Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 Duo 4300 vs Brisbane 4800+

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Graphics Cards
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which processor for my needs?

Total: 83 votes (1 blank vote)

  • AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Brisbane 2.5GHz (Socket AM2)
  • 55 %
  • Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz (Socket 775)
  • 46 %
April 27, 2007 5:39:42 AM

This is going to be a low-power build using the Antec Minuet 300 as a case, a Visiontek X1650 Pro video card, probably 2GB of memory, etc. It's for light gaming, and PVR functions. The video card is because the gaming I do will be on my LCD TV at 1366x768 (which doesnt require a super high end video card), and it has HDMI output.

I'll game occasionally on it, not too much, and the PVR functions will be used quite a bit. (Waiting for the 1TB Seagate to come out.)

Keeping in mind both power requirements and speed requirements, which is better? I will not be overclocking either one because of the 300W power supply I'll be using not being able to handle much more.

PS The reason I'm comparing these two is I'm not sure what kind of speed difference it would make, but the prices are less than $10 different on Newegg.

More about : core duo 4300 brisbane 4800

April 27, 2007 6:02:25 AM

4800 is fine but you dumb not to get a e6600
that chip rocks so much

i just finished another 3.37ghz system with a stock Intel cooler wow do they rock!
Related resources
April 27, 2007 6:26:23 AM

umm i would probably go for the e4300 because it would be better at encoding. and also its rediculously easy to overclock on stock voltage and therefore no increase in power usage. i have mine at a very minimal overclock as you can see on stock voltage.
April 27, 2007 10:17:35 AM

If you said Overclocking is what you intended to do then I would have recommended the E4300. For the purposes you describe save yourself some money and go for the AM2 4800+X2 because unless overclocked a stock E4300 is nothing to get excited about. The AMD is 4800+X2 is still a fairly good CPU for games.
April 27, 2007 10:45:36 AM

I don't know WTF is wrong with those who voted for the E4300, the Brisbane 4800+ is a better choice. It is 10-15% faster than the E4300 in average, both have roughly same energy efficiency. I guess you are not going to OC your CPU, because if you do than the E4300 is the way to go.
April 27, 2007 11:23:01 AM

intel = oc
amd = value

eh?


i read somewhere that the 4800+ was fairly good ... 8O you serious?

unless you got ur self a 8800 that chip aint gonna fail you. before the fx58,60,62 etc.. i remember that , that 4800+ used to be one of the most high end chips amd had.

seriously you would only need the e4300 for overclocking or video work. in all other areas, the amd should treat you well.



to dragon sprayer

wth do you think ur saying? ddnt you read that he distinctly said, he wont be able to oc at all with his 300w psu. now, none of us here care about u or your stupid oc attempts. i also dont recall the op suggesting anything above the e4300 let alone an e6600. calling the op dumb? im sorry but it is you that needs a refresh. maybe ...v1.001?
a c 105 à CPUs
April 27, 2007 2:21:08 PM

The X2 4800+ will be faster than the E4300 and likely will run a tad cooler at idle as well, so I'd recommend the 4800+. That should make a good HTPC chip, so have fun.

If you want a really cool-running HTPC, look into a Socket 479/M motherboard and a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo chip. The 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo T5700 is roughly equivalent in performance to the E4300 but dissipates 34 watts instead of 65. The 2.16 GHz T7400 will perform somewhere in the vicinity of the X2 4800+ while also dissipating 34 watts vs. the 4800+'s 65. The C2D mobile chips also have better power-management features than the E4300 or 4800+ so they draw wattage in the single digits at idle versus something a tad over 10 for the 4800+ and the high teens IIRC for the E4300. However, the C2D mobile chips are priced higher than the desktop equivalent and Socket 479/M motherboards will certainly cost you. It's your choice.
April 27, 2007 2:31:17 PM

Thanks to all for your replies. Looks like so far the Intel has more votes, but the AMD has more people with a good argument for their vote.

We'll see how this pans out over the weekend here.

Again, I want to make it perfectly clear I am NOT going to be overclocking the chip I purchase. I am also on a little bit of a budget for this build and don't plan on spending over $150 on the CPU. So that rules out the E6600. Not dumb, just money-conscious.

This isn't supposed to be a "super-fast omg-uber-awesome gaming rig!!!11one1!". This is going to be used for Media Center with a Hauppauge WinTV low profile PCI card, and for very light gaming (read: Call of Duty 2, Need for Speed Most Wanted). The rest of my gaming is on a Nintendo Gamecube.

Like I said this rig will be attached to an LCD TV at 1366x768 resolution. I'm not maxing out the capabilities of the components by doing that. And the PVR functions built into Windows Media Center are the only other thing I'm going to use.

The reason for making the poll, was because I was initially going with the AMD 4800+ (I've always been an AMD guy, I admit) but then a friend of mine who was helping me pick out the major components, noticed the Intel Core 2's had dropped in price as well.

I'm just asking which will suit my needs, because they're virtually the same price.

I admit, I thought it was a no-brainer at first, 2.5GHz vs 1.8GHz? But the votes say otherwise. Maybe it's just intel fanboys who are used to overclocking their Core 2's, or maybe people didn't read my description and just voted.

Anyway, 'nuff said, we'll see how this pans out over the rest of the weekend.
a c 105 à CPUs
April 27, 2007 2:39:53 PM

Just like in the past, especially in the P4 days, one cannot directly compare CPU clock speed between AMD and Intel processors to tell which one is faster. A 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo happens to be roughly as fast as a 2.2 GHz Athlon 64 X2, give or take a few percent in a few tests. You are comparing a 2.5 GHz X2 with that 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, so the AMD chip is certainly faster.

Why you see people recommending Intel Core 2 Duos (excluding my throw-it-out-there C2D mobile suggestion):

1. Some people overclock and lot and happened to miss that part about you not overclocking. The C2Ds are notorious overclockers while the Athlon 64 X2s all seem to top out about 3.1-3.3 GHz, no matter if a 1.9 GHz or 3.0 GHz stock chip is used.

2. There are some people here who are big Intel fans and would not recommend an AMD chip just because.
April 27, 2007 2:43:49 PM

Firstly you may want to consider replacing the stock psu, it may be rated at 300 watts but thats almost always an overstatement. Not only that but efficiecy is an important key as well. Considering all Psu's in their smart power line are stated as being >70% efficient lets assume a worst case of 70% efficiency and an overall average system load of ~140 watts(give or take depending other components)

(DC Output) / (AC Input) = Efficiency

140W / X = 70%
X = 140W / 70%
X = 200W

Given that worst case scenario, you have an extra 60W being dissipated as heat, meaning a necessity for added cooling, and worse yet a higher energy bill, a more efficient PSU will pay for itself in the long run.

http://www.antec.com/specs/SP350_spe.html

^same antec smartpower PSU just rated @ 350W

Another point.. it has dual 12V rails (assuming the 300W is simaliar they should make for an interesting comparison) 12V1@10A and 12V2@15A so that equates to 300W across both rails, but thats not entirely true... using antecs spec sheet subtract the 3.3V and 5V rail max output from the +5V, +12V1, 12V2 and +3.3V max output and you actually get

340-130= 210W min across both 12V rails at any given time, and thats for the 350W psu expect a lower min. for the 300W flavor the minuet comes with.

I don't know what components you plan on running but this calculator is helpful in determining what you may need.

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.js...


As for which CPU I recommend... their performance even stock speed, for the most part, is comparable and both have a TDP of 65W. So the determining factor now becomes the motherboard. I believe you would be better suited with the x2 4800(I own an E4300 and have actually clocked it to 2.4ghz while undervolting it) simply because you get equal if not better features for less.

Heres two candidates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

IMHO its the motherboard that makes all the difference, and right now small form factor and energy efficient htpc builds amd is the only way to go.
April 27, 2007 3:05:23 PM

If you are not concerned too much about performance, consider the X2 3600. This should OC w/o too much added power.

In regards to your question, power requirements should have nothing to do with if you OC. I run an E4300 @ 3.0Ghz and w/ Voltage reduced from stock. Hence I'm using less power than a stock E4300 but clocked 50% higher.

IMHO, I would get the E4300 see how low I could cut the voltage to make it work and then start to OC. This way you will get decent performance at very low power. If you cant under power much, then just try to see how high it goes on stock.
April 27, 2007 3:17:29 PM

Why don't you read what is posted and what the OP is asking before you waste 1kB of our bandwidth?

HE SAID NO OVERCLOCKING FFS!
April 27, 2007 3:44:01 PM

The key to providing solutions is to look at where they need to get, what options they have to get there, and then provide a solution based upon that.

The poster said he did not want to OC because it would not be possible to OC due to particular factors.

What I pointed out was that these factors would not prevent an OC in any fashion. What and how you OC determines power usage. Hence the poster had made a false assumption which I corrected. If you wish to provide solutions based upon false assumptions, please feel free to do so.
Personally, I chose not to make recommendations based upon false assumptions. Such methodolgy has worked quite well for my IT business which counts a many federal organizations from many countries as clients.

It is quite possible to OC a CPU and use LESS power than leaving the CPU at defaults.

Two Athlons running at the same speed will consume the same amount of power even if one is running at stock and one is OCed from a lower default.

Low Speed C2Ds can often be easily configured to run undervoltage and even further reduce power usage. Alternately than can be ramped quite high but not use more power. You can find a moderate level were speed is increased but power usage cut.

This is the road I suggested for him.
More processing power but less electricity consumed.
April 27, 2007 3:55:45 PM

It's kind of disgusting how badly even the E4300 or even the 3600+ beat those Pentium D's. Eesh.
April 27, 2007 3:57:35 PM

I just searched X-Bit Labs for the performance differences between E4300 and x2 4800+.

Summarized points:
1. At DDR2-800 CL4, x2 4800+ is faster E4300 across a wide range of applications.
2. The price of x2 4800+ and E4300 are $136 and $113 respectively.

Other points:
1. For DDR2-667 performance, the penalty of x2 4800+ is larger than E4300.
2. The cost of motherboard will offset the price difference.
3. The idle power goes to x2 4800+ while E4300 consumes less at full load.

My opinion: Both processors are good and cheap. Anyone will do the job well. :wink:

My vote: x2 4800+ as I like AMD more. :D 
April 27, 2007 5:57:32 PM

Quote:

i read somewhere that the 4800+ was fairly good ... 8O you serious?


I believe that's a reply to me because I stated the 4800 X2 model was fairly good in my above post. I didn't read it anywhere :? I have a 4400+ X2 model running at 2.5Ghz, so I know what the performance is like. Yes its good performance, but using a term like 'Awesome' would be incorrect because it isn't any more.
April 27, 2007 6:34:15 PM

go with the 4800+, you won't have to worry about the power drain from ocing the e4300.

edit: I'm saying you don't have to overclock with the 4800+, but with the e4300 you will feel inclined too
April 27, 2007 6:50:34 PM

This has to be the most poorly replied to message I think I've ever seen here on TG Forumz. I am not interested in milking more performance out of a component. I am interested in milking more performance out of the dollars I'm spending. Got it?

To all those who said "buy this low end chip and overclock it." That's not what I'm planning to do.

The only person so far who has suggested a chip that was worth pursuing, that wasn't on the list, suggested a low power Core 2 Duo mobile chip (i.e. T5700; T7400). These would be excellent candidates if their pricing was a little more reasonable, and someone else who had more money to spend on this project would probably want to look into that. Unfortunately the motherboards for those chips cost about twice as much as normal motherboards. Good suggestion though!

As for the power supply issue. Reading the original post would reveal that I'm using an Antec Minuet 300 case. If you took a second to look at the information on this case, it does NOT use a standard power supply. If it did, I'd upgrade to a 400-450W model instantly and not even worry about power requirements. It's the most attractive case so far that I've seen for slimline microATX, and as such I already own it. The power supply is not upgradeable, which is why we're working in a 300W area.

To those who would be interested in knowing, the 300W MT300 power supply which comes with the Minuet 300 has dual 12V rails running with a maximum 8.0 and 14.5 A respectively. Adding those, you get a theoretical maximum 270W among those two rails.

I'm somewhat concerned about power requirements, because it's rated 300W, but I did read a review on this case a while back where the reviewers took the power supply out of the case and attached it to a full featured computer with a Geforce 6600GT (a power hungry card for the performance it had), and dual 74G Raptors, as well as a dual core 4200+ (this is based on the 90nm design, too, so take that into account). The voltage drop on the +12V rail was minimal. On the other hand, I'm going to be running a wireless card, a TV tuner, a hard drive that may require more power than the Raptor does (the 1TB Seagate drive that's due out soon). So you get my point.

I've done my homework. It's down to E4300 versus 4800+. I'm not willing to risk overclocking on a power supply that's already going to be close to its maximum rating. So buying a 3600+ and overclocking it is not an option. Buying an E4300 and overclocking it to 2.4 is not an option. Options are what's listed in the poll, running AT THOSE specifications listed. There's a reason I put the GHz in each one - to stress that those are the speeds they will run at in my computer. Either one I get, I'm going for 2GB of DDR2-800 because that's the recommended memory speed for AMD's AM2 platform, and that memory would also run in sync with the FSB on the Allendale chip.

You're more than welcome to back up your vote by posting comments about why the AMD is better at this, or why the Intel is better at that. Feel free to even include links to your favorite benchmarks. Just make sure they pertain to what I'm using the computer for. Feel free to also recommend a motherboard - although I've pretty much decided on an AMD board.

So, when you answer the question in the poll, read it this way:

Which of these chips will perform better at completely stock settings?
April 27, 2007 7:19:38 PM

Quote:
I don't know WTF is wrong with those who voted for the E4300, the Brisbane 4800+ is a better choice. It is 10-15% faster than the E4300 in average, both have roughly same energy efficiency. I guess you are not going to OC your CPU, because if you do than the E4300 is the way to go.
I voted for the E4300(was one of the first voters)....and here is why. Note: the 4800+ isn't included, but the 4600+ and 5000+ are...a little extrapolation will solve that problem. :) 

Not the best, but still does the job well:


Quite strong in DivX...something an HTPC might benefit from:


No contest(due to 6x200 EIST vs. 6x266 of faster C2D)meaning low heat/noise:


Once again...clear winner in thermals(important for HTPC):


Quote:
At stock speeds, the E4300 ends up offering similar performance to the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. In SYSMark 2004SE, DivX and some games it's faster, and in other situations it's basically the same speed.


IMO, it's a near-perfect candidate for an HTPC(at this point-in-time)...though i'm sure that will change soon enough. :wink:
a c 105 à CPUs
April 27, 2007 8:17:47 PM

Uh, Tanker, you realize that the X2 4800+ Brisbane is a 65 W chip and your power-usage graphs use 89 W Windsors?
April 27, 2007 8:29:11 PM

Quote:
Uh, Tanker, you realize that the X2 4800+ Brisbane is a 65 W chip and your power-usage graphs use 89 W Windsors?
Okey-Dokey...they would be similar then....and the Brisbane will be as slow as a 90nm 4600+ then(L2 latency problem+ less than 800MHz RAM speed). :wink:
April 27, 2007 9:06:27 PM

Are you sure you 'did your homework'? I have the Minuet, VERY nice case, looks great when its vertical, but you have to lay it flat to use the cdromdrive; not a big deal. ALSO, you canNOT put in an aftermarket video card, unless you can find a lowpro. That goes for any addin card. Just need a mATX mobo with everything onboard. Use wireless internet, and keyboard/mouse, the only real cable youll see is for the power and monitor. Makes a great mediacenter pc. I highly recommend the Minuet. :) 
April 27, 2007 9:36:49 PM

Quote:
As for the power supply issue. Reading the original post would reveal that I'm using an Antec Minuet 300 case.


I make a reference to the included 300W PSU... I also explain why I even bring up the issue, although you would have known that if you actually read my post. :roll:

http://www.antec.com/specs/Minuet300_spe.html

If you bother to read that you will see that the psu is part of the smartpower line antec offers and it has deplorable efficiency. Almost defeating the purpose of a low power build.

Quote:
To those who would be interested in knowing, the 300W MT300 power supply which comes with the Minuet 300 has dual 12V rails running with a maximum 8.0 and 14.5 A respectively. Adding those, you get a theoretical maximum 270W among those two rails.

I'm somewhat concerned about power requirements, because it's rated 300W, but I did read a review on this case a while back where the reviewers took the power supply out of the case and attached it to a full featured computer with a Geforce 6600GT (a power hungry card for the performance it had), and dual 74G Raptors, as well as a dual core 4200+ (this is based on the 90nm design, too, so take that into account). The voltage drop on the +12V rail was minimal. On the other hand, I'm going to be running a wireless card, a TV tuner, a hard drive that may require more power than the Raptor does (the 1TB Seagate drive that's due out soon). So you get my point.


Well you are either concerned about power requirements or you are not concerned about them...

Quote:
I've done my homework. It's down to E4300 versus 4800+.

You're more than welcome to back up your vote by posting comments about why the AMD is better at this, or why the Intel is better at that. Feel free to even include links to your favorite benchmarks. Just make sure they pertain to what I'm using the computer for. Feel free to also recommend a motherboard - although I've pretty much decided on an AMD board.

So, when you answer the question in the poll, read it this way:

Which of these chips will perform better at completely stock settings?


I already stated which I thought was better and why, heck I even beat you to the punch and threw out 2 mobo suggestions but in case you missed here it is again.

Quote:
As for which CPU I recommend... their performance even stock speed, for the most part, is comparable and both have a TDP of 65W. So the determining factor now becomes the motherboard. I believe you would be better suited with the x2 4800(I own an E4300 and have actually clocked it to 2.4ghz while undervolting it) simply because you get equal if not better features for less.

Heres two candidates:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

IMHO its the motherboard that makes all the difference, and right now small form factor and energy efficient htpc builds amd is the only way to go.


I believe instead of seeking advice from others you have come in search of confirmation for what you feel is the best route. Either way its your money. There are plenty of attractive HTPC cases out there that would serve you far better than the minuet 300. In the May 2007 issue of Maximum PC there is a decent htpc case roundup. But hey you've already done your research and decided whats best for you...
April 28, 2007 12:59:04 AM

sorry, but these are cherry picked benchmarks, where E4300 shines, compared to K8. There are a lot more applications, tasks and benchmarks where the 4800+ is outperforming the E4300 by the same %.
April 28, 2007 1:25:17 AM

Quote:
sorry, but these are cherry picked benchmarks, where E4300 shines, compared to K8. There are a lot more applications, tasks and benchmarks where the 4800+ is outperforming the E4300 by the same %.
I realize that, on the whole the 4800+ is faster.... i picked those benches...because it's for an HTPC....so Super Pi, Oblivion, and Sciencemark don't really show the CPU in the scenarios that it's being bought for. :wink:
April 28, 2007 2:11:29 AM

Re: The poll: Looks like it's pretty even at this point. (29-23 in favor of AMD)

I went with AMD b/c game performance looks about the same per THG CPU Charts and cost is less. If you are looking for E6600 level performance I would go w/ Intel. Another caveat: OP said he would NOT overclock. If you want to OC the absolute best CPU is E4300. You can get ludicrous overlocks with that. But w/ just stock performance AMD is the clear choice.
April 28, 2007 2:38:13 AM

aye it was to you

but like i said, you dnt need extreeem cpu for 2days games. most of it depends on vcard + the 4800 used to be top end.
April 28, 2007 4:05:25 AM

Quote:
sorry, but these are cherry picked benchmarks, where E4300 shines, compared to K8. There are a lot more applications, tasks and benchmarks where the 4800+ is outperforming the E4300 by the same %.


You are correct, overall the X2 4800+ is the faster chip.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-round...


However, tanker does have a valid point in that the E4300 shines at the tasks a HTPC would usually do.

In regards to power consumption, it's actually slightly in favor of the E4300 in terms of system power consumption. Idle is pretty even with a Brisbane 4800+, but load should still be slightly lower.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index...



Theres no E4300 in the charts but I'd figure it'd be slightly lower than the E6300.
April 28, 2007 2:28:26 PM

With the wrong nuges and bumps, the e4300 will start taking in more power then the 4800+. Really dtemple will be better off with the 4800+ if no overclocking is done.
April 29, 2007 9:02:35 PM

I have just bought the 4800+ Brisbane chip and one of the new AMD 690G chipset motherboards. This is gotta be one of the best combinations for an excellent HTPC setup. I have also an old 300W PSU and everything seems to be OK. Both the CPU and the chipset run almost cold. I used to be an Intel supporter but in this case, i must say the AMD ppl did a great job.
June 15, 2008 10:53:26 AM

brick88 said:
umm i would probably go for the e4300 because it would be better at encoding. and also its rediculously easy to overclock on stock voltage and therefore no increase in power usage. i have mine at a very minimal overclock as you can see on stock voltage.



Just to let you know, the power a processor uses is proportional to the clock frequency given the same voltage. This is because when a transistor switches voltage, resistance goes from infinity to zero (or vice versa) and power is dissipated during that change. Thus you can see how clock frequency would affect energy consumption.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2008 8:11:30 PM

Well, if cost and power consumption are both important factors--and why shouldn't they be?--and you're determined not to overclock (I understand your trepidation there), have you considered dropping the discrete graphics altogether and being satisfied with the 4800+ and 780g graphics? I know it's not very sexy, but you'll save $60-75 on the graphics card and have an HDMI port right there in your motherboard, making setup a bit simpler. Also, you'll draw much less power without the x1650, and (unless you were planning on getting one with passive cooling) reduce noise as well.

Your gaming will suffer a bit, I suppose, but the 780g should be able to do everything you ask for on the media end, which I gathered is what is most important to you for this build.
June 30, 2008 8:17:06 PM

Congratulations...
You have resurrected probably the oldest thread I can ever remember.

Did you look at the post dates for this thread?

The last post, before sseyler replied was:
Quote:
n°1637902
04-29-2007 at 03:02:35 PM


!