Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E4300 vs E6300 with MODERATE overclock

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 22, 2007 10:50:00 PM

Dear all,

Torn between the E4300 and E6300. Ill have a gigabyte 965P-DS3 and OC friendly RAM (GeiL).

Now, im interested in overclocking, but only moderately - i.e. stability is more important to me than outright speed.

If this is the case (and im not interested in redlining the cpu) which is the best buy? I can both for £110-£120 ish.

Please help!

Cheers
W
January 23, 2007 5:25:42 AM

Quote:
Dear all,

Torn between the E4300 and E6300. Ill have a gigabyte 965P-DS3 and OC friendly RAM (GeiL).

Now, im interested in overclocking, but only moderately - i.e. stability is more important to me than outright speed.

If this is the case (and im not interested in redlining the cpu) which is the best buy? I can both for £110-£120 ish.

Please help!

Cheers
W

In your case, the E6300 would be the best option.

Less stress on this CPU.

Lower OC required for same performance of moderately OC'd E4300 :idea:

Maybe wait for the E6320 out soon :D 
January 23, 2007 7:47:57 AM

:wink: I disagree. The e4300 will moderately overclock with alot less fsb because of the 9X multiplier. Moderately overclocking an e6300 requires more work and more stress on the components. Go for the e4300 put it to a FSB of 266 and you will be at 2.4ghz! No sweat. To get an e6300 to even hit 2.4ghz you'd need an FSB of 343. Now put the e4300 on an fsb of 343 and you have just shy of 3.1ghz! No contest! 8)
Related resources
January 23, 2007 7:50:11 AM

Ooooh i can see a debate coming on...
January 23, 2007 7:52:03 AM

Also - I read something about not having to have such fast RAM for the E4300 is that right?
January 23, 2007 8:38:21 AM

I was planning on getting an E6400, but have now ordered an E4300... Admittedly, I'm gonna OC the tits off of it, but still, a moderate OC on the E4300 will yield a better result in terms of heat dissipation = less fan noise.
IMHO, I can only see a single application where the E6300 is a better purchase than the E4300, and that's running @ stock... Even then, the performance gain is absolutely minimal.

Go with the E4300!! You'll easily get in the region of 3GHz!

EDIT: About the slower ram... Yeah... with the lower FSB, you only need 667 ram to get a reasonable-good OC... If you want to go extreme, you only need 800, instead of 1000+, which also saves you a few bucks.

E4300 ftw!
January 23, 2007 8:43:22 AM

Right - can anyone give some more detail to this? I'm still confused - What do people think is 'safe' state to overclock these cpus to and what would be the primary differences? And what kind of difference will there be in terms of required fan speed under high load (most of what I do is very cpu intensive).

Thanks, W
January 23, 2007 9:58:35 AM

Quote:
Right - can anyone give some more detail to this? I'm still confused - What do people think is 'safe' state to overclock these cpus to and what would be the primary differences? And what kind of difference will there be in terms of required fan speed under high load (most of what I do is very cpu intensive).

Thanks, W


On the stock fan, I would say a 2.6-3ghz OC is safe. Put on, say, a tuniq tower 120, and your looking about about 3.0-3.4 as a safe bet.

Theoretically, the 4300 will produce lower temperatures as you dont have to raise the fsb speed so much. Between a 4300, and a 6300 at say 3ghz, the 4300 will thus produce lower fan speed!

There is very little to choose between them, if your new to OCing the 4300 is your best bet, others might choose the 6300.
January 23, 2007 12:41:49 PM

Hi,

So a E4300 running at 2.4ghz with a FSB of 266 will be more stable and reliable than a E6300 at 2.4Ghz with a FSB of 343.... and I can run it like that on a stock cooler?

Sounds good to me if so...cheers. W
January 23, 2007 1:13:22 PM

Quote:
Hi,

So a E4300 running at 2.4ghz with a FSB of 266 will be more stable and reliable than a E6300 at 2.4Ghz with a FSB of 343.... and I can run it like that on a stock cooler?

Sounds good to me if so...cheers. W


yes, you should have no problems with a setup like that, and what you say is, in theory at least, correct.
January 23, 2007 2:01:37 PM

With the E4300, you can not only run cheaper ram, but you can also run it on just about any core 2 motherboard. You don't need a really expensive motherboard to run at the FSB speeds that you can run on a E4300, whereas with the 6300, higher FSB speeds are needed.

Since the E4300 has the same multiplier as the 6600, all you have to do to it is change the FSB to 266, and it will run at the same clock speed! (Not quite as fast because it only has 1/2 the cache, but also at half the price)

You should also be able to reach moderate overclock speeds without raising the voltage on the E4300. A major plus, because it will run cooler.

I would definitely pick the E4300!

Best of Luck
January 23, 2007 2:15:24 PM

Quote:
So a E4300 running at 2.4ghz with a FSB of 266 will be more stable and reliable than a E6300 at 2.4Ghz with a FSB of 343.... and I can run it like that on a stock cooler?


It is perhaps more likely to be more stable, but not an absolute. Many e6300s run a 343 fsb with no stability issues whatsoever. A higher fsb does not necessarily mean a less stable system. It could very easily be more stable than a system with a lower fsb, if tweaked correctly.

Also, 2.4ghz is a very modest overclock requiring nothing more than the stock cooler in either case.
January 23, 2007 3:16:36 PM

The 6300 is the best buy for moderate overclockers since it will perform better at similar speeds due to the faster mem at 1:1 ratio. The 4300 will only be a better deal for those who plan on ocing it over 3ghz.
Example:
4300 2.4 1066fsb 533ram speed
6300 2.4 1372fsb 686ram speed
For a 1372fsb you don’t need any higher quality material than stock cooler + standard 666ram + a ds3 will do it no sweat as long as you have decent airflow (1front+1rear 120mm fans and side vent).
January 23, 2007 5:03:09 PM

On closer inspection i have two fans on the rear and two fans on the bottom front but no option for a side fan.

So now I'm completely confused as to which to buy. I'll be buying PC6400 ram anyway as its the same price (the stuff I want) as the slower stuff...

Surely the e4300 will be less stressed due to lower speeds, lower temps etc (lower voltages req?).... And the performance different due to to the memory will be marginal?
January 23, 2007 5:25:38 PM

A closer debate would be e4300 vs. e6300..
First lets compare specs:

E6300: 1066fsb= 333fsbx4...... x6(?) multiplier 1.86ghz
E4300: 800fsb= 200fsb x4....... x9 multiplier 1.8ghz

In these specs the only edge carried by the e6300 is a slight 60mhz boost at stock speed. The multiplier on the e4300 is far superior however, and heres why.
Raising your FSB eventually comprimises your cpu's stability. When you raise your FSB every '1' increase increases the clock speed 9 cycles on the e4300 but only 7 or 6 on the e6300. This means that raising your fsb 100 on the e4300 yields a 900mhz increase which = 2.7ghz on the e6300 raising your fsb yields only 600 or 700mhz putting it at 2.4 or 2.5 ghz. In addition to this, youll be pushing the limit much sooner on your motherboard raising the fsb from 1066 to 1333+ whereas the 800fsb on the e4300 leaves more room to overclock.

One major fact left out, the e4300 has a 2mb cache allendale core, the e6300 has a 4mb cache conroe core with 2mb disabled, this means the electric current still runs over the whole cache, causing a slightly higher electricity consumption.

E4300 is a better buy than e6300 for moderate overclocking. Straight from Toms Hardware article on overclocking:

Despite all of this, the E6000 series is no longer our overclocking favorite, because a new model line is ready to launch soon: the E4000 series will come at similar clock speeds, but run at only FSB800 speed. Obviously, this makes these new processors much better overclocking candidates, as a Core 2 Duo E4300 at 1.8 GHz can reach even higher core clock speeds with less FSB stress.
January 23, 2007 6:44:48 PM

Quote:
One major fact left out, the e4300 has a 2mb cache allendale core, the e6300 has a 4mb cache conroe core with 2mb disabled, this means the electric current still runs over the whole cache, causing a slightly higher electricity consumption.


Not really a major fact... especially when you are talking to overclockers, whose concerns lie elsewhere.

The e4300 vs. e6300 debate boils down to the fact that you can use lesser quality components in an e4300 build and achieve the same overclock on the processor as a build with higher quality components (i.e. motherboard & ram in particular) and an e6300. From what I've seen, the two CPUs overclock to nearly the same level. The higher multiplier on the e4300 just makes it easier to do on a budget.
January 23, 2007 6:48:08 PM

Quote:
A closer debate would be e4300 vs. e6300..
First lets compare specs:

E6300: 1066fsb= 333fsbx4...... x6(?) multiplier 1.86ghz
E4300: 800fsb= 200fsb x4....... x9 multiplier 1.8ghz.
[/b]

The E6300 is 1066FSB=266*4 => 266*7=1.86GHz

Other then that I agreee wih most

The 4300 is better becouse the 6300 will have a hard time getting to 500+ MHz esp on more budget MB's

U wil be able to get good overklocks with budget RAM and MBs
366*9=3,3GHz
January 23, 2007 9:05:09 PM

Well, it's not really the CPU that will struggle with 500+ FSBs, it is the motherboards.

Summary of the thread is the E4300 will OC the same while using cheaper parts. If building a new PC, go with the 4300 over the 6300.
January 24, 2007 12:42:31 AM

That article doesn't prove that the e4300 is "better no matter what you say." e6300s can be overclocked to the very same level with a gigabyte 965p-ds3 and offer the same performance at the very least. The e6300 would just need quality ram to run the higher fsb. The ram running faster would equate to a faster system overall as well.
January 24, 2007 12:46:50 AM

Quote:
On closer inspection i have two fans on the rear and two fans on the bottom front but no option for a side fan.

So now I'm completely confused as to which to buy. I'll be buying PC6400 ram anyway as its the same price (the stuff I want) as the slower stuff...

Surely the e4300 will be less stressed due to lower speeds, lower temps etc (lower voltages req?).... And the performance different due to to the memory will be marginal?

Maybe you'd better wait :idea: a little for the E6320 - 4mb cashe = less of a moderate OC needed.

Heat will increase a little but remember it will be OC'd less so heat might be around the same level :) 
January 24, 2007 12:51:24 AM

Quote:
Maybe you'd better wait Idea a little for the E6320 - 4mb cashe = less of a moderate OC needed.

Heat will increase a little but remember it will be OC'd less so heat might be around the same level Smile


I agree. If you aren't in a hurry, see how the new e6xxx series performs and at what price point. The prices of the e4300 so far have been disappointing. Hopefully, they will be dropping in coming weeks.
January 24, 2007 1:28:37 AM

Quote:
A closer debate would be e4300 vs. e6300..
First lets compare specs:

E6300: 1066fsb= 333fsbx4...... x6(?) multiplier 1.86ghz
E4300: 800fsb= 200fsb x4....... x9 multiplier 1.8ghz

In these specs the only edge carried by the e6300 is a slight 60mhz boost at stock speed. The multiplier on the e4300 is far superior however, and heres why.
Raising your FSB eventually comprimises your cpu's stability. When you raise your FSB every '1' increase increases the clock speed 9 cycles on the e4300 but only 7 or 6 on the e6300. This means that raising your fsb 100 on the e4300 yields a 900mhz increase which = 2.7ghz on the e6300 raising your fsb yields only 600 or 700mhz putting it at 2.4 or 2.5 ghz. In addition to this, youll be pushing the limit much sooner on your motherboard raising the fsb from 1066 to 1333+ whereas the 800fsb on the e4300 leaves more room to overclock.

One major fact left out, the e4300 has a 2mb cache allendale core, the e6300 has a 4mb cache conroe core with 2mb disabled, this means the electric current still runs over the whole cache, causing a slightly higher electricity consumption.

E4300 is a better buy than e6300 for moderate overclocking. Straight from Toms Hardware article on overclocking:

Despite all of this, the E6000 series is no longer our overclocking favorite, because a new model line is ready to launch soon: the E4000 series will come at similar clock speeds, but run at only FSB800 speed. Obviously, this makes these new processors much better overclocking candidates, as a Core 2 Duo E4300 at 1.8 GHz can reach even higher core clock speeds with less FSB stress.


All true.
However, I will still personally rather have the E6400. The Virtualization is something I might actually use. Also 3.0 Mhz is enough for me anyway. If I had to go beyond that, then the E4300 might be better.
January 24, 2007 11:23:38 AM

There is some real misleading bullshit being banded about in this thread.
January 24, 2007 12:12:18 PM

Quote:
There is some real misleading bullshit being banded about in this thread.


Care to be more specific?
January 24, 2007 12:37:36 PM

It may not "Prove" anything, but every major Hardware Review site I have seen discuss the matter strongly prefers the E4300 to the E6300 for over-clocking.

1) The E4300 will cost much less for moderate OC due to both the cheaper CPU as well as the less expensive RAM required. Most 4300/6300 OCers are budget concious. Otherwise they would start with a E6600/E6700/E6800.

2) Keeping the FSB to more moderate levels leads to less impact on other components in the system and hence less chance of errors in parts of the system besides the CPU.

3) The 4300 system would put off less heat due to the lower RAM voltages, lower ram speed, ommision of disabled cache, etc....
This could further reduce costs related to cooling equipment or make the system less noisy.

This is not to say there could never be a combination of a certain speed memory on a certain mb with certain cooling components all set a certain way that could not lead to better benchmarks with a 6300 than a 4300. This is simply to point out that under most conditons, the E4300 is likely to be the preferred choice.
January 24, 2007 12:41:19 PM

Hi,

Yes i'm inclined to agree with you I'm going for the E4300. Thanks for everyones inputs, W
January 24, 2007 12:57:05 PM

My post in reply to Estrang on the first page summarizes my thoughts. I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out the fact that the link just showed an overclocked e4300 outperforming most other core2duo chips in different situations. The fact of the matter is that all of the core2duo chips are easily overclocked. Some are just cheaper and/or easier to do it with.
January 24, 2007 1:01:43 PM

The over-clockability must be real scary to AMD.

If AMD released a chip tomorrow that matched Intel's fastest CoreDuo chip (And they have nothing really close), Intel could simply up the default speeds on the E6800 and all chips across the board w/o the need for any production improvements. It's almost scary how underclocked all of the C2Duos appear to be. Even the top of the line ones.
January 24, 2007 1:41:07 PM

I agree. I've read that AMD's new 65nm offerings still can't overclock past 3.0ghz or so with extreme cooling. I hope AMD's new K8L is more competitive in both performance per dollar and overclockability. We don't need a "Microsoft" in the processor arena.
January 24, 2007 2:23:19 PM

Quote:
A closer debate would be e4300 vs. e6300..
First lets compare specs:

E6300: 1066fsb= 333fsbx4...... x6(?) multiplier 1.86ghz
E4300: 800fsb= 200fsb x4....... x9 multiplier 1.8ghz

In these specs the only edge carried by the e6300 is a slight 60mhz boost at stock speed. The multiplier on the e4300 is far superior however, and heres why.
Raising your FSB eventually comprimises your cpu's stability. When you raise your FSB every '1' increase increases the clock speed 9 cycles on the e4300 but only 7 or 6 on the e6300. This means that raising your fsb 100 on the e4300 yields a 900mhz increase which = 2.7ghz on the e6300 raising your fsb yields only 600 or 700mhz putting it at 2.4 or 2.5 ghz. In addition to this, youll be pushing the limit much sooner on your motherboard raising the fsb from 1066 to 1333+ whereas the 800fsb on the e4300 leaves more room to overclock.

One major fact left out, the e4300 has a 2mb cache allendale core, the e6300 has a 4mb cache conroe core with 2mb disabled, this means the electric current still runs over the whole cache, causing a slightly higher electricity consumption.


Well for starters.... Whats all this about?

People are making this far more complicated than it has to be:

4300 - Good for overclockers who are new to the game
- Why buy?

1. Doesnt require expensive RAM/MOBO as you dont need to push the FSB so high because the multiplier is higher

2. Cheapest Core 2 CPU

3. Theoretically runs cooler and thus quieter.
January 24, 2007 2:33:19 PM

Am I understanding this correctly that if you use an E4300, crank the clock up to 266.7MHz, for an easy example, AND leave the memory at 1:1, then what you get is:

CPU clock = 266.7 x 9 = 2.4GHz
FSB = 266.7 x 4 = 1066 (!)
Memory = 266.7 x 2 = DDR2 533 is all that is needed to keep at 1:1

Is this correct? And if so, then by increasing the clock to 266.7MHz you also cranking the FSB up to 1066 anyway. Which brings the E4300 up to the stock FSB of the E6300, right? But with a higher CPU clock speed. Obviously an OC'd E6300 will have a higher FSB, but if the above is correct, then it might not be as much of an advantage as it might initially appear.

Also, for my future plans, do you think the following would be very reliable and long-term safe OC of a 4300:

MB: Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 (Rev. 2.0)
Memory: DDR2 667 of a type supported on the above MB
raw clock: 333MHz
CPU clock: 2.997 GHz
FSB: 1332 MHz
Memory ratio at 1:1

Thank you.
January 24, 2007 3:36:26 PM

You appear to have it. If you raised the e6300 clock by 33% like the e4300 in your example, you would be running it at 354mhz (1416 effective) equating to a 2.48ghz cpu clock. In addition, memory would be running at 708mhz. Theoretically, the higher fsb and higher memory speed would equate to slightly better system performance, though I don't know what the real world results would be (likely slim). Anyway, I'm sure you get that.

Your future plans look good to me. I've only dealt with e6300s (no e4300s yet) but the gigabyte ds3 has run stable fsb up to 1880 (470) for me. A 333mhz is no sweat at all for that board. I'm sure the e4300 will handle that OC without a problem as well from what I've read.
January 24, 2007 5:50:23 PM

Thanks for your help.

I forgot to mention cooling, so: for the sake of reliability and longevity I'll likely use either an Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro or a Tuniq Tower. Fans on or aimed at the NB, SB and memory, too. Given my proclivity to tinker, and my background in electronics, I'll probably fit heat sinks to the VRMs and regulator caps too.

Have had some early-in-the-brainstorming stage ideas (i.e. still wild and unrefined) about cooling and cases in general. Will post in a new thread either later this evening or tomorrow.

Again, thanks for confirming that I'm understanding what I'm reading.
January 24, 2007 9:30:06 PM

No problem. I forgot to mention cooling as well. The Arctic Freezer 7 Pro is what I've used on all my e6300 builds. I get them for $25 shipped from chiefvalue.com. Very cheap for a great cooler. Of course the Tuniq Tower is better, but for over twice the cost. CoolerMaster makes some great cases with great cooling for very little. Just a suggestion. Good luck.
January 25, 2007 1:43:45 AM

I am working on a similar build, only with a Gigabyte S3 instead of the DS3. I purchased an Arctic Freezer 7 Pro and an E4300 and am also hoping to achieve 333fsb to match my 667 ram. I might OC higher, but don't see a need to push it until down the road sometime. Anyway, I'll let you know how it goes... if zipzoomfly ever gets my order shipped... but that's another story. I wish NewEgg hadn't put an office in my state, I liked them before the sales tax.
January 25, 2007 2:37:15 AM

Seems you might be on the right track, using the -S3, Kardio. I do think about using the -S3 but the sales pitch for the DS3 seems to have gotten to me. I'd love to know how yours works out, since I'm not going to order my parts until the price of the E4300 comes down a bit in a couple of weeks or so.

The hype about the long term stability of the solid caps on the -DS3 gets to me sometimes. On the other hand, the non-solid caps on the 11 year-old Intel Advanced-EV board I have (Pentium 133 MHz) still work just fine. This might just make a decent topic to begin a discussion under the "Motherboard" section. After all, why spend the extra $30 or so on solid caps if they don't really contribute anything?
January 25, 2007 2:52:48 AM

Well, I wouldn't say the DS3 solid caps would be a waste of money. I haven't done enough research on them to see if there are any statistics comparing their failure rate to boards with non-solid caps. I've been working on computers professionally for over 6 years now, and more specifically worked doing nothing but repairs for about 2 1/2 yrs of that time. Motherboard failures are quite common. I would say no more then 25% of them had visible signs of leaking capacitors though. I'm not much into the engineering knowhow side of things though, so I don't know what other benefits the solid caps offer. I just know my budget could only fit the S3.

That said, I had an AOPEN board for my P4 1.7g that lasted for 4 years before it had a capacitor start leaking. If my S3 lasts that long, I'd be very happy with it. If I receive my E4300 and S3 on Friday, I'll probably have some results a week or so later.
January 25, 2007 3:00:28 AM

Hope to be getting my E4300 and Gigabyte S3 by this weekend. Probably won't overclock for a while, but I will post results when I do.

It's my first build so I will be taking everything nice and easy.
January 25, 2007 3:20:06 AM

A couple days ago I set up a e4300 and the ds3, put cheap corsair value 667 ram in it and a nh-u9f cooler. Right from the first boot I set the fsb to 333 and don't plan on lowering it. Seems to work fine at stock voltages and I have not seen the cpu go over 30c load yet.
January 25, 2007 2:13:07 PM

Just got all my hardware (see sig) delivered too... I'm looking forward to attempting a 100% overclock :)  I think I'll run it at 3, but I wanna try for 3.6 for the hell of it. :D 
January 25, 2007 4:38:07 PM

I just received my Arctic Freezer 7 Pro today. It looks so lonely without its processor to go with it. Should be here tommorow according to fedex.

Interesting to hear you went for 333fsb right away. That's my goal to keep it at permanently. I was afraid to go for 333 right away though, I had planned on 266 first, but now you've got me thinking I should go for it and cut out that intermediate (266) testing time. I have 2 x 512 DDR667 corsair value ram already, and I also have 2 x 512 DDR667 Corsair TWINX Xtreme ram coming with my board (S3), processor, and video card (8800GTS). So hopefully it will all play nice and I'll have 2GB of ram. It's good to hear you used similar ram.

Has anyone else taken the plunge and gone for 333 fsb right away with their E4300? I'll be keeping my eye on other topics about this as well, as time saving is always important.
February 20, 2007 12:52:52 PM

little question about Mb
i read that you can keep it to less expensive parts if you use the E4300
butt everyone is using the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3.

because it is budget cpu, i also like a budget MB for a moderate overclock to 2.6Ghz

just using the E4300
very cheap RAM -533
so question what about a cheap MB max about 80$
February 20, 2007 1:31:39 PM

Just some hands on info here. I have the e4300 oced to 3.0ghz at stock volts. Had a 805d prior to this cpu. The e4300 OCs really easy compared to the 805d. Cant say much in regards to OCing the e6300 because the one that i used in a build didnt get OCed. You can look at my sig for my system specs.
!