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.

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.

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.

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

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_core/) 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.

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/Revi [...] ivelse=514

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

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

You can overclock, but you can't add more cache. For 31 bucks I would get the cache.