Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is the E4300 > E6300?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 14, 2007 3:28:32 AM

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?

More about : e4300 e6300

January 14, 2007 3:50:53 AM

in other words, overclockability.

/me humps jumpingjack
January 14, 2007 3:52:07 AM

Couple of words.... Affordable and Highly Overclockable.
Related resources
January 14, 2007 4:23:20 AM

Quote:
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
January 14, 2007 4:25:31 AM

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.
January 14, 2007 4:38:26 AM

Quote:
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.
January 14, 2007 4:44:18 AM

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.
January 14, 2007 4:52:32 AM

Quote:
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. :wink:
January 14, 2007 5:44:59 AM

Quote:
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. :wink:

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.
January 14, 2007 6:04:52 AM

Quote:
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. :wink:

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. :cry: 
January 14, 2007 6:08:34 AM

Quote:
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. :wink:

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. :wink:
January 14, 2007 6:27:54 AM

Quote:
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. :wink:
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. :o 
January 14, 2007 6:45:01 PM

Quote:
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-e...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=290...

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.
January 14, 2007 10:02:24 PM

Quote:
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&starttim...
January 14, 2007 10:49:03 PM

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.
January 14, 2007 11:46:23 PM

Quote:

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...
January 14, 2007 11:51:06 PM

Quote:

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.
January 15, 2007 12:00:47 AM

Quote:
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.
January 15, 2007 12:06:55 AM

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.
January 15, 2007 12:12:19 AM

Quote:
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.
January 15, 2007 12:14:24 AM

Quote:
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).
January 15, 2007 1:11:19 AM

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.
January 15, 2007 1:23:27 AM

Quote:
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/ProductList.asp?Category=34&N=2010340343+50001157+1050722265+1050922263&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=343
Why are the E6300 and E6400 on this page marked as "Conroe?"

Quote:
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)?
January 15, 2007 1:24:38 AM

Quote:
it would just heat up the core from the larger die size


Off topic,but... I haven't seen anything about overclocked quads. Is that just too much chip? In fact, I haven't heard anything about the thermals either. Maybe you have a link.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2007 1:34:24 AM

Quote:
What I'm saying is that 9 mult might be useless if people can't get it above 6400 speeds.


Eh, d00d, if you can take the E4300 to 3.0GHz using dirt-cheap PC-5300, but you need PC-7100 or higher to get the E6300 to the same clock, it makes perfect sense financially to choose the processor with the higher multiplier.
January 15, 2007 1:36:18 AM

Quote:
you seriously believe newegg? Get a cpuz screenshot, that is valid right there, even ask jack


CPU-Z is wrong. How can you trust CPU-Z?

Why doesn't someone crack open a E6300 and a E6600 and prove that they're the same silicon.

Quote:
I_Love_Tacos wrote:
What I'm saying is that 9 mult might be useless if people can't get it above 6400 speeds.


Eh, d00d, if you can take the E4300 to 3.0GHz using dirt-cheap PC-5300, but you need PC-7100 or higher to get the E6300 to the same clock, it makes perfect sense financially to choose the processor with the higher multiplier.


Damn straight. If RAM wasn't so goddamn expensive I'd be considering a E6420.
January 15, 2007 1:40:15 AM

Quote:
it would just heat up the core from the larger die size


Off topic,but... I haven't seen anything about overclocked quads. Is that just too much chip? In fact, I haven't heard anything about the thermals either. Maybe you have a link.

The C2Qs area overclocking quite well actually, 3.2 - 3.5GHz is not uncommon, but due to the extra heat from the cores you really do need excellent cooling to get above 3.5GHz.
January 15, 2007 1:41:09 AM

Alright here:

E6300 ---> 2mb Cache ----> 1066mhz FSB
E4300 ---> 2mb Cache ----> 800mhz FSB
E6320 ---> 4mb Cache ----> 1066mhz FSB
E6420...and so on...

Get it? :D 
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2007 1:43:17 AM

The whole reason we've had to wait for the E4300 so long is because Allendale is a new core. CPU-Z is written by people, people make mistakes, the E6300 was released retail long before Allendale cores were even available as engineering samples.
January 15, 2007 2:05:25 AM

Exactly what i was trying to say, well put.
January 15, 2007 2:11:35 AM

Quote:
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.


When it comes to overclocking this CPU the FSB being at 800 is meaningless. VT is meaningless unless you're using it, which I'd say most people won't even take advantage of it (and thus won't care that it's not there)
January 15, 2007 2:20:38 AM

Meaningless regarding a performance hit comparred to 1066mhz

RE overclocking it has great meaning considering the multiplier coupled with it :D 
January 15, 2007 2:28:43 AM

Quote:
Therefore, when a Allendale (smaller die) comes out, if it can bin-test at higher clock speeds, it would behoove intel to brand it as an E6300/E6400 if possible because that will sell for a higher price.


I think there is an excellent analogy between the E4300 part and the PD805 part. Both are, or will be, sold at a slightly reduced price compared to their "full-fledged" counterparts, the E6300 and PD820, respectively. Also, both have reduced FSB ratings and increased multipliers. Finally, in both cases, online review sites have championed the parts as excellent overclockers. The best part is being able to use relatively budget motherboard and RAM components while being able to pull off a significant overclock.

Now the difference is, as far as I understand, that the PD805 was manufactured along side the rest of the PD8xx series, but was supposedly binned lower so Intel branded them 805's and sold them very cheap. However, performance on many 805's were so good that reviewers speculated that Intel was simply coming out with the 805 so that it could start to penetrate the gigantic budget market with dual-core chips. To me, this strategy made a lot of sense: The reason I have a PD820 is because it was the cheapest dual-core offering at the time, and a good $150 cheaper than what I really wanted: the X2 3800+.

Back to the E4300: I believe that since the reviews have shown such excellent overclocking on the E4300 so far (60% on stock voltage), these parts are not actually relatively crippled poor-binning ones. Intel is able to make the Allendale cheaper than Conroe, but what they are doing is what we've been hoping for: bringing the Core 2 Duo down to the budget level. The Allendale, not the Conroe, signals the death of NetBurst.

Finally, all of this makes me a happy camper. I will soon be able to buy a sub-CAN$200 chip that will more than double my performance and give me some more overclocking headroom. Sweet!
January 15, 2007 2:50:28 AM

Quote:
Therefore, when a Allendale (smaller die) comes out, if it can bin-test at higher clock speeds, it would behoove intel to brand it as an E6300/E6400 if possible because that will sell for a higher price.


I think there is an excellent analogy between the E4300 part and the PD805 part. Both are, or will be, sold at a slightly reduced price compared to their "full-fledged" counterparts, the E6300 and PD820, respectively. Also, both have reduced FSB ratings and increased multipliers. Finally, in both cases, online review sites have championed the parts as excellent overclockers. The best part is being able to use relatively budget motherboard and RAM components while being able to pull off a significant overclock.

Now the difference is, as far as I understand, that the PD805 was manufactured along side the rest of the PD8xx series, but was supposedly binned lower so Intel branded them 805's and sold them very cheap. However, performance on many 805's were so good that reviewers speculated that Intel was simply coming out with the 805 so that it could start to penetrate the gigantic budget market with dual-core chips. To me, this strategy made a lot of sense: The reason I have a PD820 is because it was the cheapest dual-core offering at the time, and a good $150 cheaper than what I really wanted: the X2 3800+.

Back to the E4300: I believe that since the reviews have shown such excellent overclocking on the E4300 so far (60% on stock voltage), these parts are not actually relatively crippled poor-binning ones. Intel is able to make the Allendale cheaper than Conroe, but what they are doing is what we've been hoping for: bringing the Core 2 Duo down to the budget level. The Allendale, not the Conroe, signals the death of NetBurst.

Finally, all of this makes me a happy camper. I will soon be able to buy a sub-CAN$200 chip that will more than double my performance and give me some more overclocking headroom. Sweet!

You have almost, but not quite stumbled upon the truth.

Intel in Q3 will start releasing Conroes (ie the 4 meg cache parts) on a 1333 mhz bus, AND start using half speed multipliers, so the gap between chips is 166 mhz, not 333.

This will make the Conroe lineup look like this:

3.33 ghz (Maybe? - but only if needed)
3.00 ghz
2.83 ghz
2.67 ghz
2.53 ghz
2.40 ghz

What do ALL of these parts have in common? - aside from 4 megs of cache?

They are ALL faster than an FX62

So Intel will now have a "performance" line, ie a high profit line AMD can't touch with anything.

The E4xx series is then released to fight the Athlon x2s.

An e4300 slots (according to anandtech) almost exactly between the 4200+ and 4600+, so the E4400 should be a +/- 5000+ equaliavent.

So intel will "own" the high end / performance end, while intels "second rate" Allendales will duke it out with the AMD x2 seried..

Smart marketing IMHO..

Here is the pitch.....

"So what do you want to buy.. a real performance chip...
Or a cut down second rate E4xx series... you know, the ones that are almost as slow as those x2 athlons?"
January 15, 2007 3:08:28 AM

Quote:
Here is the pitch.....

"So what do you want to buy.. a real performance chip...
Or a cut down second rate E4xx series... you know, the ones that are almost as slow as those x2 athlons?"


...the batter eyes the ball...

I'm going for the cheap highly-overclockable dual core this year, and throw it away next year in favor of a middle-of-the-road quad. Now if I had the money...batter strikes out.
January 15, 2007 3:37:04 AM

So what I think I'm hearing is the speculation that Intel is/will adjust their manufacturing process to get a high-yield but low max operating freq on the E4xxx line. Maximum yield for lowest cost of production, right?

This implies that the E4xxxx line will not overclock very well or at least not as well as the E6xxx line. But that is not what the preview tests to date have shown, have they? :?

It will be interesting to see what people's experiences are when the actual product is shipped. No?

-john
January 15, 2007 3:58:46 AM

Quote:
So what I think I'm hearing is the speculation that Intel is/will adjust their manufacturing process to get a high-yield but low max operating freq on the E4xxx line. Maximum yield for lowest cost of production, right?

This implies that the E4xxxx line will not overclock very well or at least not as well as the E6xxx line. But that is not what the preview tests to date have shown, have they? :?

It will be interesting to see what people's experiences are when the actual product is shipped. No?

-john


aww... guess I have to wait a little longer until, people have actually used the E4300. :cry: 
January 15, 2007 4:22:08 AM

Quote:
What I'm saying is that 9 mult might be useless if people can't get it above 6400 speeds. Regardless, its still a very fast cpu, and does kill the fx 66 that amd will probably eventually release at 3.2ghz like they have an fx-76 on the way at 3.2ghz, especially the price is nice too.

What are you talking about? the E4300 can easily hit 3.5, and has been proven in early production models.
January 15, 2007 4:49:18 AM

I think the big appeal of this chip for me has to do with its potential longevity. I upgrade around every 5-6 years or so. I cant afford to do more than that with a family to look out for. I want a chip that I can overclock to say 3ghz without putting excess strain on my motherboard and components. Yes it will overclock further. Fearmongers would say it wont or cant but give me a break. The e4300 gets me to 2997mhz on only a 333mhz FSB. That means less heat and longer life. Pair this chip with a good solid cap MB and you are looking at a system that will be around as long as you need it. :D 
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2007 5:04:29 AM

It should get you to 3000MHz at 333MHz, learn to do math :p 

It's all based on 100MHz: 33MHz is actually 1/3 of 100MHz (33.333...), 66MHz is actually 2/3 of 100MHz (66.666...), etc. This goes all the way back to 486's at least.
January 15, 2007 5:14:53 AM

Okay, so I read through your earlier posts, and here's what I have to say: you're half-right. Here's where your logic breaks down: the current E6300 and E6400 chips on the market are Conroes; they had half of their cache disabled. Now, once Allendale's yields are up to speed (Which if the success of Conroe is an indicator, isn't going to take long), any high-performing cores (As Jack stated might pop up) will be sold as E6300s and E6400s.

I just conceded half the argument to you; be happy with that. And don't call me a sore loser. :lol: 

Quote:
you seriously believe newegg? Get a cpuz screenshot, that is valid right there, even ask jack

First, that signifies that you fixated on that link, and didn't even bother to look at this one, which if you refuse to believe, shows that you probably won't believe anything I post about this argument. On another note, if you trust CPU-Z to report everything accurately, you deserve to be shot (No offence, but its true). Example: I ran it on my friend's computer (Powered by a Willamette P4 1.7GHz). It told me that the chip was running at <0.1V. Sound accurate?

Also note that the man (Man, not team) who designed the program recieves his info months ahead of time, and bases the program's readings off of that. It may or may not be accurate info since there's still six months between that info and the product launch. Which is why it reports all current E6300s and E6400s as Allendales, when they're really not...yet.
January 15, 2007 6:05:57 AM

Quote:
It should get you to 3000MHz at 333MHz, learn to do math :p 

It's all based on 100MHz: 33MHz is actually 1/3 of 100MHz (33.333...), 66MHz is actually 2/3 of 100MHz (66.666...), etc. This goes all the way back to 486's at least.
Yeah....and although it may be trivial....it's always p*ssed me off that the bus speed was in thirds, but the mobo's weren't. I don't know what the reason for thirds is. It must be just a marketing thing. :x
January 15, 2007 6:32:31 AM

I fart in your general direction :wink: What now?......hmmm if we were to build a wooden badger.....
January 15, 2007 6:34:39 AM

Ok... so, a direct comparison between the E4300 and the E6300...

To achieve ~3.2GHz, the following settings would be required:

[code:1:f9d4b5978a]
CPU | FSB | Mult | MHz
-------------------------------
E6300 | 457 | 7 | 3199
E4300 | 355 | 9 | 3195 *EDITED AFTER STOOPID MISTAKE* :roll:
-------------------------------
[/code:1:f9d4b5978a]

Which essentially means that the E4300 will run a lot cooler, especially seeing as it has a smaller die size. Granted, the E4300 doesn't have VT support, but people who buy this particular chip probably aren't the kind of people who want it to do VT anyway.

So why on earth are Intel still going to be fabbing the E6300? Surely it's a dead chip (at least on paper)? And when the E6420 is launched... what exactly will the market be for the E6300?
January 15, 2007 6:39:56 AM

the e4300 has a 9X multiplier so to get to 3.2ghz you only need a 355mhz FSB 8)
January 15, 2007 6:45:42 AM

Quote:
the e4300 has a 9X multiplier so to get to 3.2ghz you only need a 355mhz FSB 8)
That is the exciting part. Forget the PC6400/PC8500... most PC5400 should suffice. :p 
January 15, 2007 6:55:49 AM

Quote:
Ok... so, a direct comparison between the E4300 and the E6300...

To achieve ~3.2GHz, the following settings would be required:

[code:1:ff8febaad9]
CPU | FSB | Mult | MHz
-------------------------------
E6300 | 457 | 7 | 3199
E4300 | 400 | 8 | 3200
-------------------------------
[/code:1:ff8febaad9]

Which essentially means that the E4300 will run a lot cooler, especially seeing as it has a smaller die size. Granted, the E4300 doesn't have VT support, but people who buy this particular chip probably aren't the kind of people who want it to do VT anyway.

So why on earth are Intel still going to be fabbing the E6300? Surely it's a dead chip (at least on paper)? And when the E6420 is launched... what exactly will the market be for the E6300?


Dude that's a comparison between an E6300 and E6400, as already mentioned the E4300 has a 9x multiplier.

You planning to get an E6400 yourself, surely you should know that already! :lol:  :wink:
January 15, 2007 7:05:04 AM

Ooops. Brainfart. Sorry peeps. But the question still stands... What's the point of the E6300 now the E4300 is the NKOTB?

*EDIT* Hmmm.... the more I read the more I'm convinced. Should I change my planned build to include an E4300??
!