Why is the E4300 > E6300?

[Cs]

Other than about a $30 reduction in price, could someone explain why I may want to wait for the E4300 to build a system instead of right now going for the E6300?

 

[mpjesse]

in other words, overclockability.

/me humps jumpingjack

 

[sarsoft]

Couple of words.... Affordable and Highly Overclockable.

 

[sarsoft]

Lookee here e4300 appearing on the market but out of stock.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80865
$195 ouch more then e6300. The price will come down soon.

 

[intelconvert6079]

Other than about a $30 reduction in price, could someone explain why I may want to wait for the E4300 to build a system instead of right now going for the E6300?

Overclocking. Not to mention the L2 cache is doubled. And I am a believer in cache

 

[sunangel]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

 

[sarsoft]

e4300 packs 2MB L2 cache.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e4300_2.html

 

[chocobocorey]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

are you saying the chip is bad? if anything its better.. all you need to do is raise the FSB a bit and itll run much faster, much easier than an e6300.

 

[papi4baby]

The only advange i see is the higher multi. Besides that it actually has alot of lows. FSB is only 800, no VT tech not that i think anyone here uses it, im sure there's more stuff but oh well.

 

[1Tanker]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

I think it'll be the new version of the P4 2.4A(133x18..1MB L2..90nm Prescott). Intel didn't even announce that chip, yet it was an overclocker's dream, and was dirt cheap. The disadvantage of it was no HT. It was an enthusiast/channel chip and barely any, if any went to OEM's.

 

[epsilon84]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

I think it'll be the new version of the P4 2.4A(133x18..1MB L2..90nm Prescott). Intel didn't even announce that chip, yet it was an overclocker's dream, and was dirt cheap. The disadvantage of it was no HT. It was an enthusiast/channel chip and barely any, if any went to OEM's.

Just how far did the 2.4As overclock? We all know the 2.4Cs mostly hit 3.2GHz without a sweat, and these had HT as well... so I'm struggling to understand how anyone would prefer a 2.4A over a 2.4C, especially since Prescotts run so hot.

 

[1Tanker]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

I think it'll be the new version of the P4 2.4A(133x18..1MB L2..90nm Prescott). Intel didn't even announce that chip, yet it was an overclocker's dream, and was dirt cheap. The disadvantage of it was no HT. It was an enthusiast/channel chip and barely any, if any went to OEM's.

Just how far did the 2.4As overclock? We all know the 2.4Cs mostly hit 3.2GHz without a sweat, and these had HT as well... so I'm struggling to understand how anyone would prefer a 2.4A over a 2.4C, especially since Prescotts run so hot.I had mine running 3906 stable, and 3960 benchmarkable...but not real stable(P4C800E-Deluxe/TR XP-120 w 120mm/108cfm fan). That was in my other house. My comp room in my new house is warmer, and i can't get it stable beyond 3726. :x

edit: I've never been able to get my 2.4C stable at anything over 2928, with the same setup as my 2.4A.

 

[epsilon84]

ever heard the saying, "if it to good to be true, then its probably not." or ever heard the one that says, "nothing in life is free." or the other one that says, "you don't get something for nothing."?

what i am saying is Intel parted this processor with the number (4)300 instead of (6)300 for a reason. i will let you figure it out. good luck. hope you figure it out.

I think it'll be the new version of the P4 2.4A(133x18..1MB L2..90nm Prescott). Intel didn't even announce that chip, yet it was an overclocker's dream, and was dirt cheap. The disadvantage of it was no HT. It was an enthusiast/channel chip and barely any, if any went to OEM's.

Just how far did the 2.4As overclock? We all know the 2.4Cs mostly hit 3.2GHz without a sweat, and these had HT as well... so I'm struggling to understand how anyone would prefer a 2.4A over a 2.4C, especially since Prescotts run so hot.I had mine running 3906 stable, and 3960 benchmarkable...but not real stable(P4C800E-Deluxe/TR XP-120 w 120mm/108cfm fan). That was in my other house. My comp room in my new house is warmer, and i can't get it stable beyond 3726. :x

That's still pretty good, 3.7GHz+ stable is more than most Northwood 'C's could manage. Must be running pretty hot though at those speeds.

 

[1Tanker]

That's still pretty good, 3.7GHz+ stable is more than most Northwood 'C's could manage. Must be running pretty hot though at those speeds.

58-60C max load on P95@3.7.... was the same @3.9+ at other house. :x Actually ran very nicely @ 3.9, and even @ 3.7 w/RAM@ 2-2-2-5. My 3.0C used to run stable @3450 tops w/same setup, at other house. Then it died on me...NSDS. :twisted: (hence my reason for buying the 2.4A...very cheap). I tried the dead 3.0C several times over the last 2 years, and NADA. One day ~ 2 months ago, i thought..WTF, and tried it again....lo and behold... it works. I've been using it since, but now i can't get it stable over ~3.2GHz. :? Oh well, i'm still at a loss as to how it awoke from the dead after ~2 years.

 

[chocobocorey]

The only advange i see is the higher multi. Besides that it actually has alot of lows. FSB is only 800, no VT tech not that i think anyone here uses it, im sure there's more stuff but oh well.

Wooooowwwwaaaa back the cart up.....

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e4300.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903

Overclocking to 3.4 GHz will knock the crap out of an FX-62.... all of this for 160-180 bucks. FSB rated is not FSB used in the hands of a good OCer.....

You, sir, are severly mistaken.

true. the stock 800 FSB is better for OCers than the 1066. and the VT dont matter. but i wouldnt go to say everyone will get 3.4. my guess is a lot of people will be trying to push this thing with rather crappy components cause of the high multiplier. because the people that could get this thing to 3.4 would have to have the money for nice components, so they would have just sprung for an e6300 or e6400 to get to 3.7ghz or so.

 

[Jesse2200]

Other than about a $30 reduction in price, could someone explain why I may want to wait for the E4300 to build a system instead of right now going for the E6300?

Overclocking. Not to mention the L2 cache is doubled. And I am a believer in cache

Why does everybody say that the E4300 will have doubled cache?? I dont think it does...the E6320 and E6420 will have the doubled cache!! But same clock speed and FSB!! Look here: http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=714230&starttime=0&endtime=0

 

[locky28]

Yeah I noticed that to jesse, as far as i'm aware the e6300 and e4300 both have 2mb of L2 Cache but they are different.

The E6300 has the Conroe core (4mb Cache) with half of it's cache disable making it an allendale of sorts ~ it has 4mb of cache on the chip but half of it is disabled leaving it with 2mb of cache.

The E4300 has a fo shizzle native allendale core with 2mb of Cache ~ it only has 2mb of installed L2 and all of it is running.

I haven't looked into it but I'd say that having half as much cache on the chip would keep temps down compared to the 6300 since the half disabled cache on the E6300 is wasting space. Only a little though.

The other advantage of the real allendales is as mentioned before, the higher multiplier, this makes the chips easier to overclock with less effort and less high performance parts due to the lower fsb.

 

[locky28]

True Jack, but some sites have shown the e4300 isn't that great of an overclocker, because it isn't binned at all, what ever is left over from the allendale cores simply goes to the e4300, while the 6300 and the 6400 are tested to make sure they can run at specific temps and voltages. Which in general, low temps=good oc

Now I'm not sure if i was right about the E4300's having native 2mb but if they do how can they be binned E6300\E4300's? I always thought E6300/E6400's where crippled conroe's while E4300's where true Allendales...

 

[evilr00t]

True Jack, but some sites have shown the e4300 isn't that great of an overclocker, because it isn't binned at all, what ever is left over from the allendale cores simply goes to the e4300, while the 6300 and the 6400 are tested to make sure they can run at specific temps and voltages. Which in general, low temps=good oc

Now I'm not sure if i was right about the E4300's having native 2mb but if they do how can they be binned E6300\E4300's? I always thought E6300/E6400's where crippled conroe's while E4300's where true Allendales...

Jack can probably answer this, since I am not well versed in process technology... but the gist is, Intel can tweak their process to sacrifice yield for Fmax (maximum frequency) and vice versa. I bet the E4300s are on the high-yield process and the X6800s on the high-speed process.

 

[evilr00t]

nope, the 6400/6300 are both allendales. What intel and amd do is test all their cpus at the certain top speeds that the specific core has models running at. So intel tests the cpus first at 2.14ghz, and what ever passes the test with certain specifications remain at 2.14ghz, while the others are moved down to the 6300. Then those are tested. Same process, and until now, intel basically just either got rid of what ever didn't pass, or just packaged them anyway, but now they will go to the e4300, as it is pretty much a chip that's not binned at all. I am pretty sure about this, correct me if I'm wrong Jack, as you know far more about cpu manufacturing than anyone else here

The E6___ series are all Conroe cores, with 4MB of cache. The 300 and 400 members of the E6 series are parts with half cache disabled. The 600 and 700 members of the E6 series are full-cache parts.

The E4___ series are all Allendale cores, with 2MB of cache.

 

[locky28]

evilroot, you've lost me but I'm willing to listen if you or someone else can explain with a bit more detail.

Taco's I know what your talking about with the yield testing and I know that E6300's and E6400's are allendales but that's not what I meant.

I was saying that while the E6300/E6400's are Allendales due to thier 2mb of L2 cache, as far as I know they are actually a CONROE core (with 4mb of chache) but it has half of that cache disabled leaving 2mb of active cache, putting it on spec with an Allendale core. Put simply, E6300/E6400's are cripled Conroe cores.

The E4300 is a true NATIVE Allendale, as it was made with only 2mb of cache on the chip.

Therefore I'm curious to here how E4300's can be binned E6300/E6400's when they are diffent cores.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Apple_Fritters]

True Jack, but some sites have shown the e4300 isn't that great of an overclocker, because it isn't binned at all, what ever is left over from the allendale cores simply goes to the e4300, while the 6300 and the 6400 are tested to make sure they can run at specific temps and voltages. Which in general, low temps=good oc
http://xtreview.com/review161.htm
I don't know if that review is real or fake, but according to that, the only got 3.3ghz on it, and that's 6300 land

3.3GHz sounds about right for the E4300. You'd need a 471MHz FSB for the E6300 to hit that mark. The E4300 does it on a 366MHz bus.

Anyway, in the next couple weeks we're going to see dozens of reviews. If this thing doesn't OC like a champ, we'll find out.

 

[evilr00t]

evilroot, you've lost me but I'm willing to listen if you or someone else can explain with a bit more detail.

...points to Jack for help :lol:

I think the E4___ series is a logical step for Intel to produce Core 2 Pentiums (Core 2 Duo's w/1M cache) and Celerons (Core 2 Solo's w/ 512K cache).

 

[Apple_Fritters]

You're right about being able to hit 470-490, but now the ram is up to DDR980. It looks like the E4300 will be a good low cost/simple cooling solution for maximum preformance.

Personally, I think the E6420 will be the OC king. Even better if it's only $183 in the Q2.

 

[Mex]

nope, the 6400/6300 are both allendales. What intel and amd do is test all their cpus at the certain top speeds that the specific core has models running at. So intel tests the cpus first at 2.14ghz, and what ever passes the test with certain specifications remain at 2.14ghz, while the others are moved down to the 6300. Then those are tested. Same process, and until now, intel basically just either got rid of what ever didn't pass, or just packaged them anyway, but now they will go to the e4300, as it is pretty much a chip that's not binned at all. I am pretty sure about this, correct me if I'm wrong Jack, as you know far more about cpu manufacturing than anyone else here

The E6___ series are all Conroe cores, with 4MB of cache. The 300 and 400 members of the E6 series are parts with half cache disabled. The 600 and 700 members of the E6 series are full-cache parts.

The E4___ series are all Allendale cores, with 2MB of cache.

No, only the 6600 and above are conroes, the 6300 and 6400 are allendales
/Slaps Head :roll:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0722265+1050922263&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=343
Why are the E6300 and E6400 on this page marked as "Conroe?"

The first of our two contestants is the Core 2 Duo E6300, the humblest of Intel's new Core 2 processors. Unlike its fancier big brothers, the E6300 has only 2MB of L2 cache to share between its two execution cores. You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1
Why does Tech Report call the E6300 a "Conroe?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2#Allendale_2
Even Wikipedia (AKA dumbass central) calls the E6300/6400 "Conroe."

So, if all of these other sites are calling them "Conroe," then Intel has purpetrated the sham of the century, or maybe...the E6300/6400s are Conroes!!!

The E6300/6400 are Conroes (4MB L2) with 2MB of cache disabled. Allendales are fabricated with only 2MB of cache to begin with. They were called Allendales because they only used 2MB of L2, but they were originally fabricated along with the E6600 and the rest as Conroes. Conroe and Allendale are two seperate chips. You want to argue more about it (BaronMatrix approach (No offence, Baron)), or do you want to admit you're wrong (JumpingJack approach)?