Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6300 or E4300? Which one to go with...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 14, 2007 12:27:09 PM

There almost the same price, and they both overclock good to 3Ghz with stock fans too. Any PROS and CONS you guys can think of of one over the other?

More about : e6300 e4300

January 14, 2007 12:29:52 PM

E6400 is a better overclocker for sure!
The difference in price is linear with the performance. So, take the E6400.
January 14, 2007 12:37:45 PM

E6300 or E4300

Choose your Destiny! FIGHT!

Oh crap didn't see the thread that said "Why is the E4300 > E6300?" just a few posts down.
Related resources
January 14, 2007 12:38:10 PM

Quote:
E6400 is a better overclocker for sure!
The difference in price is linear with the performance. So, take the E6400.


Err... the OP asked between the E6300 and E4300.

I think the E4300 is the better choice due to the 9x multiplier. It puts less stress on the NB and doesn't require high speed DDR2 to hit 3GHz+ speeds.
January 14, 2007 1:10:02 PM

Quote:
E6400 is a better overclocker for sure!
The difference in price is linear with the performance. So, take the E6400.


Err... the OP asked between the E6300 and E4300.

I think the E4300 is the better choice due to the 9x multiplier. It puts less stress on the NB and doesn't require high speed DDR2 to hit 3GHz+ speeds.

Words of wisdom.
January 14, 2007 4:14:44 PM

Quote:
There almost the same price, and they both overclock good to 3Ghz with stock fans too. Any PROS and CONS you guys can think of of one over the other?


I think E4300 will be cheaper than E6300 by 10% or more.

It is easier for E4300 to reach 3GHz as it has a bigger multiplier. :wink:
January 14, 2007 4:25:57 PM

All i know is that the E4300 is supposedly a cutdown of the E6300.
i.e. its a Celeron equivelant (according to intel) im not too sure what the difference is although i believe that the E6300 has 4MB cache, 2 of which are disabled, i.e. the 6300s are underclocked 6600s that failed quality control on 2MB of the cache (read that somewhere, cant remember where though) and the E4300, Allendale core, has 2MB of physical cache.

Have no idea about the impact of this. However as E4300 is to E6300 as Celeron is to Pentium, I'd be more inclined to go with the E6300.

Personally I'm going for the E6600. Id rather the extra clock speed and cache, but thats just me.
January 14, 2007 5:30:45 PM

Oh aye. Thanks for that.

Therefore...go with the E6300 due to the increased transfer rate.

However I'm not too sure if the extra multiplier and therefore better overclocking potential will outweigh this....
January 14, 2007 5:33:54 PM

Quote:
Oh aye. Thanks for that.

Therefore...go with the E6300 due to the increased transfer rate.

However I'm not too sure if the extra multiplier and therefore better overclocking potential will outweigh this....


You can decrease the multipliers on Intel chips. The E6300 has a 7x mult and 6x. The E4300 has a 9x, 8x, 7x, and 6x mult. You could reduce the multiplier of the E4300 to 7 and set the FSB to 266, but nobody would do that. We'd just leave the multiplier at 9x for an equivalent of a E6600.
January 14, 2007 5:54:35 PM

Oh wait if you got a stable cheap overclocking motherboard and overclock the e4300 to like around 2.4ghz useing memory that e6300 uses at 1:1, what processer would you pick,i would lean to the e4300 even with 2mb cache it will be faster i think,so i think more banf per buck on the e4300 when overclocked to 266mhz fsb x9 = 2394 mhz,without water cooling it would run fine just a bit hoter.
January 14, 2007 7:06:47 PM

Most of the tech sites are claiming that the E4300 can reach approximately around 3Ghz w/ just the stock cooling, anymore and you'll probably need high end cooling systems.
January 14, 2007 9:56:47 PM

Quote:
All i know is that the E4300 is supposedly a cutdown of the E6300.
i.e. its a Celeron equivelant (according to intel) im not too sure what the difference is although i believe that the E6300 has 4MB cache, 2 of which are disabled, i.e. the 6300s are underclocked 6600s that failed quality control on 2MB of the cache (read that somewhere, cant remember where though) and the E4300, Allendale core, has 2MB of physical cache.

Have no idea about the impact of this. However as E4300 is to E6300 as Celeron is to Pentium, I'd be more inclined to go with the E6300.

Personally I'm going for the E6600. Id rather the extra clock speed and cache, but thats just me.


Which is why Intel is also coming out with the E6420 and E6320, each have 4mb cache but everything else is the same.
!