Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

e6300 vs e4300 pros cons?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 8, 2007 1:13:25 AM

So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?

More about : e6300 e4300 pros cons

January 8, 2007 1:17:24 AM

Quote:
So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?


Yes, the 9x multiplier should make it easier (and cheaper) to hit higher clocks than the E6300, as you won't need expensive RAM and a high clocking mobo. If you can wait 2 weeks, it's probably worth it.
January 8, 2007 1:18:29 AM

Quote:
So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?


The E4300 is CHEAPER than the E6300 overall because the overclocker doesn't have to buy expensive overclocking RAM and a high-end overclocking motherboard to increase the clock speed to similar speeds.

EDIT: What Epsilon84 said.
Related resources
January 8, 2007 1:49:29 AM

There's a few reviews out and the e4300 looks promising. Would love to see how well this thing can handle the voltage in relation to the heat, unfortunately it doesn't look like they will have ES versions of this thing...so I'll have to settle for retail. You can't beat this for $50 though.
January 8, 2007 1:51:28 AM

There's a few reviews out and the e4300 looks promising. Would love to see how well this thing can handle the voltage in relation to the heat, unfortunately it doesn't look like they will have ES versions of this thing...so I'll have to settle for retail. You can't beat this for $50 though.
January 8, 2007 2:08:14 AM

Quote:
So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?


The E4300 is CHEAPER than the E6300 overall because the overclocker doesn't have to buy expensive overclocking RAM and a high-end overclocking motherboard to increase the clock speed to similar speeds.

EDIT: What Epsilon84 said.

Hey I see you have pentium 166!!! That brings back alot of good memories. We were pumping those puppies out in fab9 around 97 and they were processed on 4" wafers. In my area, diffuision, we had 300 wafer load sizes so we could pump out several thousands of wafers a shift. OK sorry that was off topic...don't mind me. :) 
January 8, 2007 2:18:43 AM

Quote:
So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?


The E4300 is CHEAPER than the E6300 overall because the overclocker doesn't have to buy expensive overclocking RAM and a high-end overclocking motherboard to increase the clock speed to similar speeds.

EDIT: What Epsilon84 said.

Hey I see you have pentium 166!!! That brings back alot of good memories. We were pumping those puppies out in fab9 around 97 and they were processed on 4" wafers. In my area, diffuision, we had 300 wafer load sizes so we could pump out several thousands of wafers a shift. OK sorry that was off topic...don't mind me. :) 

Yeah, the PentiumMMX 166 (at 233) replaced a Pentium 75 running at 120MHz. These babies were AWESOME (Who wouldn't like a 60% overclock?) overclockers! I couldn't ever get it to run stable at 133MHz, even with the VRe (3.52V) setting. Have any clue why?

Now, the E4300/E6300 and Celeron 300A (performance wise, not just clock speed wise!) are the only chips that I know of that well exceed the legendary overclockability of the lowly P75 :-D

Pentium 4s don't count :-P, they were too hot to begin with.
January 8, 2007 2:48:38 AM

Quote:
So the new e4300 dual core chip is hitting the market this month and I'm torn between saving 20 bucks for the e4300 or going for the e6300, what caught my eye on the e4300 is the 9x multiplier, for an overclocker will the e4300 beat the e6300 which has a lower multiplier?


The E4300 is CHEAPER than the E6300 overall because the overclocker doesn't have to buy expensive overclocking RAM and a high-end overclocking motherboard to increase the clock speed to similar speeds.

EDIT: What Epsilon84 said.

Hey I see you have pentium 166!!! That brings back alot of good memories. We were pumping those puppies out in fab9 around 97 and they were processed on 4" wafers. In my area, diffuision, we had 300 wafer load sizes so we could pump out several thousands of wafers a shift. OK sorry that was off topic...don't mind me. :) 

Yeah, the PentiumMMX 166 (at 233) replaced a Pentium 75 running at 120MHz. These babies were AWESOME (Who wouldn't like a 60% overclock?) overclockers! I couldn't ever get it to run stable at 133MHz, even with the VRe (3.52V) setting. Have any clue why?

Now, the E4300/E6300 and Celeron 300A (performance wise, not just clock speed wise!) are the only chips that I know of that well exceed the legendary overclockability of the lowly P75 :-D

Pentium 4s don't count :-P, they were too hot to begin with.

Only thing I know is how much a pain in the arse those thermco furnaces were. They were so freaking sensitive to any power fluctuation that any time we had a power bump they would a go into reset. I was about 21 at the time and just worked on the tools so the only interaction I got from engineering was with the equipment engineers so I never had to deal with the process engineers.
January 8, 2007 4:04:31 PM

taking this a step further, if im investing in a nice water cooling system, is the e4300/e6300 worth the investment? or should i bump up to an e6400 model?
January 8, 2007 8:58:18 PM

Quote:
taking this a step further, if im investing in a nice water cooling system, is the e4300/e6300 worth the investment? or should i bump up to an e6400 model?


The same principles apply to watercooling as well. In fact, with the higher overclocking headroom available with watercooling, it pretty much rules the E6300 out of the race.

Remember, the E4300 has use of all multipliers up to 9x. That means you can use 6x, 7x, 8x and 9x.

The E6300 only has 6x and 7x to play with, the E6400 has the 8x multi as well.

I would not go an E6300 for watercooling simply due to the chance of the chip being capped by FSB limit on the chipset. I've seen E6300s up to 3.5GHz on *air* and these are pushing 500FSB - near the upper limits of the best P965 boards. In fact, many P965 'overclockers' boards won't go above ~475FSB, while some may go as high as ~525FSB. All luck of the draw I guess... as always with overclocking. ;) 

The E6400 with the 8x multi is better in this regard and should not reach the FSB limits on a P965 board, but costs $50 more than the E4300.

Why pay more when for $50 less you get the 9x multiplier on the E4300 as well?
January 8, 2007 10:58:07 PM

Good point. Off topic but what top end P965 boards can push that 450+ fsb limit? I'm thinking of going with asus p5b deluxe I'm just not getting much feedback in any mobo threads.
January 9, 2007 1:30:58 AM

after reading that article, looks like ddr 800 will hold back my clocks alot? or am i reading that chart wrong.
January 9, 2007 1:43:32 AM

Main advantage to 800 bus is you can overclock a e4300 to really high with a low end board! Money saved on the chip/mobo combo can put into the psu/pgu for gaming rig!

running a 1.8ghz 800 bus on 1333 bus is not different then the stock x6800 1333 3ghz. Yes, they sort the chips but in these realm's all C2D will run in this range, 2.5-3ghz. The limitation on oc the e4300/e6300 is the chipset.




Don't bother with a e6700 when u can get the e6600 to do the same! depending on your price range - intel out does amd at all price points! If you looking to get a $500 chip try to wait for the q6600 it be $500-$600 in the late spring as intel puts the final nails in the amd coffin.

e4300 $200
e6600 $300
x6800 - ebay $700-750
qx6700 $1000


you can overclock a e4300 to really high with a low end board!
January 9, 2007 1:52:08 AM

Quote:
There's a few reviews out and the e4300 looks promising. Would love to see how well this thing can handle the voltage in relation to the heat, unfortunately it doesn't look like they will have ES versions of this thing...so I'll have to settle for retail. You can't beat this for $50 though.


basically all chips are the same - intel did not and go invent a new low end chip. Intel just detune's the existing chip and slaps a new name on it.

As with celeron d, turn off features or shrink cache, bottom line is the e4300 should work just a c2d chip, with a lower bus u can exploit it, the thermal profile is so low on all these chips that any good air cooler will allow massive overclocking, just like the celeron D and 805.
January 9, 2007 11:43:54 PM

I'm not a experienced overclocker, but to take full advantage of DDR800 you need to overclock the bus to 400MHz. With a clock multiplier of 9, the E4300 would be running at 3.6GHz! I'm not sure yet if the E4300 can hit that speed without exotic cooling. We're all going to find out very soon, I hope. So, to answer your question...I believe the maximum OC will be limited by the E4300, not the DDR800.
January 10, 2007 12:04:33 AM

Quote:
I'm not a experienced overclocker, but to take full advantage of DDR800 you need to overclock the bus to 400MHz. With a clock multiplier of 9, the E4300 would be running at 3.6GHz! I'm not sure yet if the E4300 can hit that speed without exotic cooling. We're all going to find out very soon, I hope. So, to answer your question...I believe the maximum OC will be limited by the E4300, not the DDR800.


3.6GHz on air is certainly possible but somewhat unlikely IMO, though I've seen one or two ES on xtremesystems forums hit such speeds. I would take these as the exception rather than the norm. Online p/reviews have gotten the E4300 to 3.4 - 3.5GHz, so it's not pretty far off the 100% overclock mark!

The chances of hitting 3.6GHz on watercooling is higher of course, but still no done deal.

Don't forget the E4300 multipliers are downward unlocked, so you can use the 8x, 7x or 6x as well. 8)

Should make for easy fine tuning for the FSB/RAM speeds for those who like to tweak to their hearts content. ;) 
January 10, 2007 12:26:55 AM

Quote:
Don't forget the E4300 multipliers are downward unlocked, so you can use the 8x, 7x or 6x as well. 8)


I tell you this just keeps better and better. This would be my first OC, and it's looking like it couldn't be any easier. This truely is a gift from the god of budget PC's.
January 20, 2007 12:12:41 AM

Quote:

3.6GHz on air is certainly possible


When you say this you mean a heatsink+fan correct? And if so, stock or brand name? Thanks ;D
January 20, 2007 12:36:20 AM

Quote:

3.6GHz on air is certainly possible


When you say this you mean a heatsink+fan correct? And if so, stock or brand name? Thanks ;D

Like I said previously, 3.6GHz is within the realms of possibility but is unlikely on air cooling. It would be a near impossibility on the stock HSF, your best chance is with a high end HSF like a Tuniq Tower 120 or Scythe Infinity.
January 20, 2007 11:43:08 AM

so far i get u are saying that the e4300 would oc better than the e6300, but when the e4300 is oc'd would it be much faster than an oc'd e6300,at stable, and reasonable temps?
at the same time, which oc'd cpu would be hotter when idle and underload?

and how is it when comparing the e4300 with e6400?
which would oc to give the highest Ghz at moderate temp with stability?
which would be hotter when idle and underload?

im facing the same prob to , dont know what to choose, which would giv a High GHz with stability and temp in mind, looking for the cpu that gives me the highest GHz stably and with the low temp so that my cpu doesnt get eaten away fast!.. so which would it be e4300, e6300, e6400, e6420 ???

thanks,
January 20, 2007 10:34:30 PM

I always figure since the 4300 has a smaller fsb to begin with, it would be significantly cooler then the 6300, just a thought
January 20, 2007 11:21:46 PM

Nah. Same clock speed or so. About the same temperature, then.

~Ibrahim~
January 20, 2007 11:46:52 PM

Quote:
There's a few reviews out and the e4300 looks promising. Would love to see how well this thing can handle the voltage in relation to the heat, unfortunately it doesn't look like they will have ES versions of this thing...so I'll have to settle for retail. You can't beat this for $50 though.


basically all chips are the same - intel did not and go invent a new low end chip. Intel just detune's the existing chip and slaps a new name on it.

As with celeron d, turn off features or shrink cache, bottom line is the e4300 should work just a c2d chip, with a lower bus u can exploit it, the thermal profile is so low on all these chips that any good air cooler will allow massive overclocking, just like the celeron D and 805.

Actually not entirely true. The E4300 is based on the Allendale Core. Involving new masks less cache so better utilization of the wafer.
January 20, 2007 11:54:21 PM

I think he's saying they both use the same logic. The thermal properties are similar...the E4300 may even have better temps because of the smaller die.
January 21, 2007 12:45:36 AM

I think the e6300 is being replaced by the e6320, same as e6300 except for full 4mb L2 cache.

Otherwise, E6300 shouldn't sell at all - its not better in anyway.
January 21, 2007 12:50:14 AM

Yeah, Intel's even charging the same for the E6300 and E6320. It seems like a no brainer.
!