Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E6320 vs E3300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2010 8:44:37 AM

2007s Core2Duo E6320
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA...
-1.86ghz
-1066mhz FSB
-4MB Cache
-65nm

Q3 2009s Celeron E3300
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42771
-2.50ghz
-800mhz FSB
-1MB Cache
-45nm

-------------------------------
which one is better?

I currently have the E6320 OC'D 2.8GHZ 400x7
will I be able to match this speed or go even faster with the celeron?

More about : e6320 e3300

a b à CPUs
June 14, 2010 9:05:23 AM

The E3300 is the better of the two processers.
Assuming you get a decent chip, you should have no issues pushing past 2.8Ghz with it.
m
0
l
June 14, 2010 7:17:20 PM

wait so clock for clock

E3300 @ 2.8ghz vs E6320 @ 2.8ghz
The E6320 will be better right considering its 4mb cache vs 1mb, 1066 fsb vs 800 fsb

how far do I have to push the E3300 to make up for the lack of cache and fsb?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 14, 2010 7:32:23 PM

Clock for clock it would be tough to give a definite winner.
The E6320 is based off the older Allendale core.
While this revision of the microarch is about 5% slower than the E3300's Wolfdale 3M arch, it does sport more active L2 cache.
The best I could offer between the two is that, clock for clock, it would really depend on the application as to which is faster (and neither would be faster by much).

The E3300 is a better CPU because it is based on the Wolfdale 3M microarch, newer and more overclockable 45nm process and has a higher multiplier.
Assuming you have a decent chip (most are), you should have no issues getting it well past 3Ghz.
m
0
l
June 14, 2010 8:05:36 PM

Wow thanks for your extensive knowledge! I guess I will swap on the new CPU and hopefully boost my FPS in Bad Company 2 !
m
0
l
!