Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

e4300 vs e6300? what's the difference?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 20, 2007 2:11:40 PM

The title says it all - is there a performance difference between a 4300 and 6300 c2d? I'm not talking about OC, etc. just stock processor?

Thanks
Charles

More about : e4300 e6300 difference

February 20, 2007 4:42:01 PM

The e6300 is 0.06GHz faster, about 3% difference. This probably isn't significant. It also supports virtualization whereas the e4300 doesn't. This might not be important to you either ...
February 20, 2007 4:49:10 PM

if your not going to overclock you better off buing e6600 or a e6700 - running an e6300 at 1.8 or 2.8 it runs at the same temp so why not take advange of it

overclocking is only changing the fsb instead of the multiplier which is better up to a point.

intel made the 805 and e4300 with intentions of high volume overclocking - to put the "hurt" on amd - e4300 is usable is older 800fsb boards as drop in
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 20, 2007 5:23:13 PM

As others have said the E6300 is slightly faster at stock than the E4300 due to the 0.06Ghz fater clock (1.86 vs 1.80) as well as a Faster FSB.

Due to the easier OC nature of these chips, however, nobody should be running these at Stock who is building his own PC.

It is only a matter of how much to OC.
Anything less than 2.4ghz is not being a responsible Enthusiast/Geek.
I have never heard of a single issue at this speed.

Intermittent reports at 2.6/2.7 have surfaced with most folks running 3.0Ghz w/o an issue.

The E4300 only has the advantage when doing an OC at the moment due to the close price range. In a couple months the price difference should be greater. The nature of those advantages if they even do exist will not be mentioned to avoid thread drift.
February 20, 2007 5:47:39 PM

the 4300 is an allendale core, not a conroe. a e6300 has a 4mb cache with 2 mb of it disabled to increase yields. the e4300 is a native 2mb cache and as such uses less power and generates less heat.
February 20, 2007 10:36:36 PM

Quote:
if your not going to overclock you better off buing e6600 or a e6700 - running an e6300 at 1.8 or 2.8 it runs at the same temp so why not take advange of it


And I suppose you'll give him the extra few hundred dollars he'll need.
February 20, 2007 11:31:38 PM

I have a different question

For overclocking, which one is better? which one will give you a better overclocking result? As far as I have seen, the E6300 wins...
February 20, 2007 11:34:20 PM

Quote:
e4300 vs e6300? what's the difference?



2000.


Sorry, I couldnt stop myself
February 20, 2007 11:37:29 PM

Quote:
e4300 vs e6300? what's the difference?



2000.


Sorry, I couldnt stop myself

Wrong. It's e2000. Get your algebra right.
February 20, 2007 11:59:16 PM

the e4300 is the better overclocker because you dont need as expensive ram to overclock it. this is done with the higher multiplier (9x). the e6300 by comparison has a lower multiplier (7x). i have yet to really see any article or forum that says that the e6300 is a better overclocker. if one does exist please link.
February 21, 2007 12:03:58 AM

Most major review websites favor the E4300.
February 21, 2007 12:23:04 AM

Quote:
Most major review websites favor the E4300.

Forget the E6300, it's a waste of money compared to the E4300. It's like half a percent faster or so, it's $20 more expensive and it requires more expensive ram. Oh, and it's harder to overclock...convinced yet?
February 21, 2007 1:57:17 AM

well until the new e6320 revision is released with the full 4mb cache. anybody have any good links to if a larger cache has a sizable enough performance boost to justify buying an e6320 over the soon to be 110 dollar e4300 stock?

Edit: i mean sizable performance increase without overclocking at all leaving both processors at stock speeds.
February 21, 2007 2:08:20 AM

Quote:
well until the new e6320 revision is released with the full 4mb cache. anybody have any good links to if a larger cache has a sizable enough performance boost to justify buying an e6320 over the soon to be 110 dollar e4300 stock?

Edit: i mean sizable performance increase without overclocking at all leaving both processors at stock speeds.

No, there is not that much benifit to having a little more cache. a 3.0ghz E4300 is still almost exactly as fast as a 2.93ghz X6800. See what I mean?
February 21, 2007 3:00:19 AM

Quote:
if your not going to overclock you better off buing e6600 or a e6700

Thats $100 - $400 more dude.
!