Core 2 Duo E4300 Benchmark - fresh and hot

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
E6300 vs E4300. Both have 1800MHZ, why is the E4300 slower exactly?

exactly it makes no sense....it is a stupid move by Intel and the moronic numbering system if they somehow didn't neuter one versus the other...A lower fsb shouldn't mean shite cause the 533ddr2 standard is dirt cheap and the bottom standard...

I guess Intel is growing stupid in its old age...talk about confusing the customer...

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
E6300 vs E4300. Both have 1800MHZ, why is the E4300 slower exactly?

Actually, the E6300 is 1.86GHz. It also has a 1066MHz FSB, the E4300 has an 800MHz FSB.

In summary:
E6300 = 1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB
E4300 = 1.80GHz/800MHz FSB

That is why it is slightly slower than the E6300.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

So this is just a matter of multi-fsb-ratio? And a E4300 is simply a E6300 with different and (thus slightly) slower fsb/multi settings, and a confusing number for us consumers. So why would Intel release this CPU anyways

 

[Maximilian]

In addition to the FSB speed difference i think its missing certain technologies. VT or somthing. Cant remember.

 

[Cookie Monster]

When is the E4300 released?

 

[Avalon]

Check froogle. There are pre-orders on the web as well as listings for the E4300 already. A lot of sites are quoting 2/8/07 as when they will get their first shipment in. A few others say 2-3 weeks.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's also possible that many of these will suffer from the concave/convex IHS problem. Thus, heat will be an issue for many of them.

 

[Avalon]

Be prepared to get your sand paper out, gentlemen

 

[cmdrdredd]

I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

 

[Diogenes2]

Originally posted by: NoobyDoo
Some more info :


Test : X2 3800 - E4300 - E6300
SysMark2004 : 220 - 249 - 256
S Pi Mod 1M : 41.3s - 30.5s - 29.2s
PC Mark05 : 5317 - 5736 - 5843
WinRAR : 1016 - 1084 - 1140
3D Mark06 : 7647 - 8079 - 8349

WTF ?

Reminds me of George Carlin's baseball scores..

6 - 2
3 - 1
1 - 0


Were those benches at stock ? If so, what was the point ?

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

no.



e6300's have a physical 4mb's of cache.
e4300's have a physical 2mb's of cache.


your analogy would fit better with a e6700->e6300 tag.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

Eh, I think that's starting to really stretch it. I've never seen a Core 2 Duo that couldn't make it to the next FSB level (1333FSB), so I doubt it's because they can't do 1066FSB, and certainly not because they can't do an extra 60Mhz. Remember that these are also physically different chips than Conroes. Intel is likely just making these because it is much cheaper for them.

 

[NoobyDoo]

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: NoobyDoo
Some more info :


Test : X2 3800 - E4300 - E6300
SysMark2004 : 220 - 249 - 256
S Pi Mod 1M : 41.3s - 30.5s - 29.2s
PC Mark05 : 5317 - 5736 - 5843
WinRAR : 1016 - 1084 - 1140
3D Mark06 : 7647 - 8079 - 8349

WTF ?
Reminds me of George Carlin's baseball scores..
6 - 2
3 - 1
1 - 0
Were those benches at stock ? If so, what was the point ?

Shows the relative performance of X2-3800, E4300 & E6300 in one table.
The details are available at the site.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: sanitydc

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

no.



e6300's have a physical 4mb's of cache.
e4300's have a physical 2mb's of cache.


your analogy would fit better with a e6700->e6300 tag.

uh...no the E6300 does not have 4MB cache with 2 MB disabled...

I've never read this anywhere, and nobody has proven it. Just because the ES had 4MB doesn't mean the retail all do.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

Eh, I think that's starting to really stretch it. I've never seen a Core 2 Duo that couldn't make it to the next FSB level (1333FSB), so I doubt it's because they can't do 1066FSB, and certainly not because they can't do an extra 60Mhz. Remember that these are also physically different chips than Conroes. Intel is likely just making these because it is much cheaper for them.

it's alot like binning memory...if it won't do such and such speed slap a sticker on there that says "Hey guys I'm only rated to 667Mhz but uh...yeah try me at 800Mhz"

 

[NoobyDoo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: sanitydc

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

no.
e6300's have a physical 4mb's of cache.
e4300's have a physical 2mb's of cache.
your analogy would fit better with a e6700->e6300 tag.

uh...no the E6300 does not have 4MB cache with 2 MB disabled...
I've never read this anywhere, and nobody has proven it. Just because the ES had 4MB doesn't mean the retail all do.

Cool and cheap screamers from Intel and AMD ( dated August 8, 2006 )

Unlike its fancier big brothers, the E6300 has only 2MB of L2 cache to share between its two execution cores. You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.

HKEPC Hardware News

The 2MB L2 Cache Conroe included Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB), E6400 (2.13GHz/1066MHz FSB) and Xeon 3040 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB)?3040(2.13GHz/1066MHz FSB), where its stepping would improved from B2 to L2. They have new SSPEC and MM, and CPUID would changed from 6F6 to 6F2. However, the change would not affect those manufacturers as well as end users.
As AMD is stepping in 65nm process soon, its cost efficiency is the biggest advantage for the company to against Intel. As 4MB L2 Cache shared almost 60% of the transistors in Conroe, a cut to native 2MB L2 Cache may help in lower 20% of the cost.

I'm definately nooby but I think CPUID 6F2 is the Allendale / Native 2MB proc. Sorry if I'm mistaken.

 

[Effect]

Yep, unless i'm mistaken, both the E6300 and E6400 are Conroes with up to half the L2 cache failed. These new E4X00s are the 'real' Allendales, much cheaper for Intel to produce and thus (best of all) cheaper for us. Hopefully we'll see some good overclocking results (i'm also interested in seeing how these E6320 and E6420s turn out).

 

[Diogenes2]

Originally posted by: Effect
Yep, unless i'm mistaken, both the E6300 and E6400 are Conroes with up to half the L2 cache failed. These new E4X00s are the 'real' Allendales, much cheaper for Intel to produce and thus (best of all) cheaper for us. Hopefully we'll see some good overclocking results (i'm also interested in seeing how these E6320 and E6420s turn out).

I don't think it is as simple as this.

You can't just work around random failed transistors in a 4m array.

There is an address range that that has to be enabled between 2 - 4m ..

So, to limit the cache to 2m you have to disable an entire 2m range.
Upper or lower ? I don't know..

I believe it would increase production costs tremendously to have
seperate dies for 2m and 4m parts ..


Solution: Make all 4m and disable half for 2m part ( 6300 - 6400 )...

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I happen to think they these are E6300s that failed every test and then were dropped to lower FSB and worked under whatever conditions Intel places on them. After that they are labeled E4300 and marketed as a lower end part. They may need more voltage, and produce more heat, and also as I mentioned could have a IHS that is not perfectly flat.

Eh, I think that's starting to really stretch it. I've never seen a Core 2 Duo that couldn't make it to the next FSB level (1333FSB), so I doubt it's because they can't do 1066FSB, and certainly not because they can't do an extra 60Mhz. Remember that these are also physically different chips than Conroes. Intel is likely just making these because it is much cheaper for them.

it's alot like binning memory...if it won't do such and such speed slap a sticker on there that says "Hey guys I'm only rated to 667Mhz but uh...yeah try me at 800Mhz"

Except your analogy is flawed because it should be more like "I'm only rated at 667Mhz but try me at 680Mhz." An E4300 is 3% slower in clockspeed than an E6300, so it's definitely not being binned by clockspeed.

It's Intel's true Allendale.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Im itching to grab one of these babies.

I cant wait!

 

[BassBomb]

Ok so,

The only difference is the FSB multiplier pair ? from this to the 6300.

Is it still dual core?

 

[Avalon]

Yes, these are still dual core. They differ from Conroes in that they physically are designed with just 2MB cache, and run on an 800FSB (which means a 9x multiplier on the cheap).

 

[DrMrLordX]

Based on the pre-order prices showing up in Froogle, the E4300 is anything but cheap at the moment:

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=Cor...=Search+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p

The cheapest shop on Froogle (Falconsoft) wants $197 to ship it to my zip code after s&h charges are applied.

Until prices on these chips even out, I'd say stick to the E6300 unless you're already stuck with a board that has problems hitting high FSBs. One of Anandtech's old Core 2 reviews showed Conroes losing performance at the same speed with a lower FSB, so I would assume that Allendale would have the same problem.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Based on the pre-order prices showing up in Froogle, the E4300 is anything but cheap at the moment:

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=Cor...=Search+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p

The cheapest shop on Froogle (Falconsoft) wants $197 to ship it to my zip code after s&h charges are applied.

Until prices on these chips even out, I'd say stick to the E6300 unless you're already stuck with a board that has problems hitting high FSBs. One of Anandtech's old Core 2 reviews showed Conroes losing performance at the same speed with a lower FSB, so I would assume that Allendale would have the same problem.

I tend to find that this situation happens when a new product is being released. All the lesser known sites are charging a high pre-order price for it, but once the regular etailers get them up, the price is much more reasonable. I'm going to ask Ben @ TG what he can get them for.

 

[RichUK]

These new chips are pretty cool. When prices start to even out, and eventually drop when Intel?s upcoming planned price drop happens, these chips are going to be perfect for the budget conscious end user.

All you need to do, is find a cheap motherboard and RAM, and OC it to make this one of the best bang for buck setups ever. Bearing in mind the RAM used would need to suffice at 1:1 with the max FSB attainable from the motherboard. You?ll then have an outstanding platform that will perform exceptionally well.

Although this doesn?t overly interest me, as I already have my rig up and running. I?m just waiting on the new Asus Commando ROG board to mate up with my E6300.