Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core2Duo Cache size

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 13, 2008 3:59:00 PM

Hey...

I need to know which one should i buy..

Intel C2d E2200 (2x2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

or

Intel® Core 2 Duo® E4500 (2x2.20ghz, 2mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

both have the same stock clock speed of 2.2 ghz

but the latter one has a 2mb cache size... Does this have a big effect or big boost to performance??

E4500 is more expensive than E2200 like 31 dollars. Is it worth it?

I want to know which one is better for overclocking,gaming,and video converting/encoding.

Thanks
a c 126 à CPUs
March 13, 2008 4:13:39 PM

syrold said:
Hey...

I need to know which one should i buy..

Intel C2d E2200 (2x2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

or

Intel® Core 2 Duo® E4500 (2x2.20ghz, 2mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

both have the same stock clock speed of 2.2 ghz

but the latter one has a 2mb cache size... Does this have a big effect or big boost to performance??

E4500 is more expensive than E2200 like 31 dollars. Is it worth it?

I want to know which one is better for overclocking,gaming,and video converting/encoding.

Thanks


They will both OC just a well as the other. They are essintially the same chip with different cache sizes. The one with 2MB will have a slight increase in performance in gaming and video encoding/decoding. But the E2200 from what I hear is great for budget OC'ers.
March 13, 2008 4:52:07 PM

if you are going to budget OC go for the lower versions like the 2160 - more or less same chip, just cheaper, but thats not what he asked is it?
Related resources
a c 126 à CPUs
March 13, 2008 5:49:50 PM

spuddyt said:
if you are going to budget OC go for the lower versions like the 2160 - more or less same chip, just cheaper, but thats not what he asked is it?


He wants to see which one of the two(E2200 or E4500) would OC better and play games/video better and if the cache size would matter.

Since they are the same chip they will OC the same but the E4500 will have some slight performance advantages.
March 13, 2008 10:28:42 PM

As sp says, save money and go for the e2160 instead of the e2200; running the e2160 at 1333MHz FSB gives you 3GHz CPU core speed.
March 13, 2008 11:25:58 PM

$31? I hope I'm never at a point in life where $31 is stopping me from going with a better product.
March 13, 2008 11:36:13 PM

At risk of not directly answering the question, I think spuddyt answered the REAL question here: what effect does cache have within the core duo lineup. You need to spend some time reading and rereading the Tom's article about the e2140 and 2160. (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_cor...) Everyone keeps referring to the theoretical benefit of larger cache, and I don't disagree. But assuming you are willing to overclock, there is virtually no measureable difference in performance between an overclocked 2160 and an e6850 (with a slightly slower clock). If I remember correctly, the article stated that about a 200 MHz difference in clock speed covered any benefit of larger cache.

As far as I am concerned, the 2200 and 4500 are in no man's land: they are more for corporate customers who have enterprise wide budget restrictions, and that are not willing to overclock. You should never be willing to pay a premium for a no man's land product (but should be willing to buy one on the cheap due to their being discounted!)

That's my 2 cents. I put my money where my mouth is and bought a 2180 recently, and I am pretty sure I am not simply falling into the psychological self-reassurance trap by recommending the chip. Its the opposite--it is very rare for my neurotic self to make a decision that I am so completely happy with, that I have no second guesses or regrets.

Good luck--you can't go far wrong with the performance, regardless of your decision.
March 13, 2008 11:57:30 PM

The cache sizes on the Core 2 Duos arent as important as you would think. Performance difference is minimal. Go with the E2180 and overclock like theres no tomorrow!
March 14, 2008 12:09:38 AM

Xpyrofuryx said:
The cache sizes on the Core 2 Duos arent as important as you would think. Performance difference is minimal. Go with the E2180 and overclock like theres no tomorrow!

In games cache size can make a substantial difference.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=9&skrivelse...

Not the best example but it gets the point across.
March 14, 2008 12:36:07 AM

homerdog said:
In games cache size can make a substantial difference.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=9&skrivelse...

Not the best example but it gets the point across.


Actually i think from looking at these graphs you can see it doesnt make enough of a difference to justify the price increase. Not saying the E21xx series should be the home run series but hey they make a good budget buy
March 14, 2008 1:06:17 AM

The biggest difference will be in 3DM06 and since that doesn't really mean that much I would just go with the cheaper CPU and an AC7 Pro on sale at Newegg.com for $27.
March 14, 2008 1:11:31 AM

I'd have to say the E4400. I've actually seen other charts that show a good bit of a boost between 1 MB and 2 MB caches, and not just in gaming. (They also showed between 2 MB and 4 MB, and while there was a difference, it wasn't as much.) Besides, you could fully call your system "Core 2 Duo" rather than "Pentium Dual-Core" ... the earlier just sounds more powerful at least.
March 14, 2008 1:21:33 AM

lol, yeah but 4 FPS in old games really isn't much, however if you had a 4 FPS boost in something like Crysis then maybe you'd have something. Your hard earned money is probably best spent on a higher end GPU than CPU, so start saving for that 9800, a PSU to run it and really high res monitor.
March 14, 2008 3:10:56 AM

What is the fastest E2000 series?? and for me 31 dollars is a big deal coz i can spend it on other parts taht will make my rig more faster, such as in GPU or anything else... so what is the fastest E2000 series processor??
March 14, 2008 3:20:44 AM

Xpyrofuryx said:
Actually i think from looking at these graphs you can see it doesnt make enough of a difference to justify the price increase. Not saying the E21xx series should be the home run series but hey they make a good budget buy


Not everything is about price/performance though. Some people just want better performance. The E4xxx chips are a step up above the E21x0 chips, and generally overclocks a bit higher as well. As Darkness Flame pointed out, the difference between 1MB and 2MB in gaming performance is substantial, between 2MB and 4MB, not so much.

I should also point out that using CPU price alone as a metric for price/performance can often be misleading. Its often better to spend an extra few bucks on the CPU for a mid to high end rig.

Let's say you're building a $1000 system. You can save $50 on the total price by getting an E21x0 chip instead of an E4xxx chip. In terms of total system cost, $50 is not that significant, its only 5% of the total system price. But you're getting a system some 10% faster than if you opted for the slower CPU.
March 14, 2008 3:51:03 PM

Is the fastest cpu in Pentium dual core family is E2200??

ok... lets do it this way... lets compare this two:

E2200 which is (2x2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

and

E4300 which is Frequency: 1.8 GHz FSB: 800 MHz Cache: 2 MB

E2200 has higher clock speed which is 2.2 ghz
E4300 has higher Cache size of 2 Mb

Which do you think will overclock better,more exrtremely stable on games?

March 14, 2008 4:07:47 PM

ocguy31 said:
$31? I hope I'm never at a point in life where $31 is stopping me from going with a better product.


From this I conclude that your value of the dollar is less than his :sarcastic: 

As for the cache sizes I'm very certain there was an article that proved the difference between 1Mb and 2MB cache's is almost moot in the real world. I would go E2200.
March 14, 2008 5:14:01 PM

syrold said:
Is the fastest cpu in Pentium dual core family is E2200??

ok... lets do it this way... lets compare this two:

E2200 which is (2x2.2ghz, 1mb L2, 800mhz fsb)

and

E4300 which is Frequency: 1.8 GHz FSB: 800 MHz Cache: 2 MB

E2200 has higher clock speed which is 2.2 ghz
E4300 has higher Cache size of 2 Mb

Which do you think will overclock better,more exrtremely stable on games?


The E2200 would be faster at stock, the E4300 would be 'better' for overclocking, as the extra cache will enable it to outperform the E2200 at the same clockspeeds.

Why would you compare an E4300 to an E2200 though? The E4300 is discontinued, you can get an E4500 for the same price nowadays.
March 14, 2008 5:15:57 PM

bildo123 said:
From this I conclude that your value of the dollar is less than his :sarcastic: 

As for the cache sizes I'm very certain there was an article that proved the difference between 1Mb and 2MB cache's is almost moot in the real world. I would go E2200.


There is about a 5 - 10% difference between 1MB and 2MB, which I guess can be seen as 'almost moot'. But the difference is there.
March 14, 2008 5:20:55 PM

You can overclock, but you can't add more cache. For 31 bucks I would get the cache.
March 14, 2008 6:28:35 PM

totally agree. If a cpu with more cache is just a few bucks away, then you might as well go for it. It wont have to oc as much, which will mean less stress on the mobo from a lower fsb, if its more capable for every clock than a lower cache model at the same speed.
March 15, 2008 2:27:31 AM

I know that E4300 is out for business already but its just for comparison...

so you guys mean that Its better to have a higher L2 cache than lower ghz?
March 15, 2008 3:14:45 AM

Not really. The point is that both the e2xxx and e4xxx designs will be OCable to about the same final CPU core frequency. Once you've got two CPUs OC'd to the same clock speed, the one with the bigger cache is better.
Personally, I'd rather spend $70 for an e2160 than $125 for an e4500 if I'm just going to be running them at the same final OC'd clock speed anyway.
March 15, 2008 1:10:57 PM

The decision should come down to whether or not the OP plans to keep this CPU for a long time or upgrade to a 45nm processor at some point. The E2xxx series is a great stopgap that will hold you over until Penryns are cheaper and more readily available.

If this is going to be for long term use then I would get as much cache as you can afford. I would even go so far as to consider an E6550.
March 15, 2008 11:19:53 PM

Well E2200 sits at 80 dollars, while E4500 is 125 dollars...

its actually like 70 dollars difference... not what I said like 31 dollars.. my bad, mistake..

But none the less.. 70 dollars is a lot of money... If they OC just the same, like if they can reach over 3 ghz, how many percentage in terms of speed does E4500 have over E2200? is that percentage worth 70 dollars?
March 16, 2008 12:12:40 AM

We all agree that its great to have the higher cache. But I urge to to review this article http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_cor... and tell me how it matters.

Assuming the games and applications benchmarked in this article are representative of today's software, there is simply no logical basis for spending the extra money on more cache when that same amount of money could go towards other components (e.g., $70 could be a big step up in quality of PSUs AND maybe GPU).

I am still having a hard time justifying why I should upgrade to an 8400 from my 2180. 8 MB cache, vs. 1. 4 GHz OC vs. 3.2. But will that REALLY matter in the real world? 117 avg. frames in BF2 vs. my 113?

It really all boils down to confidence in your research and your decision; if in the face of pretty conclusive evidence showing you don't "need" the cache, your insecurity still requires you to get the cache, then get it. That said, my insecurity level may still push me into an 8400 over the next couple months...

BTW, I just saw a forum post on Tom's regarding the 2180 for $50. To me, this is a no brainer beyond any reasonable discussion.
March 16, 2008 1:37:56 AM

syrold said:
Well E2200 sits at 80 dollars, while E4500 is 125 dollars...

its actually like 70 dollars difference... not what I said like 31 dollars.. my bad, mistake..

But none the less.. 70 dollars is a lot of money... If they OC just the same, like if they can reach over 3 ghz, how many percentage in terms of speed does E4500 have over E2200? is that percentage worth 70 dollars?


125 - 80 = 45, not 70. :whistle:  :hello: 
March 16, 2008 6:29:35 AM

sorry bout that... yes indeed its 45 dollars...

but ok... i will be sticking to E2000 series...

but i nedd to know which will OC better...

E2200 or E2180...???

and i already bought a cpu cooler, namely COoLERMASTER HYPER TX 2

so i need to know what are the figures/numbers that i can reach using this cooler paired with this cpus...

again... sorry for my bad mathematics... hehe
March 18, 2008 2:23:26 PM

husky mctarflash said:
We all agree that its great to have the higher cache. But I urge to to review this article http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_cor... and tell me how it matters.

Assuming the games and applications benchmarked in this article are representative of today's software, there is simply no logical basis for spending the extra money on more cache when that same amount of money could go towards other components (e.g., $70 could be a big step up in quality of PSUs AND maybe GPU).

I am still having a hard time justifying why I should upgrade to an 8400 from my 2180. 8 MB cache, vs. 1. 4 GHz OC vs. 3.2. But will that REALLY matter in the real world? 117 avg. frames in BF2 vs. my 113?

It really all boils down to confidence in your research and your decision; if in the face of pretty conclusive evidence showing you don't "need" the cache, your insecurity still requires you to get the cache, then get it. That said, my insecurity level may still push me into an 8400 over the next couple months...

BTW, I just saw a forum post on Tom's regarding the 2180 for $50. To me, this is a no brainer beyond any reasonable discussion.


Thanks, this was what I was trying to say earlier, but you actually found the article and did a better job at it.
March 19, 2008 1:56:33 AM

Im planning to put my E2160 on gigabyte P35-DS3l with a cooler master hyper tx2 cooler.... put FSB into 1333 with 10x multiplier... you think this OC would be stable??
March 19, 2008 1:33:47 PM

syrold said:
Im planning to put my E2160 on gigabyte P35-DS3l with a cooler master hyper tx2 cooler.... put FSB into 1333 with 10x multiplier... you think this OC would be stable??


The E2160 is limited to a 9x multi Max. so to accomplish 1333 FSB all you would have to do is set your FSB to 333 multi to 9 and you'll get 3Ghz and the 1333FSB. I personally have this setup on my E2180 and it works very nice with not to much of an over volt. I had to use around 1.4125 in BIOS to make it prime stable. But yes with that board and that chip you can get a very stable cool E2160 @ 3Ghz.
March 19, 2008 2:21:03 PM

First a simple point about cache is its used to lower the latency of your memory. While its true you cant add cache you do lower your latency by OCing. The easy way to look at this is it will take an E2000 about 400MHz to beat an E6000 series or about 200MHz to beat an E4000 series C2D. There is some give and take here as some programs are more cache intensive and would fair better with the greater cache and others are just on raw speed of the CPU.

From a price stand point the E4000's are not worth the small performance increase over the E2000's. They both OC about the same so I would suggest just saving the extra $40 for more memory or better GPU.

The bad thing here is the E2200 will not do much better than the E2180. The thing the E2200 gives is you can spend less on the mobo as it doesn't need the better mobo's for top OC'es. The E2200 is your best choice unless the Q6600 would be added as a choice.
March 19, 2008 2:39:12 PM

Do what I did, get an E2160, and use the money saved to get an Arctic Freezer 7 pro. Even with the stock cooler and a good case you can get to 333 fsb, and with the 9x multiplier of that chip, you're sitting right at 3 GHz. Apparently, that's roughly equal to a 4mb cache 2.6 ghz chip (E6750 selling at $190). But even with the upgraded cooler, you spent under $100. Any recent mobo can run this fsb at stock, and it syncs up perfectly with 800mhz ram (5:6 divider). I'm sure you can push it another 5% (350 fsb) and the mobo and RAM will still be fine, and the cpu will be at 3.15 ghz (should be fine with that cooler), and should perform on par with a stock E6850 which sells for $270.

Personally, if budget is of any concern and you're ok with OC'ing, and gaming will be done, I don't understand why more people don't go for a E2xxx chip and an upgraded GPU/PSU. The ~2-4% loss in performance by CPU cache is more than made up by the gain in going up to the next level GPU. Same out of pocket expense in the end.....

Now if budget isn't a big concern, go ahead and go with a larger cache chip, I personally don't see the minimal gain being worth the huge premium. With the higher stock fsb (and thus generally lower multipliers) of the E6xxx and E8xxx chips, you can't overclock much with them without having to get an upgraded mobo and RAM anyway.....
March 19, 2008 7:58:26 PM

What is the maximum multiplier that i can have with E2200 and E2180 then??
March 20, 2008 3:45:38 AM

11x and 10x, respectively.
March 20, 2008 4:02:26 PM

so 2160 is 9x, 2180 is 10x and 2200 is 10x is that correct??? in these 3 cpus wich one would be more power efficient when we OC these 3 to 3 ghz??
March 24, 2008 2:00:40 PM

syrold said:
so 2160 is 9x, 2180 is 10x and 2200 is 10x is that correct??? in these 3 cpus wich one would be more power efficient when we OC these 3 to 3 ghz??


Thats hard to say since all three can OC very differently. I've read posts where people have gotten E2140 as a very reasonable voltage to 3.2Ghz and some people where it takes quite a bit to get there E2180 to 3Ghz. So for efficiency it all depends how well you chip will OC and at what voltages. I think its recommended to grab a E2160 since it is cheaper is for the most part OC just as well as the E2180.
!