Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does the new e4300 high clocks(Oced) hide the truth?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 31, 2007 3:29:17 PM

Although it overclocks high, clock for clock, the e4300 looks really inefficient. I think it is more than cache because the difference between an overclocked e6400 to x6800 speeds is still pretty close in regards to gaming. Where as a e4300 needs vastly superior (400-500mhz over x6800) to match the x6800 performance, a overclocked e6300 will beat it pretty linearly.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=290...

I know the cache(although same in e6300 and e4300) in the x6800 makes a difference, this difference isn't as pronounce as the one seen between a e4300 and e6800. The e6300/6400 although have less cache than the x6800, when clocked at similar levels still have comparable performance levels in gaming or the difference is pretty linear in regards to a speed advantage and performance.

http://hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2014&cid=2...

Look around and you will see that when a e6300 and e4300 are overclocked to the same speed. The e6300 wins by a substantial margin. I guess this is a warning to those who see e4300 stories of success. IN the end regardless of how high your clocks are performance matters the most.

Also people I recommend you educate yourselves on how e6300 and e6400 b2 revisions overclock as I personally think they overclock better than the e4300 because most only need 1.3-1.375volts to reach 3.4ghz where as a e4300 needs 1.45volts.

Just go to xtremesystems.com and you will see that the world record for a e6400 is 4800 mhz and a e4300 is 400 mhz lower(the e4300 was also cooled using a stronger phase cooler). When you consider that the e4300 has a higher multiplier and the interpretation alot of people are having that the e4300 is the superior for overclocker, shouldn't its world record be higher?

Also the gskill deal on ram for pc6400(187 or something for 2 gb at new egg, pretty much the same as cheap ram)makes the cost advantage of the e4300 nothing special, especially at e4300 currently inflated prices.
January 31, 2007 4:08:12 PM

If you think about it, aren't the E4XXX chips supposes to be the new budget chips, like the Celeron was to the Pentium line? And if I can remember correctly, Celeron's suffered from the effects of low cache when dealing with such tasks. So nothing here really surprises me.
January 31, 2007 4:23:31 PM

Quote:
If you think about it, aren't the E4XXX chips supposes to be the new budget chips, like the Celeron was to the Pentium line? And if I can remember correctly, Celeron's suffered from the effects of low cache when dealing with such tasks. So nothing here really surprises me.


Yeah, I thought the 4xxx series was supposed to be budget, too, until I read this:

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Pentium+E2100+and+Celero...

Ridiculously poor performing chips when so much more can be had for very little. Just doesn't make sense for Intel to go so low in performance when they can release C2Ds, cheaply, with better performance.
January 31, 2007 4:36:20 PM

I chalk this high price up to the chips recent debut. It has been noted though, that Intel plans to dramatically drop the price of the E4XXX series chips. Hopefully, when Penryn is released and Intel moves to batch B, both the price and the performance will increase.
January 31, 2007 4:48:26 PM

The reason the E6300 and E6400 are beating the E4300 clock for clock is because the 4300 has a higher multiplier. Simply put, the E6x00 chips are running a considerably faster bus speed at the same cpu clock.

E4300 9 X 300fsb = 2.7 Ghz
E6300 7 X 300fsb = 2.1 Ghz
E6300 7 X 385.7fsb = 2.7 Ghz

Make sense now? The FSB on a 6300 has to run 28.7% higher to match the cpu clock of a 4300.
January 31, 2007 4:48:34 PM

Quote:
I chalk this high price up to the chips recent debut. It has been noted though, that Intel plans to dramatically drop the price of the E4XXX series chips. Hopefully, when Penryn is released and Intel moves to batch B, both the price and the performance will increase.
They have too many lines..period. They should just have C2D E6xxx/E4xxx,C2Q,and a Conroe L. They're almost as bad as General Motors. They have a line of Chevrolet's, then basically the same in Pontiac's..(they used to have a line of Oldsmobile's), then Buick's, then Cadillac's. It's overwhelming to the general public. :x
January 31, 2007 4:53:01 PM

Quote:
I chalk this high price up to the chips recent debut. It has been noted though, that Intel plans to dramatically drop the price of the E4XXX series chips. Hopefully, when Penryn is released and Intel moves to batch B, both the price and the performance will increase.
They have too many lines..period. They should just have C2D E6xxx/E4xxx,C2Q,and a Conroe L. They're almost as bad as General Motors. They have a line of Chevrolet's, then basically the same in Pontiac's..(they used to have a line of Oldsmobile's), then Buick's, then Cadillac's. It's overwhelming to the general public. :x


Funny how when I said that I was downing Intel.
January 31, 2007 4:55:50 PM

Quote:
If you think about it, aren't the E4XXX chips supposes to be the new budget chips, like the Celeron was to the Pentium line? And if I can remember correctly, Celeron's suffered from the effects of low cache when dealing with such tasks. So nothing here really surprises me.


Yeah, I thought the 4xxx series was supposed to be budget, too, until I read this:

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Pentium+E2100+and+Celero...

Ridiculously poor performing chips when so much more can be had for very little. Just doesn't make sense for Intel to go so low in performance when they can release C2Ds, cheaply, with better performance.


The E4300 is quite a bargain if not for the chip itself, you dont have to spend extra on RAM or a high FSB capable mainboard to get decent overclocks.

I am in the process of building a machine for a friend and I opted for the E4300 simply because of the budget I was allowed to work within.
January 31, 2007 5:20:53 PM

I believe you hit it right on the head here.

FSB of 266 which is "Std" yields 1.86gz on the E6300 but 2.4GHz on the E4300.

FSB of 333 which is a decent OC of the Bus yields 3.0Ghz on the E4300 and 2.3 Ghz on the E6300

FSB of 400 yields 3.6Ghz on the E4300 and 2.8GHZ on the E6300.
(Note: This will likely fail for E4300 as 3.6Ghz will require lots of luck and skill.)

Now, FSB speeds of 400 are not all that easy to hit while FSB of 333 is quite simple and not overly hard on a system long-term.

If shooting for a FSB of 400, then the E6300 may be they way to go since its speed of 2.8 at 400FSB is likely to be close to par with the 3.0 w/ 333FSB of the 4300.

At current prices, I don't think I would consider the E6300.
The E6400 is only slightly more, and will give me better speeds at reasonable FSBs.


Quote:
The reason the E6300 and E6400 are beating the E4300 clock for clock is because the 4300 has a higher multiplier. Simply put, the E6x00 chips are running a considerably faster bus speed at the same cpu clock.

E4300 9 X 300fsb = 2.7 Ghz
E6300 7 X 300fsb = 2.1 Ghz
E6300 7 X 385.7fsb = 2.7 Ghz

Make sense now? The FSB on a 6300 has to run 28.7% higher to match the cpu clock of a 4300.
January 31, 2007 7:18:04 PM

Quote:
Also people I recommend you educate yourselves on how e6300 and e6400 b2 revisions overclock as I personally think they overclock better than the e4300 because most only need 1.3-1.375volts to reach 3.4ghz where as a e4300 needs 1.45volts.


1.3625v needed here - maybe less. I couldn't be bothered testing any more. I want to use my system for something other than stress testing!

The E6400 is a seriously great CPU. I hear that the E6600 kicks ass too.
January 31, 2007 7:41:48 PM

I am quite aware of the FSB thing as I mentioned this in a earlier post. However even that might not be enough to close the significant performance delta that is there.

Also as I mentioned good ram can be had for cheap now. As mentioned 2 gigs of pc6400 gskill which can hit 500 mhz, can be had for 187 dollars at newegg right now. THis is as cheap as cheap pc5300 ram at the current time. Also you don't really need a good motherboard to hit really high clocks, the gigabyte s3 motherboard is shown to overclock to well over 400 mhz in pretty much all cases for it front side bus and its like 100 dollars. You don't need these freakish 200+ dollar motherboards. I heard there another biostar that cost this much and does the same.

I think the e4300 is a bad value at the moment because the e6300 can hit the same clocks just by using a higher fsb. And the difference in component cost is like 30 dollars, in which case you are getting a crap motherboard(asrock or elite or ecs) which uses a via or ali chipset, which might not even hit 333mhz fsb, and even if it does, it uses a inferior chipset which performs poorly clock for clock which in turn increase the performance delta between it and the 100 dollar motherboard above.

Basically this happens.
Lower FSB, Bad chipset, and if you want to save 10 dollars on ram to get the cheap ram with = castrated system. Basically that 40 dollars you are saving kills your memory bandwidth, your system clock/performance efficiency, the quality of your motherboard(as those motherboards do have a higher failure rate), your upgrade potential. At the current price the e4300 is a poor value and if people continue to buy at its inflated price it will never become a good value. Basically everyone should stop buying e4300 for the time being, until if falls to its suggested retail price. For 170 dollars you are getting ripped off. As a e4300 using the above setup will have an even bigger performance gap then those seen in reviews(as reviews use very good components) turning that 40 dollars being the difference between celeron performance to that of a core 2 duo.

Rushfan, did you feel like you had to buy exotic parts to get your clocks? Don't you feel better getting quality parts and not having to volt your pc to 1.45 volts, and knowing if you did, you could probaly get 3.6 ghz? I think thats worth 40-60 dollar(maybe the heatsink would add on to this) as a fellow e6400 owner to get higher clocks and better clock/performance efficiency.

To those working on a budget, work an extra few hours and get a system that will last you a much longer time.
February 1, 2007 2:19:47 AM

Quote:
Rushfan, did you feel like you had to buy exotic parts to get your clocks? Don't you feel better getting quality parts and not having to volt your pc to 1.45 volts, and knowing if you did, you could probaly get 3.6 ghz? I think thats worth 40-60 dollar(maybe the heatsink would add on to this) as a fellow e6400 owner to get higher clocks and better clock/performance efficiency.


I could have spent more, for sure, but in the end I got excellent bang for the buck with the parts that I purchased. I read a number of reviews that raved about the DS3 and true to form, it was very good when I bought it. Subsequent BIOS updates have made it a great board.

I wasn't thinking about it when I assembled the system a few months ago but my rig has turned out to be a very good Windows Vista platform. Even with all of the eye candy turned on, Vista runs very, very well - at least as good as Windows XP on the same hardware. I'm lucky that all of my hardware has "official" drivers - I'm sure that this has helped a great deal.
February 1, 2007 4:28:40 AM

Quote:
I chalk this high price up to the chips recent debut. It has been noted though, that Intel plans to dramatically drop the price of the E4XXX series chips. Hopefully, when Penryn is released and Intel moves to batch B, both the price and the performance will increase.
They have too many lines..period. They should just have C2D E6xxx/E4xxx,C2Q,and a Conroe L. They're almost as bad as General Motors. They have a line of Chevrolet's, then basically the same in Pontiac's..(they used to have a line of Oldsmobile's), then Buick's, then Cadillac's. It's overwhelming to the general public. :x
I agree :roll: . The price difference is marginal, but i guess if a business has hundreds of PC's, that little difference $ adds up.

That must be Intels logic - "drive the nail in" and destroy AMD
!