Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium E2140 benchmarked

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2007 11:48:45 AM

Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 
April 2, 2007 11:52:19 AM

I can't stand to read any more xtreview.com stories! They may be significant scoops, but the Chinglish does me drive in an upward direction to the wall.

I'll fix their damn articles before they keep embarassing themselves! I work cheap! Just ask Baron! :lol: 
April 2, 2007 12:01:09 PM

Yes the English is not the best.
Anyway i love their news section :wink:
Related resources
April 2, 2007 12:27:38 PM

As is known to our permanent readers, at the beginning of June on the market will appear dual core processors Pentium e2140 (1.6 GHz) and Pentium e2160 (1.8 GHz), which will propose access to the architecture core in all for $74 and $84 respectively. They will have only 1 mb cache in the second level and support 800 MHz.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Now, if only we could get a site with xtreview's late-breaking tech stories that was written in a language that we could understand... oh, yeah... there used to be one like that. It was called Tom's Hardware Guide. Whatever happened to them? :twisted:
April 2, 2007 1:04:58 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 


E2140~x2 3600+
E2160~x2 4000+
:wink:
April 2, 2007 1:30:15 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 


Ok, it's official, the x2-3800+ is now a $59 part.
April 2, 2007 1:44:26 PM

Quote:

Ok, it's official, the x2-3800+ is now a $59 part.


The guy that sells hot dogs out of his cart on the corner makes more money per unit sale...
April 2, 2007 1:46:53 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 


Ok, it's official, the x2-3800+ is now a $59 part.
Well well ... can't wait to see this x2 @ this price :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
April 2, 2007 1:56:54 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 


Is this enough overclocking capability for you...
April 2, 2007 1:59:32 PM

Not enough :lol:  .
hope this is air cooling overclock :wink:
April 2, 2007 3:02:47 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 

So much but so late. I have said this before; The single core era is gone forever, no matter how well it performs, every other dual core will kill it in new multithreaded apps. After April-June people will seriously start looking at quads for top performance and entry-level performance will be at least dual cores.
April 2, 2007 3:13:13 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 

So much but so late. I have said this before; The single core era is gone forever, no matter how well it performs, every other dual core will kill it in new multithreaded apps. After April-June people will seriously start looking at quads for top performance and entry-level performance will be at least dual cores.

the E2xxx chips are multicore
April 2, 2007 3:45:26 PM

Then that 1024K only L2 really hurts them because the performance is more that of a Core or K8 arch rather than Core2.
April 2, 2007 3:52:36 PM

Quote:
Then that 1024K only L2 really hurts them because the performance is more that of a Core or K8 arch rather than Core2.


Still a pretty strong competitor with low end x2s with excellent OC features. :wink:
April 2, 2007 4:03:19 PM

If they wanted to kill AMD's lower end x2 they should have either left 2M of L2 with the actual clock speed or clocked them higher leaving the 1024K L2 but mwssing with both of them is crippling them too much; in pure Intel style, just the mistake they were doing with the Celerons.
What I don't like, is the step between performance and budget chips; it should actually be a smooth ramp instead.
April 2, 2007 4:06:26 PM

For $70 or so I can think of several uses for those... :) 
April 2, 2007 4:17:20 PM

Quote:
I can't stand to read any more xtreview.com stories! They may be significant scoops, but the Chinglish does me drive in an upward direction to the wall.

I'll fix their damn articles before they keep embarassing themselves! I work cheap! Just ask Baron! :lol: 

Are you sure that's not Engrish?
April 2, 2007 4:17:30 PM

After the netburst disaster, this redeems the Pentium name... sort of. ;) 
April 2, 2007 5:06:01 PM

Quote:

Are you sure that's not Engrish?


Whatever it is, it's just plain WRONG! Nothing gets my goat more than people who make a living butchering the English language!!!!
a c 96 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2007 5:44:11 PM

I am very surprised that these aren't in fact being sold as Celerons. The lowered FSB, smaller cache, and lower clock speeds are hallmarks of Celerons and these "Pentium" chips have all of them. I think the "Pentium" name will just confuse people as these chips are cut-down Core 2s and have nothing in common with the NetBurst-based Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds. I know that there will be single-core versions of these chips with 512 KB L2 cache sold as Celerons, but it seems that these should be Celerons too and let the Pentium name die in peace.

It will be interesting to see how these chips perform in a wide range of benchmarks, not just a few games. But the initial testing shows a pretty fair hit from the reduced L2.
April 2, 2007 6:21:26 PM

Quote:
I can't stand to read any more xtreview.com stories! They may be significant scoops, but the Chinglish does me drive in an upward direction to the wall.

I'll fix their damn articles before they keep embarassing themselves! I work cheap! Just ask Baron! :lol: 



Yeah I can vouch for that. BTW, you really have to stop leaving your underwear. My girl is starting to ask questions.
April 2, 2007 6:27:15 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 


Is this enough overclocking capability for you...
I'm skeptical as to the validity of that screenshot. The stock clocked part shows vCore as 1.296v (CPU-Z version 1.39...according to the article),


and the
overclocked screenshot @100% overclock shows 1.213v. I find it hard to believe, that they got a 100% overclock without raising the voltage at all. :?

@m25.

Quote:
If they wanted to kill AMD's lower end x2 they should have either left 2M of L2 with the actual clock speed or clocked them higher leaving the 1024K L2 but mwssing with both of them is crippling them too much; in pure Intel style, just the mistake they were doing with the Celerons.


Before you shoot down Intel, remember that AMD does the same thing with Semprons. Also, the performance isn't too far behind the E4300(very decent performance, i think, for a "budget" processor), and the lower L2 cache doesn't really seem to hurt the Core architecture(quite like with K8 )...killing AMD fanboys notions that core architecture is mostly fast due to huge L2. :wink:
April 2, 2007 7:53:11 PM

Quote:
It will be interesting to see how these chips perform in a wide range of benchmarks, not just a few games. But the initial testing shows a pretty fair hit from the reduced L2.


Are you sure to looked at the graphs correctly? The Pentium E2160 at 1.8GHz, is only 1-3fps behind the Core 2 Duo E4300. Both of these are at 1.8GHz, just that the E2160 has half the L2 cache. If anything, the initial testing shows a trivial loss in performance despite the huge decrease in L2 cache size. I can't wait for the media encoding benchmarks.


Quote:
If they wanted to kill AMD's lower end x2 they should have either left 2M of L2 with the actual clock speed or clocked them higher leaving the 1024K L2 but mwssing with both of them is crippling them too much; in pure Intel style, just the mistake they were doing with the Celerons.
What I don't like, is the step between performance and budget chips; it should actually be a smooth ramp instead.


Look at the benchmarks posted in the link....The Pentium e2160 (1.8GHz 2x 512KB L2 cache) beats the crap out of the 1.9GHz AMD Athlon 3600 X2. The 1.6GHz Pentium E2140 manages to just barely edge out X2 3600, despite it's 300MHz clock disadvantage. I'd say Intel will be beating AMD's low end X2's pretty well come June 3rd. With prices at $75 for the E2140 and $85 for the E2160, AMD must make their April price cuts just to stay competitive. However, Intel's Pentium E should overclock slightly better than AMD's X2, and for everyone who has a great overclocking board, the Pentium E2140 should be a guaranteed 100% overclocker to 3.2GHz/400fsb, using the stock hsf. That's X6800 performance for $75 folks. :idea:

Wait for the Celerons to be benched. Intel will have a strong single core for the ultra low end, with prices starting at $39 for a 1.6GHz single core, up to $59 for a 2.0GHz top end model which should compete fairly well with the Athlon64 3500 and maybe the 3700, if these benchmarks are any indication.
April 2, 2007 9:12:07 PM

Quote:
Yeah I can vouch for that. BTW, you really have to stop leaving your underwear. My girl is starting to ask questions.


Damn! That's where it went! And it was my favorite set. The one with "Home Of The Whopper" printed on the front! Sorry, dude. I was drunk. My bad. :lol: 
April 2, 2007 9:19:07 PM

WHY WONT THE PENTIUM NAME DIE?! Seriously, just call the damn thing a C2D.
April 2, 2007 9:38:22 PM

Quote:
WHY WONT THE PENTIUM NAME DIE?! Seriously, just call the damn thing a C2D.

TBH, I missed the Pentium name. Sure, Pentium 4 was an embarrassment, but before that the Pentium name was associated with performance, quality and reliability. I like what Intel's doing with the name, keeping it but acknowledging its past mistakes by making it a low-end chip. Core 2 Duo sounds so much cooler, anyway.
April 2, 2007 10:12:26 PM

Quote:
Pentium E2140 benchmark
Well..... look like that this E2140 is as fast as 3600+ @ stock speed. Hope that those cpu will have large overclocking capability :D 

So much but so late. I have said this before; The single core era is gone forever, no matter how well it performs, every other dual core will kill it in new multithreaded apps. After April-June people will seriously start looking at quads for top performance and entry-level performance will be at least dual cores.

I think its a mistake to go quad core for the mainstream. There are hardly if any apps for quad core to take advantage of. Its pointless to sell useless technology for the mainstream.

I would agree, but the same went with 64 bit extensions a few years ago.
If quad core CPUs become mainstream, then maybe programmers/developers/companies will start making more core oriented software, that will take advantage of them.

Again, this is just my opinion, and not a look into the future. I still think quad core is a bit immature, especially in software, but I for one won't mind plunking down $200-300 for a decent quad, just to be "future" proof, as much as possible.
April 3, 2007 2:39:07 AM

Quote:
Then that 1024K only L2 really hurts them because the performance is more that of a Core or K8 arch rather than Core2.


The PentiumE 2140 @ 1.6GHz is slightly faster than a 1.9GHz 3600+ Brisbane, and the 1.8GHz model would be as fast as an X2 4200+ by the look of things. So, at least in gaming, the Pentium Es are ~20% faster than an X2 clock for clock, which is closer to Core2 than K8 I reckon. ;) 

To be honest I'm surprised at the small performance hit associated with the smaller cache, I was guessing 10% but it's closer to 5%, sometimes even less. I would've liked to see more benchmarks than just games though, I'm sure there are some applications that would take a bigger hit from the cache reduction.
!