For those who are waiting: E4400 or E6320?

adnoto

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
48
0
18,530
Hello all,

Total noob here. I will be building my first rig in the next few weeks and I have been lurking and reading up as much as possible (here and other sites) but I wanted to pose a few questions to you all and see what the consensus might be.

I will be needing two new computers and I have already decided to build a "budget" rig first, centered around the E4300, which I will end up giving to my girlfriend after the Q2 new issues and price drops. The plan being to then build another rig with a step up in processor.

As of now my plans for the second rig look like this:

CPU: E4400 or E6320
mobo: Gigabyte DS3 (or potentially a "better" one if prices drop significantly)
RAM: 2 gigs of some quality DDR2 800 (leaning toward Corsair)
HDD: WD or Seagate 250 or 320 gig
CPU cooler: undecided but leaning towards a Scythe Inf.
Video card: undecided but hopefully an 8800 gts if the prices come down some more
PSU: Corsair 520 or their 6** model
DVD burner, case with a couple 120mm fans, etc.

I do want to try overclocking both computers but, wrt the second rig, if I only wanted to overclock using stock voltages or moderately higher voltages which would be the easiest to work with, between the E4400 and the E6320, and produce the most bang per buck, less heat, etc? Not really understanding benchmark performance differences as they relate to real world experience I guess I really would just want to push to CPU to get what I can from it with out stressing it or the overall system too much.

Because of what I have read so far, I am leaning toward the E4400 and am wondering if the cache difference is really a big deal performance wise. Also if they come out at the same time and the "market value" of each is such that there isn't a significant price difference (like the E6300 and E4300 are now), would there be any reason to get the E4400?

So, all of that said... Would you get the E4400 or the E6320? Between those two which would be the better chip for general use and gaming? Which would you get and why?

Thanks in advance for your time.

.
 

LH3

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2007
30
0
18,530
It really depends on what ram you gonna buy.
IF the 6x40 are as good OCer as their older brothers,and you get DDR2 at 800 MHz,with 4-4-4 timings,definetaly get the 6340.Most DDR2-800 memories with 4-4-4 timings can do 1000 MHz.So you can use 500 FSB x 7,to get 3.5 GHz.
If you're gonna use crappy ram (like i do),get the 4400.
I have 4300,at 300x9 ATM,stock volts,went up to 3200,but not Orthos stable,requires some higher voltage (>1.40).The advantage of the 6x00 family is that they require lower voltages compared to the 4x00 to get high to high speeds.Also,6x00 are rated for higher FSB (266>200),which means these chips are likely to reach higher speeds.But as a side node,im perfectly happy with my 4300 :)
 

adnoto

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
48
0
18,530
OK, well, not many responses. I "froogled" the E4400 a few minutes ago and, near as I can tell, it is being listed for pre-order. At least one e-seller estimates its release on April 2nd. I had read April 22nd so this would be welcome news if the site is accurate.

Check it out here or froogle it. No word yet on the E6320, that I could find anyway.

.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
The E6320 would not really be a great choice.
I would be looking at either the E6420 or perhaps the E6600
(Note: The E6600 is going to see a large price drop as well.)

The E6420 will also OC much easier.

The E4400 should be great OC chip.
It will OC to just over 3.3Ghz on std DDR2-667 speeds.

This should remove the need for DDR2-800 chips.
More important than top speeds for chips, it would be best to find chips with low latencies.

Overall, the E6320 should not be that much better than the E6300 when being compared to the current E4300. Most likely it will compare even less favorably due to the greater price difference. I would not expect the extra 2mb of cache to add more than a percent or two to the overall performance.

When picking your chip, you may want to think about what you want to do with the chip.

3.0Ghz seems like a speed at which cooling and power requirements for C2D are still low. Once you start exceding this you may need better cpu coolers and perhaps start increasing voltage. The more beyond 3.0 the greater the chance you will need to do this. These extra requirements will begin to increase cooling costs and add noise to your system.

Personally I was able to get my system to run perfectly stable at 3.2Ghz, but chose to throttle it at 3.0Ghz because at this speed it is perfectly silent. Under normal operations I could not notice the difference.
 

javimars

Distinguished
May 16, 2006
217
0
18,680
It really depends on what ram you gonna buy.
IF the 6x40 are as good OCer as their older brothers,and you get DDR2 at 800 MHz,with 4-4-4 timings,definetaly get the 6340.Most DDR2-800 memories with 4-4-4 timings can do 1000 MHz.So you can use 500 FSB x 7,to get 3.5 GHz.
If you're gonna use crappy ram (like i do),get the 4400.
I have 4300,at 300x9 ATM,stock volts,went up to 3200,but not Orthos stable,requires some higher voltage (>1.40).The advantage of the 6x00 family is that they require lower voltages compared to the 4x00 to get high to high speeds.Also,6x00 are rated for higher FSB (266>200),which means these chips are likely to reach higher speeds.But as a side node,im perfectly happy with my 4300 :)

if he can get 500 fsb why not the e4400 thats a 10x multiplier and get a very nice cooling system....
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
It really depends on what ram you gonna buy.
IF the 6x40 are as good OCer as their older brothers,and you get DDR2 at 800 MHz,with 4-4-4 timings,definetaly get the 6340.Most DDR2-800 memories with 4-4-4 timings can do 1000 MHz.So you can use 500 FSB x 7,to get 3.5 GHz.
If you're gonna use crappy ram (like i do),get the 4400.
I have 4300,at 300x9 ATM,stock volts,went up to 3200,but not Orthos stable,requires some higher voltage (>1.40).The advantage of the 6x00 family is that they require lower voltages compared to the 4x00 to get high to high speeds.Also,6x00 are rated for higher FSB (266>200),which means these chips are likely to reach higher speeds.But as a side node,im perfectly happy with my 4300 :)

if he can get 500 fsb why not the e4400 thats a 10x multiplier and get a very nice cooling system....

I don't get a lot in what you quoted from the other poster.

1) The E4300s do not take more power. I can get 3.2 on stock power and maybe higher. I have seen E6xxxx that can do that on stock power. Each chip varies but they are manufactured via the same process with identical components. The only difference is the reduced cache and having VT disabled. In fact the reduced cache would indicate the E4300s are more likely to require less power.

2) The Higher FSB of the E6xxx chips actually means they are LESS not more likely to reach higher speeds. This is because they start out at a higher FSB which means the resulting FSB must be much higher to get the CPUs to the same place.

3) In regards to the super high FSB speeds, just read the review of the 965 chipsets on Tomshardware and you will see a number of issues on these boards getting to very high FSBs. As a result the E6xxx series of chips are far more likely to become speed constrained. Especially the E6300 and E6400 which have lower starting speeds.

4) The poster noted it was his first build, so it's best to get parts that OC more easily. While many people here have done many builds with Water Cooling and other extreme measures, it is most likely the poster would be best served by more conservative OCing. The E4xxx series does that.
 

RJ

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
655
0
18,980
3) In regards to the super high FSB speeds, just read the review of the 965 chipsets on Tomshardware and you will see a number of issues on these boards getting to very high FSBs. As a result the E6xxx series of chips are far more likely to become speed constrained. Especially the E6300 and E6400 which have lower starting speeds.

You're telling him to base his judgement on an article that's months old and already out of date. My board in that review maybe topped out at what....335 mhz? I'm stable @ 506 mhz @ nb fsb. I'm sure there are other boards in that review that have drastically improved with the 1, 2, or 3 BIOS updates since the article was written.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
Please feel free to point him to a newer review of 965 boards and their OC potential.

This board is littered with recent posts of similar results as to what was seen in this article. Can others get better results, sure.

But I would certainly not want a new builder to attempt such speeds.
Clearly your board either was one of the higher end boards with advanced chipset coolsers or you have bought extensive mods to make it run so. Even with that, the chipset is being pushed well beyond design limits and it's lifetime may be severly impacted. As a more experienced OCer you surely understand all of the risks and how to mitigate them.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
Please feel free to point him to a newer review of 965 boards and their OC potential.

This board is littered with recent posts of similar results as to what was seen in this article. Can others get better results, sure.

But I would certainly not want a new builder to attempt such speeds.
Clearly your board either was one of the higher end boards with advanced chipset coolsers or you have bought extensive mods to make it run so. Even with that, the chipset is being pushed well beyond design limits and it's lifetime may be severly impacted. As a more experienced OCer you surely understand all of the risks and how to mitigate them.
 

rdhood

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
192
0
18,680
Please feel free to point him to a newer review of 965 boards and their OC potential.

This board is littered with recent posts of similar results as to what was seen in this article. Can others get better results, sure.

But I would certainly not want a new builder to attempt such speeds.
Clearly your board either was one of the higher end boards with advanced chipset coolsers or you have bought extensive mods to make it run so. Even with that, the chipset is being pushed well beyond design limits and it's lifetime may be severly impacted. As a more experienced OCer you surely understand all of the risks and how to mitigate them.

??? There are articles at tomshardware, anandtech, and xbitlabs on EXACTLY how to clock a Gigabyte 965P-S3 or DS3 to 430+Mhz . This is a well known and well-liked MB that costs $110-120 which hundreds (if not thousands) of people have overclocked with equally great success. I am one of those people. I am running at 430Mhz with a 6300 (3Ghz). I stopped there simply because 430Mhz FSB was a conservative overclock!
I'm running stock cpu voltage, stock memory voltage, 37C temps. This is a slam dunk overclock that any newbie can do if they just read the websites.
The 63xx is not constrained by board frequencies in any way (anymore). You might have other reasons for going with a 4xxxx series processor, but lack of motherboards that support high frequencies is not one of them.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
I do not dispute that this can be achieved but to achieve these speeds more work needs to be done.

1) At the higher FSB speeds, the North Bridge will need or at least should have added coolers to it. The model boards you listed do not ship with these coolers by default. I rarely read reviews reminding folks to buy them. And there are still posts with folks having FSB issues. The area of issue was generally been raised but they are not uncommon in the 430 and 440 range for the FSB which does in fact limit the CPU at this point.

2) RAM - Again, you have a slight OC, but again there is a chance of failure unless you get more than DDR2-800 and the question of "Stock" temp at these higher rates is likely not going to be 1.8v but 2.0v or higher.
Not an issue but more heat.

3) CPU - Most of the E4300 and E6300 can reach speeds of well over 3.2ghz

However, each of these areas is an area of potential concern.
The E4300 can eliminate two of the potential areas of problems.
Its not a matter of what can be achieved, its a matter of what is most likely to lead to success with the fewest chances of problems.

This is why when folks ask between the E4300 and E6400 I recommend the E6400. It's not because the E6400 has greater top end potential, but rather it has been tested at faster speeds and is hence more likely to achieve those results.

There are unlucky chaps whose particular DDR2-800 actually doesn't OC.
There are unlucky chaps whose mobo don't really OC.
There are unlucky chaps whose CPU doesn't really OC well.

IMHO, it's best to reduce the chance of problems.
 

ChuckvB

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2007
11
0
18,510
Im in a similar boat but I already purchased DDR 800 memory (which most people have gotten to 4-4-4-12 timings OC'ed) and a GIGABYTE GA-965P-S3 motherboard. I can't depend on the memory reaching 1000MHz so given that which processor would be the best low cost, overclockers choice?
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
The E4300 would run at 3.6Ghz at stock ram speed.
The E6400 would run ast 3.15 at stock ram speed.

I would fully expect at least some OC for this RAM so the E6400 would get at least to 3.2 or higher.

I think 3.2 is a nice safe speed for C2Duos.

Much is what you want to do.

My E4300 runs well at stock at 3.2 Ghz, but I choose to run it at 3.0 because when under load at 3.0 my CPU Fan remains totally quiet while at 3.2 it makes a bit more noise.

I like quiet and cant notice the differnce between the speeds.
I'm sure benchmarks would show quite a differnece but I as a person using the system dont.

The E6300 would come in at 2.7 at stock speeds and I suspect at 10% OC to 3.0 of that RAM would work as well.

My CPU preferences are the E4300 and E6400.
The E4300 for up to 3.0 Ghz or so.

If you want more power, I suggest the E6400 since is tested at higher speeds even though it has the same potential.

In truth, you cant reall go wrong with any C2D but those are my choices.
 

stan116

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2006
180
0
18,680
neo seeker just got the E4300 up to 3.6Ghz running stable for over 30hrs while running every test possible.This clearly takes away the E6300 overclocking crown. Its one hell of a CPU and even cheaper than the e6300 by $20-$30
 

ChuckvB

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2007
11
0
18,510
Thanks for the advice. The main power use on my system are recompression of video, editing and games. I also have strived for a quiet pc, using slower larger fans and interior sound deading materials so maybe the E4300 line is best.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
Well, I have an E4300 set to 3.0Ghz.
My CPU fan normally spins in the upper 400s to low 500s.
Under load it reaches the low 1000s.

When I cranked my CPU up to 3.2+ Ghz, it would reach the upper 1000s under load which I could hear.

Between a Quiet Seasonic PSU, barely spinning CPU fan, and a quite case fan, I can't rell my system is on w/o looking at the lights.

Since I have a home office with 3 PCs and 2 Laps on all the time, I am really really grateful the new system does not add any noise.

Unfortunately in the past I did not think sound when building and the other systems are a little annoying and I turn them off just for peace and quiet sometimes.
 

adnoto

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
48
0
18,530
Wow, I step away from the thread for a couple days and missed a bunch of good chatter. Thanks for all the replies.

Ok so the E6320 is out. I am completely good with that. I can see why it wouldn't make much sense. The E6420 perhaps, but not the E6320. Cool. I really think I am set on the E4400 at this point but I am going to look into the E6600 depending on the real world pricing at the time.

Zenmaster - two questions. First, knowing what you know now about the E4300, if you had had the choice between the E4300 and E4400 would you have gotten the E4400? It seems like a no brainer correct? And secondly, you said you are running pretty silent with the 3.0ghz OC, is that with the stock cooler or an after-market job?

Your description of a quiet, cool but moderately OC'd rig is exactly what I am looking to do. I am planning on getting an after-market cooler, but in my noob thinking I sort of use the "stable at X.X ghz OC with stock cooling" as a reference point. If I shoot for the the top reasonable and stable OC with stock cooling and then use a good after-market cooler I figure I will be ahead of the game heat wise. That is my thinking anyway. I realize every homebuilt rig is a bit different depending on component choice, builder skills, and various other factors including the occasional "ghost in the machine," but it always helps to hear other's opinions and experiences.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
I got the Artic Pro 7.

Which CPU would I have gotten?
Most likely the cheapest C2D?
Why? I'm getting more power than I need from the E4300.

I could run it higher than 3.0Ghz, but I choose not to because 3.0Ghz more than meets my needs.

I do a lot of virtualization by hosting Linux and Windows servers running various server based software on my system for testing purposes and as things sit I have more power than I need. I often zip/unzip multi gb files which are limited by CPU speed. At 3.0ghz, the system handles this quite rapidly already and while a higher CPU speed may shave a couple seconds off this, it's not enough to really effect me.

The problem with building a system is that you can always spend $20-$40 more here or there and it keeps going up :> I'm sure we've all been there. My system had so many other upgrades that I knew I needed I decided to skip on the CPU even though by doing I am not CPU constrained.

I put my money into a Quiet PSU. I knew I really wanted this because I have an older system with a fairly noisy PSU that drives me nuts. I may have to upgrade the PSU just for sanity sake since I sit next to these systems 10+ hours a day.

I also put my money into Dual 19" monitors which helps me alot with the work I do.

I think very shortly the choice on CPUs is going to get very difficult because there are going to be such small price jumps between these models. The newer models such as the E4400 may be a slightly better choice than older models because they should be very new CPUs built using the latest Revs. If you buy something like an E6600, you are never sure that your particular one is not going to be an old rev from 9months ago which may not clock quite as well.
 

lockheed

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2007
1
0
18,510
if youre on a budget then i suggest you pick the e4300/e4400. the e6320, has a 7x multiplier and that means a higher fsb is needed to achieve higher speeds. as a consequence, you will need more expensive ram to handle that fsb. the e4300 has a 9x multiplier and hence cheap ddr2800 ram is all you need. The multiplier makes a world of difference. it musnt be to high like 20x and it must be too low like 7x. in choosing the e6320, you will be spending more on both the processor and the memory.