote:

If the brisbane EE drop that low AMD will have to drop Lima and Sparta. Who would buy a single core AMD in place of a $90 X2 3800+?


I don't have the model numbers of AMD's upcoming K8L processors. Here is just my spectulations:

1. Single cores still have their markets at low-end. AMD will just have Semprons in K8L single-core variants.
2. As Intel is pushing multi-core architecture, we will see low-end dual-cores at $80-$100 price range.
That is very possible and most of the roadmaps and price list we currently see are Intel and AMD's hope for slow down in the market. I dont see the current heated battle between AMD an Intel slowing till mid 2008. Unless we see a very powerful single core able to perform with most quads, a pure gaming CPU not limited by the 20% over head of multicore, 2008 may mark the end of single cores. The only thing I cant agree with you on is a sempron K8L single-core and the X2 3800 both. The K8L even a sempron would kill most X2. I total agree with number 2 but its either number 1 or X2 3800+.
January 7, 2007 5:15:25 PM

Quote:
The K8L even a sempron would kill most X2


I'm just wondering where you gathered this information from? No preliminary benchmarks have been released yet, and noone knows even whereabouts the performance will be in relation to current CPUs.
January 7, 2007 5:17:00 PM

Quote:
Performance is as expected, but I think the challenger of E4300 should be x2 4200+ but not x2 4000+.

I dont see what the big deal is with the E4300 and E4400 for when they release they will be no more than a core 2 celerons. Q2 2007 will be marked by full quad core and I would guess the price of these CPUs will end up below $100. Looks to me like Intel is going after the low end on AMD. AMD by Q2 2007 should stop making X2 4xxx+'s, X2 3800, and start making x2 sempron.

Q3 07 will mark the arrival of Agena/FX, Kuma and Rana. All are variants of Barcelona. Agena/FX and Kuma will include Shared L3 and 2x128bit SSE4A.



I hardly think relegation to the low end will be possible.
As qcmadness pointed out which I do agree with is at 65nm's it is possible.
January 7, 2007 5:36:16 PM

Intel will most definitely have dual cores in the ~$100 range by Q3 2007, when the Pentium E2xxx series debut. Since the E4300 will drop to ~$115 to $120 in Q2, these Pentium E2xxx chips will definitely be priced lower. Expect them to be around $100 to $115.

Intel will also be releasing the single core Celeron D 4xx series, which will be an interesting match for the A64 and sempron. We shall see how much of a penalty 512KB L2 has on Intel's Core 2 technology
January 7, 2007 6:50:46 PM

Quote:
Good speculation --- I would speculate the same. Also, look for Intel to really drive more and more cores much harder to really play up their process node advantage.


Intel is now again playing with their fabrication technology.
AMD once again tries to find another route to beat Intel.

I guess the advantages of SMP will quickly diminish in 2009-2010 with 8-core or 16-cores. Interestingly, AMD will push the first product of Fusion in 2009. :wink:

Do you know what I found interesting?? It was this commentary by Ed at overclockers.com:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01080/

He is arguing that AMD is looking to push a new, different strategy that frankly is thinking outside the box.... while I am not in total agreement with his opinion, I do think there is something here.....

Further evidenced by AMD's questioning of the 'multi-core race', are they looking to redefine the usage model for advanced logic MPUs? Or are they trying to downplay the multicore race for a while because they are working to catch up in terms of process node?

Who really knows, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.... however, with the acquisition of ATI, and the foot in the door into console/consumer electronics, I can see AMD moving this direction.
I dont agree with him as multi core has 1 big disadvantage. The 20% overhead lose in performance is to much loss and theirs in no way with programming to fix the overhead. AMD is moving to a dissected multicore approach IMO. Think if we had all the FPU's and logic units in their own cores which share themselves with all other cores. 1 main core to facilitate all cores to act as 1 and 1 video core for the output of video. The only thing hes some what right about is AMD wants to sale their old designs CPU's which are made cheaper over time for those applications.

One single thing points to the death of multicore. As more powerful CPU's come along we need either more or faster cache for them to operate efficient so trully the GHz battle will never end. Some today buy CPU's for OCing and while true this mostly is due to cost but we know that a 2MB Core 2 duo OC'ed can and does perform with the higher cost C2D's. At no point will the 2MB C2D's perform better at the same GHz but at higher GHz the differance become very close to nothing. The reason for this is the faster data from cache moves to the core's makes up for the amount of time it takes to move data from the memory to the cache. The ever increasing amount of cache needed to feed better brain designs at the same GHz slowly eats away the advantages of the new process levels. The number of cores then slows or stops altogether.

What make dissected multicore different for cache? First the number of cores dont have to double so both core count and GHz can increase as needed. Cache wouldnt be locked into a core not being used for what ever reason be it L1, L2, or L3 cache. Cache could be higher GHz than any one core.

What makes dissected multicore different for cores? Cores of the same type can all work at the same GHz. The FPU's can all be low GHz and densely packed for massive number cruching.
January 8, 2007 4:05:12 PM

Quote:
I think a Q6320 would make for the best low end by q2 2007.


I barely think that we will be seeing "low end" Quad Cores by Q2. I don't believe quad cores will become mainstream till mid 2008.
I believe this is a mainstream quad core price for a xeon X3210. The same thing as what a Q6400 would be but of a higher bin IMO.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5595
$425 in Q2 2007 is a very good price and AMD will have to beat this with an Agena quad core by Q3 2007. This IMO is the CPU everyone should be looking at for OCing and price to performance.
January 8, 2007 4:12:57 PM

Quote:
I believe this is a mainstream quad core price for a xeon X3210. The same thing as what a Q6400 would be but of a higher bin IMO.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5595
$425 in Q2 2007 is a very good price and AMD will have to beat this with an Agena quad core by Q3 2007. This IMO is the CPU everyone should be looking at for OCing and price to performance.


The "low-end" quad-cores will hurt their performance dual-core sales.
Also Intel should aim to raise the ASPs for their products.
January 8, 2007 4:20:59 PM

Quote:
I believe this is a mainstream quad core price for a xeon X3210. The same thing as what a Q6400 would be but of a higher bin IMO.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5595
$425 in Q2 2007 is a very good price and AMD will have to beat this with an Agena quad core by Q3 2007. This IMO is the CPU everyone should be looking at for OCing and price to performance.


The "low-end" quad-cores will hurt their performance dual-core sales.
Also Intel should aim to raise the ASPs for their products.
This is true but its good for us consumers. I'll be buying the X3210 unless AMD's Agena's change my mind because the Xeon's should OC better. Why buy a higher cost Q6700 or Q6600 when a OC'ed X3210 can do the same job cheaper.