Thanks for replying jack. It looks like you're trying to avoid making too many guesses as there aren't any benchmark comparisons that address some of the questions I've aske but please play along
I promise not to sick BM on you if you turn out to be wrong
The processors aren't out yet, so guesses are exactly what I'm looking for at this point.
1. Is the extra cache on the e6x20 enough to make up for the lower multiplier? For the lower multiplier AND the higher price?
The data that has been collected shows that the extra 2 meg cache is not a huge factor, performance ranging from 3-8 % on average with some apps seeing 10 or 15% gains, but few.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4
good info, ty. Average difference for the games that they benched was only 2.8% faster with the increased cache at the same frequency. Do you think an additional 28% internal frequency (the difference between e6320 and e4300 at any given FSB) would make up for this difference or would you need a faster FSB clock to make up for the smaller cache? Hypothetically in terms of raw performance I think faster FSB and RAM is the only thing that would make up for the smaller cache, but at the application level I dunno.
2. Which chip will have the most FSB bandwidth after OCed and how much does it matter?
The FSB BW scales with system clock speed, so if you OC to a system clock of 300 MHz (your CPU speed would be 300Xmultiplier) the FSB for any processor would be 1200 MHz, at 64 bit wide this would come to 9.6 GB/second, regardless of the process you used. I.e. An E4300 @ 300 MHz system clock would have the same FSB BW available to it as an E4400 @ 300 MHz.
Overclockers know that, but with different multipliers and cache the different chips could hit heat and internal frequency barriors before hitting a FSB wall. The question then is which, if any, of these chips have lower potential for FSB speed and how much does it matter? Would it be better to have an e4300 @ 300mhz FSB (2.7ghz) or an e4400 at 271mhz FSB (2.71ghz) if that was the hypothetical OC limit for each chip all other things being held equal? Of course, the answer to this question isn't very relevant if this hypothetical situation turns out to have no real-world equivalent... With internal frequency differences as high as 43% (e6320 vs e4400 at any given FSB) I think it likely that one will hit an internal/heat barrior first while the other hits a FSB barrior, but the additional cache could equalize them. Thoughts?
3. Is the 10x multiplier on the e4400 too high? Will it run too hot? Will it limit FSB enough to hurt performance? Will it limit the OC at all? Is it worth the extra cost?
It depends on exactly how agressive you want to overclock, for the low multipliers the OC is hitting FSB walls before the CPU runs out of gas, if you are really into overclocking then the 10x multiplier and boards with ulocked downward multiplier settings gives you much more flexibility, I would choose the 10x multiplier option for this reason alone.
A very good point, but it would kinda suck to pay extra for a 10x multiplier and then set it to 9x. With data from other Conroe chips with 10x or higher (e6700, x6700, x6800, and mobile C2D chip if anyone has bothered to OC them with better cooling), multipliers we should be able to hazard a guess. e4300 vs. e4400 should be roughly equivalent to e6600 vs. e6700. This really only applies to extreme OCing though, 10x multiplier should be just fine for at least ~300mhz FSB with air cooling and small voltage bumps I think.
4. Which chip will get attain the highest internal frequency when overclocked?
Generally speaking, the smaller cache chips will likely give you more % over stock overclock capabilities as there are fewer transistors and less heat that must be dissipated, makes cooling slightly easier.
Easier enough with smaller cache and higher multi to make up for the smaller cache (ignoring price differences for the moment)? Sounds like you're saying e4400 has a +3 multi advantage and a cache advantage over the e6320. Given how many people have voted for e6320 it might be helpful if you stated this explicitly. Until there is real-world data that says otherwise I'm thinking we can expect e4400 to be the king of the sub e64xx world and will be competetive with the e6600 also.
5. Do you care or will you buy one of the <$100 competing CPUs? Or perhaps a more expensive CPU? If so, which one? Or will you wait for Agena and choose then?
There is not doubt that Agena will be a big improvement over K8 in terms of IPC, the question here is clock speed --- AMD's 65 nm has shown us less than stellar performance, with clock ceiling limits well below that of the 90 nm windsor cores. It is a gamble in my opinion for a few reasons, after watching out for more data as it becomes available, I was initially wrong that AMD left eSiGe out, they have indeed integrated this material. As such, a top bin of 2.6 GHz and clock limits of 2.8-2.9 (occasional 3.0) OCs, I am not expecting much more improvement from their 65 nm process --- add to this the fact that their new CTO has stated that '65 nm is old news, all focus is on 45 nm' and it is unlikely that Agena will clock up much past 2.8 or 2.9 GHz (in my opinion).
Unfortunately, commiting to one or the other sorta locks you there so the real decision is yours.... we already have great data on the OC potential of Conroe, and Penryn will do even better most likely as the power limitations are going to be removed for the most part. However, there is no guarantee that Penryn will drop in either so this is also a gamble.
My 2 cents anyway
Jack
More info on Penryn and Agena compatibility and prices would be nice, but without any info to suggest otherwise I don't think there are any events on the near horizon as significant as this e4300 price drop and e4400 introduction. These chips just scream "overclock me".