Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Two processors?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2010 12:23:34 PM

E6300 45nm and E5300 45nm

Now Lets say both processor achieve 3.5GHz (overclocked)

E5300's FSB will be 269 x 4 = 1076Mhz

E6300's Fsb will be 333 x 4 = 1332Mhz

As both will be on 3.5ghz,.....one has a higher FSB , while other has higher multiplier...HOW MUCH GAMING PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE WILL be there between the do??Which is a better buy if one intends to OC till 3.5ghz , and play games at 1280x720 resolution...coupled with a nice and stable overall rig including GTS250 and 4GB ram!

More about : processors

a c 159 à CPUs
February 19, 2010 12:36:57 PM

I would choose the best value. Both have overclocking potential, but the e5300 may go higher. Frys has the e6300 with g41 board for $69.99 in today's ad if you live near one of their stores.
m
0
l
February 19, 2010 1:37:03 PM

Can you please tell the difference in gaming with teh provided example...And remember i am talking about wolfdale 45nm pentium dual core E6300!
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 133 à CPUs
February 19, 2010 1:45:25 PM

E6300 will be alittle better with its higher FSB. I meanm come on you really neded to waist a post on this.
m
0
l
February 19, 2010 1:51:22 PM

Okay bro i am sorry.....Just wanted to know whether difference would be noticable?

AND Will E5300 reach 3.5ghz without any Vcore increment on Asus p5kpl-cm.....As E6300 reaches 3.6ghz on it!!But people say overclocking differs from chip to chip....but in my opinion 3.5ghz is a small OC , and any chip could achieve it!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2010 6:35:28 AM

I have an E5300 overclocked 1GHz to 3.6GHz. My voltage is 1.31volts, which is within Intel's stock voltage range (stock is up to around 1.36v I believe).

2.6GHz to 3.5GHz is 900MHz, not exactly a small OC. And no, not all chips can do that. IMO, Intel chips are more overclockable than AMD chips since Intel sets them at a lower base-clock rate than their potential compared to AMD.

The majority of AthlonIs, AthlonIIs, PhenomIs, and PhenomIIs will have a very hard time overclocking 900MHz. ie. the PII 965 is clocked at 3.4GHz or 955 at 3.2GHz, and I don't really see too many people exceed a 1GHz OC with that chip, whereas the i7 920 is clocked at 2.6GHz, and a 1.4GHz OC to 4.0GHz is easily done on air cooling.

The majority of i5s, i7s, Core2Duo/Pent2 Wolfdales and Conroes can overclock 1GHz without too much problems. Same for the 9x00 Core2Quad Yorkshires.

The Intel quad that sucks for OCing is the 8x00 line, and even then you can get about 400MHz overclock from it...which is about equivalent to your average AMD overclock.
m
0
l
February 20, 2010 6:46:55 AM

SO you say that Asus p5kpl-cm can reach on 3.5ghz with E5300....DEPENDING ON MY LUCK WHETHER I GET A GOOD CHIP?
m
0
l
February 21, 2010 5:30:26 AM

HECK./..People dont even care to reply here!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 7:27:50 AM

BUMP BUMP BUIMP BUMP BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 7:48:26 AM

with that low of reolution you will need all the processor power you can get....

Buy a better monitor, raise the resoulution and let the gpu do the work!!!!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 7:50:29 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
I have an E5300 overclocked 1GHz to 3.6GHz. My voltage is 1.31volts, which is within Intel's stock voltage range (stock is up to around 1.36v I believe).

2.6GHz to 3.5GHz is 900MHz, not exactly a small OC. And no, not all chips can do that. IMO, Intel chips are more overclockable than AMD chips since Intel sets them at a lower base-clock rate than their potential compared to AMD.

The majority of AthlonIs, AthlonIIs, PhenomIs, and PhenomIIs will have a very hard time overclocking 900MHz. ie. the PII 965 is clocked at 3.4GHz or 955 at 3.2GHz, and I don't really see too many people exceed a 1GHz OC with that chip, whereas the i7 920 is clocked at 2.6GHz, and a 1.4GHz OC to 4.0GHz is easily done on air cooling.

The majority of i5s, i7s, Core2Duo/Pent2 Wolfdales and Conroes can overclock 1GHz without too much problems. Same for the 9x00 Core2Quad Yorkshires.

The Intel quad that sucks for OCing is the 8x00 line, and even then you can get about 400MHz overclock from it...which is about equivalent to your average AMD overclock.



Sounds to me like someone just likes putting down amd when they get the chance...
He didnt even ask about a comparison between intel and amd...
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:07:30 AM

^^YUP...At 1024x768.... will and OCed E5300@3.3ghz be enough for any game for 2 years??And will any E5300 reach at 3.5ghz without Vcore adjustment!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:28:10 AM

Like i said if you get a better monitor you wont even have to overclock given you have a decent graphics card!!!
m
0
l
February 22, 2010 8:52:42 AM

My point being you should never have to over clock your processor to achieve framerates thats what the graphics card is for! I know that you running at that resolution will decrease the life of your processor and overclocking will decrease it even more especially at that amount. Its hard for me to say what is stable with that processor. And for someone to tell you that, that would be ok for 2 years would just not be good advice... if you want something to last 2 years, than use it the way it was intended to be used.. And if you feel the need to overclock then do it slightly not dramatically. Low resolution uses more of your processor because the Gpu is not needed so it doesnt really do any work.. at higher res your Gpu does more work and lightens the load on your processor, giving you better frame rates in games like Crysis...
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 11:47:26 AM

Okay.....If i can't raise the resolution anytime soon....Will i be needing a quad?
m
0
l
February 23, 2010 5:17:39 PM

probably.. depends on the games in question...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 24, 2010 7:51:45 AM

Pentium E6300 or C2D E6300?
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 8:41:23 AM

andy5174 said:
Pentium E6300 or C2D E6300?


"Can you please tell the difference in gaming with teh provided example...And remember i am talking about wolfdale 45nm pentium dual core E6300!"

@OP: I would go for whatever is the cheapest or if money isn't an issue for you, go for the E6300, since it has higher specs.

@Bluescreendeath: Way to bash AMD on an unrelated Intel thread. :pfff: 
m
0
l
February 24, 2010 11:41:20 AM

Okay...I say will every chip of E5300 easily reach 3.5ghz on stock Vcore?
Secondly , if coupled with a nice overall system will this suffice 2 years maxing out games a 1024x768 resolution?
m
0
l
February 25, 2010 12:51:57 AM

bikermicefrmars said:
Okay...I say will every chip of E5300 easily reach 3.5ghz on stock Vcore?
Secondly , if coupled with a nice overall system will this suffice 2 years maxing out games a 1024x768 resolution?

The CPU isn't a that big of a concern if either CPUs are clocked the same, as games will heavily rely on the GPU at your resolution. Temps do not go up too high if you increase the CPU Vcore just slightly, so again, if you want to save money for a better GPU, go for the E5300, if you have no money issues, go for the E6300. If you're having a tough time deciding, flip a coin, that's what I do if I really can't decide. :lol: 
m
0
l
February 25, 2010 7:21:30 AM

Hey hey hey...You said GPU would have to do most work AT MY RESOLUTION....I game at 1024x768 resolution....You must be joking me , eh?How much can a average E5300 reach on STOCK Vcore?
m
0
l
February 25, 2010 7:44:44 AM

Yes, your resolution is a bit on the low side, but it's not 640x480, which is mostly CPU dependent. You said you'll be maxing out your settings at 1024x768 correct? So in order to max those settings, you'll need to turn up AA and AF, which means GPU gets most of the workload.

Just curious, but why keep asking on stock vcore? Just by raising the vcore up 0.05-0.07v you can get 3.5-3.7ghz stable. That's probably a 1-3°C temp increase, if any at all. If you really don't want to raise the vcore by just a few clicks (literally), I'm guessing it will do 3.0-3.6ghz depending on your chip. Someone was even able to get to 4ghz speeds on stock voltage, though that's a rare case.

In any case, even if you OC your CPU from 3ghz to 3.5ghz, you can probably gain a few FPS at best. If I haven't said it enough, GPU will be your main concern.

Here is a thread I found through google after typing in "E5300 overclock", I suggest you do that and read the multitudes of threads instead of just asking around.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253908-29-e5300-ep45-...

Good luck

Edit: Nice! I submitted this reply @ 4:44:44AM :na: 
m
0
l
February 25, 2010 10:52:43 AM

I keep on asking it because i Have the Board Asus P5KPL-CM...which doesn't have Vcore adjustment!
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:09:10 AM

bikermicefrmars said:
I keep on asking it because i Have the Board Asus P5KPL-CM...which doesn't have Vcore adjustment!

Now I see what you meant because you have a limited BIOS.

I was looking at reviews on Newegg with people who have your board and several have OCed a E5200 up to 3.7/3.75ghz. Someone also said to do a BIOS update to get updated settings, though I'm sure there won't be a big difference if you don't.

"Able to OC an E5300 to a stable 3.46ghz with ease."

"I managed to get an e5200 to overclock to 3700mhz (tho only stable at 3500 or below)"

"E5200 X 3.5ghz"

Looks like the E5300 should be good enough.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2010 6:29:57 AM

darkjuggalo2000 said:
He didnt even ask about a comparison between intel and amd...


I mentioned AMD because the OP said his 900MHz overclock was a small overclock. I was just merely stating that many chips, especially many of AMD's CPUs (that are clocked higher than Intel's counterparts), will not reach a 900MHz overclock.
m
0
l
February 26, 2010 6:56:18 AM

Well provided you downclock an AMD chip down to Intel's clocks, then it can "OC" quite the same amount. It doesn't really matter how many clocks a chip will overclock, but how well it's performance has improved due to the overclock. Numbers are just numbers if you aren't looking at performance.

People already know of your bias towards Intel, so there's really no need to keep promoting them like AMD is the plague. Embrace that there's two sides of a spectrum, even if one side does not perform as well on synthetic tests, but still performs the same or similar in real-world standards. I'll admit I was an AMD fanboy before I came to this forum, but I knew nothing of computers back then and I do think Intel is the better of the two companies albeit it's expensive, at least for a student like me.
m
0
l
February 28, 2010 8:55:26 AM

Will i be able to play games with 30+FPS at 1024x768 resolution with E5300 and HD4650?
m
0
l
February 28, 2010 9:19:39 AM

In Tom's February edition of their Best PCIe Card for the money, they rated the HD4650 "Great 1280x1024 performance in most games, 1680x1050 with lowered detail". So I expect you to be able to play games at 1024x768 with high or max settings. Your CPU OCed shouldn't become a bottleneck either.
m
0
l
March 8, 2010 9:12:46 AM

i would like to ask that would in your opinion the following selection of a rig max out 90% of the games in upcoming 2 YEARS smoothly with atleast 30+ FPS at 1024x768 resolution?

Pentium Dual Core E5300 @ 3.5ghz(almost equal to E8600)
4GB ram
GTS 250
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 8, 2010 2:20:15 PM

The E5300 is no where equal to an E8600 and i hate to break it to you the GTS 250 is not that good of a card about equal to the 9800 GT of previous models nvidia did a rebranding of all there cards. Your best bet would be to get an E6600 atleast better 45nm wolfdale overclock the crap out of it and use atleast an HD5770 better chances of being able to max out games for a little bit. But the new breed of games that will be comeing out will be more quad core friendly so keep that in mind.
m
0
l
March 8, 2010 2:52:16 PM

So with the rig you suggested....will i be able to max out 90% of the games for 2 years at 1024x768 resolution with 30+FPS?

P.S Resolution is quite quite low!
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 8, 2010 2:56:14 PM

At 1024x768 i dont see no reason you wouldn't be able to max them all out except maybe crysis but really that low of res you will be fine.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2010 2:58:00 PM

Either, you wont visibally be able to tell difference at 3.5ghz, go on buy the cheapest.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 8, 2010 3:02:33 PM

Anonymous said:
Either, you wont visibally be able to tell difference at 3.5ghz, go on buy the cheapest.

Hes right just get the cheapest.
m
0
l
March 8, 2010 3:55:40 PM

1280x720, that's a crazy high res ! Your games would run so much faster at 320x200 ! [/sarcasm]

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2010 5:11:09 PM

kokin said:
Well provided you downclock an AMD chip down to Intel's clocks, then it can "OC" quite the same amount. It doesn't really matter how many clocks a chip will overclock, but how well it's performance has improved due to the overclock. Numbers are just numbers if you aren't looking at performance.

People already know of your bias towards Intel, so there's really no need to keep promoting them like AMD is the plague. Embrace that there's two sides of a spectrum, even if one side does not perform as well on synthetic tests, but still performs the same or similar in real-world standards. I'll admit I was an AMD fanboy before I came to this forum, but I knew nothing of computers back then and I do think Intel is the better of the two companies albeit it's expensive, at least for a student like me.



It doesn't matter if you can 'downclock the amds down to intel speeds'. The fact is that chips are benchmarked at their stock settings so the amount they can overclock from sTOCk does matter. This shows the increase of performance you can get compared too all of those benchmarks you see.

OP: fsb is going to make very little to no difference. (Definitely not noticeable) L2 cache is what you want to be looking at when comparing those c2ds.
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 9, 2010 11:14:39 AM

?
m
0
l
March 9, 2010 11:34:16 AM

What ? my question remains the following!!

So with the rig you suggested....will i be able to max out 90% of the games for 2 years at 1024x768 resolution with 30+FPS?

P.S Resolution is quite quite low!
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 9, 2010 12:13:12 PM

It looks to me that has been basically answered with your low res you will have no problems maxing the settings out.
m
0
l
March 9, 2010 12:16:44 PM

Even for 2 years with 30+ FPS with most of teh games?
m
0
l
a c 133 à CPUs
March 9, 2010 12:52:38 PM

No one knows what a game from a year from now will need you will be able to play all current games np but a year from now who nows most likely yes but without a crystal ball who knows.
m
0
l
March 10, 2010 3:00:44 AM

I already recommended going for the cheaper CPU and I would go for a 9800GT, or better yet, an ATI HD4850, since 4850s are reaching the $90-$95 range right now and do beat the 8800/9800/250 in most benchmarks. It will definitely max out just about all the future games with your resolution, especially since you won't be using DX11, which isn't worth it unless you have the the 5800/5900 cards or a pair of 5700 cards crossfired.

So cheaper CPU is a better choice with your limited OC mobo. As for a new GPU, a 9800GT or HD4850 is good, just depends on what brand you like.
m
0
l
March 10, 2010 3:23:28 AM

Raidur said:
It doesn't matter if you can 'downclock the amds down to intel speeds'. The fact is that chips are benchmarked at their stock settings so the amount they can overclock from sTOCk does matter. This shows the increase of performance you can get compared too all of those benchmarks you see.

OP: fsb is going to make very little to no difference. (Definitely not noticeable) L2 cache is what you want to be looking at when comparing those c2ds.

Does it really? I can OC my PhII 955 to 4ghz or even downclock to 2ghz and the most I'll lose in a game is a few FPS, which I don't need because my 4890 Toxic already maxes out ALL games (aside from Crysis, of course) with a 1680x1050 resolution. It's been repeatedly proven that CPUs have very little impact when it comes to gaming performance, given that one has a good GPU(s). Why do you think so many people build an AMD-based system when it's primary purpose is for gaming? Intel is the superior company, but it's gonna swallow up your pocket and not give you any more gaming performance for the extra money you pay up. This is why Tom's will only recommend up to an i5-750 as a gaming CPU, since the i7 is way overkill for a gaming-specific build.

If the OP wanted to do other stuff, I would have recommended differently based on his/her needs, but in terms of gaming, CPUs clocked the same with the same/similar architecture will have no difference in performance. Though your comment about the L2 cache being very important is correct and would be worth looking into when comparing those two CPUs.
m
0
l
!