Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C2D E4300 vs E6300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 12, 2007 2:18:25 PM

I'm going to be building a new gaming PC - unfortunately in the budget range. I'm not looking to overclock (don't want to burn up my new CPU ;) ). I'm looking at these two chips - there doesn't seem to be too much difference in performance between the two. Can any-one give pros and cons for the two? I'm leaning more to the E6300......because it has a slight edge (couple of frames per second more). The cost of the two are pretty similar...

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

More about : c2d e4300 e6300

January 12, 2007 2:32:35 PM

If you're not overclocking, then the E6300 is the winner. Frankly, either chip is powerful enough to drive your games, and you really should be considering more what graphics card you have. The big difference between the two chips is that the E6300 has a higher FSB with a lower multiplier, so while the chip runs about the same speed, communications on the motherboard happen a little faster.

For me, I'm waiting for the E4200 or E4300 to come around, as the higher multiplier means I can get a better overclock. I'll be pushing the FSB back up to what the E6300 runs on, but with the E4300 chip, this will mean 2.4 GHz for less money than the E6300.
January 12, 2007 2:43:40 PM

Overclocking has always been a bit of a mystery to me. I thought once you overclock you void the guarentee amongst other things. Also the chip runs hotter? What is the risk of damaging the CPU?
Related resources
January 12, 2007 2:59:24 PM

The risk of damage is extremely small, but you should know what you're doing. You must monitor temperatures to be sure you're not running too hot, and you should make sure your Vcore doesn't rise too high. I prefer to keep my overclocks pretty mild, so I don't ever increase my Vcore, and I don't do anything that requires resorting to extreme cooling solutions.

On newer motherboards, you can often overclock without knowing anything about it. In my BIOS, I set my base clock up from 200 to 220 MHz, which gives me a 10% boost in CPU speed. I've been able to go as high as 30% over stock on my overclocking, and I'm far from being an expert.

As for the E4300 chip, there have been reviews where they tuned the chip for a 60% increase in clock speed, at stock voltage. This is why I'd be plenty comfortable putting a 33% overclock on the chip as I plan to, because I know even at that speed I'm not coming near to pushing the limits of what the chip can do.

So, if you want to dabble in overclocking, I'd suggest you look through your BIOS settings and see what's available. Be sure you have your motherboard manual handy in case you need to reset your settings back to standard. Start small and work your way up. If you get hooked on overclocking, you may want to consider upgrading your PSU if you need to, as well as your heat sink. Moderate overclocking gives you a lot of extra value for your dollar. Extreme overclocking is a hobby unto itself.
January 12, 2007 3:18:26 PM

Quote:
I'm going to be building a new gaming PC - unfortunately in the budget range. I'm not looking to overclock (don't want to burn up my new CPU ;) ). I'm looking at these two chips - there doesn't seem to be too much difference in performance between the two. Can any-one give pros and cons for the two? I'm leaning more to the E6300......because it has a slight edge (couple of frames per second more). The cost of the two are pretty similar...

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

E4300
Pros:
Cheap
Overclocks like hell
Low FSB, easy on motherboards
High multiplier
Cheap
Cons:
um..it runs 60mhz slower than E6300?

E6300
Pros:
??
Cons:
Expensive for what you get
Tiny multiplier

Am I clear?
a c 473 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 12, 2007 3:37:34 PM

Overclocking the CPU is pretty easy, but it should be done cautiously if you do not have any OC'ing experience. The easiest thing to do is to increase the FSB frequency in the BIOS. The default FSB is 266MHz for the Core 2 Duo using DDR2 533 RAM. You can push the FSB to 333MHz using DDR2 667 RAM for a 25% overclock. DDR2 800 RAM will allow you to push the FSB to 400MHZ for a 50% overclock.

Don't just drop in DDR2 800 RAM and crank up the FSB to 400MHz, that would be bad. You need to do it slowly say in 33MHz increments. Boot into Windows and check for stability and heat. Speaking about heat you should get a good aftermarket heatsink/fan (HSF) for the CPU. I would say the stock cooler that comes with the CPU would be good enough for a 10% overclock.

The higher you push the FSB, the better your HSF should be. You will also need to tweak the voltages to the CPU and RAM at some point. This is where you can run into trouble.

Basically speaking a Core 2 Duo should be able to run with a FSB of 333MHz and DDR2 667 RAM without any voltage tweaking.

Go to the overclocking section to find out more information or if you have specific questions.
January 12, 2007 3:41:39 PM

No, the E4300 and E6300 can easily hit around 3ghz on stock voltages
January 12, 2007 4:44:28 PM

I was asking the question in the light of running the CPU as a stock. As I said, I don't want to void the warrantee on the CPU. And I know zilch about overclocking - not my interest.

So I gather if you're into overclocking, then the E4300 is best bet, if not then E6300 as it runs slightly faster....
January 12, 2007 5:01:06 PM

Quote:
I was asking the question in the light of running the CPU as a stock. As I said, I don't want to void the warrantee on the CPU. And I know zilch about overclocking - not my interest.

So I gather if you're into overclocking, then the E4300 is best bet, if not then E6300 as it runs slightly faster....

No, "slightly faster" means a few FPS AT BEST. We're talking 60 mhz here, that's nothing. The 800 mhz FSB doesn't hurt either, considering that an efficient, low clock speed processor doesn't need much FSB bandwidth. Save your $30 and get the E4300.
January 13, 2007 4:51:47 AM

I agree with ak47is1337 . The E4300 is a much better value, and who knows, you might get into OC in the future 8)...
January 13, 2007 8:58:41 PM

What if you were comparing the E4300 to a E6600? Would it still be worth it to wait for the E4300?

I'm building a new system and trying to decide between the two. I plan on overclocking, no matter which I get. And I also plan on waiting for the E4300 to be released no matter what, if only for the price drops of the other CPUs.
January 14, 2007 12:17:45 AM

I think it's worth the wait...according to articles on popular computer review sites, the E4300 is made to be overclocked, and it could realistically overclock more on stock fans then E6300 (i think, don't quote me on that). But the thing I'm worry about is how long the price would stay for the E4300 before they drop it to the real price (the computer stores usually mark up the price around there first few weeks for the ones who aren't patient enough to wait for the price to drop down to it's intended value)
January 14, 2007 12:31:51 AM

Quote:
But the thing I'm worry about is how long the price would stay for the E4300 before they drop it to the real price (the computer stores usually mark up the price around there first few weeks for the ones who aren't patient enough to wait for the price to drop down to it's intended value)


This really bugs me. If retailers charge more for the E4300 than the E6300 then that (sort of) defeats the purpose of the "Budget Overclocker". I can't wait too much longer.
January 15, 2007 3:34:52 AM

Quote:
But the thing I'm worry about is how long the price would stay for the E4300 before they drop it to the real price (the computer stores usually mark up the price around there first few weeks for the ones who aren't patient enough to wait for the price to drop down to it's intended value)


This really bugs me. If retailers charge more for the E4300 than the E6300 then that (sort of) defeats the purpose of the "Budget Overclocker". I can't wait too much longer.
It comes out tomorrow. Also, it will be supplied and thus cheaper.
!