Core 2 Duo E4300

[StrangerGuy]

Sub $180 prices for a 9x muliplier (1.8GHz, 800FSB)...This is going to be an insane chip for the price. A 100% overclock to 3.6GHz anyone?

 

[Pabster]

Could very well be the new Northwood 1.6A...

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Sub $180 prices for a 9x muliplier (1.8GHz, 800FSB)...This is going to be an insane chip for the price. A 100% overclock to 3.6GHz anyone?

Are you saying you got yours to 3.6ghz? In your sig it says 3.03.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: ncage

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Sub $180 prices for a 9x muliplier (1.8GHz, 800FSB)...This is going to be an insane chip for the price. A 100% overclock to 3.6GHz anyone?

Are you saying you got yours to 3.6ghz? In your sig it says 3.03.

It also says he has an E6300

 

[George Powell]

I think it may well be possible, however it is unlikely to be normal. However the Conroes do seem to be quite nice overclockers so far.

 

[harpoon84]

I'd say a 100% overclock to 3.6GHz is a real possibility, considering by the time it's released Conroe would've been out ~6 months and in that time yields would've improved along with the likelyhood of 3.5GHz+ overclocks as well.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

yea Intel is stupid they could sell 3,6GHz chips but instead they decided to sell 1,8GHz chips. maybe they dont understand what teh ppl want.

 

[tommo123]

maybe they realise that people that overclock at all are by far a minority - and those who overclock with targets of 100% OC are even fewer still. they can sell 1.8gig CPUs for a little and when the time comes they should easily be able to ramp the speeds up to what they need to keep the high end theirs (just in case AMD gets something competitive out again)

 

[DrMrLordX]

We have no idea what the E4xxx chips will be like OC-wise. Remember that those chips will have a different core than the E6xxx chips we're seeing now. No VT, no EIST, and phsyically less L2 cache (the E6300 and E6400 seem to have 4 megs l2 with have the l2 disabled). It may not be appropriate to make assumptions about E4xxx overclocking at this point.

However, a 9x multiplier could translate into speeds as high as 4 ghz. Existing boards can already hit 444.4 mhz FSB from time to time.

 

[larciel]

unless intel intentionally screws it up, I do not think those structural difference will cause e4xxx series not to hit 3.0ghz + .

do we know thermal rating for the e4xxx? that might give just a rough idea how it might oc.

 

[theteamaqua]

i wonder how high that can go ...

my E6400 is 3.4GHz pretty stable , that thing might clock high, but still less fsb,

 

[DrMrLordX]

Right. The way Core 2 is shaping up, it does better at the same clock speed with a higher FSB. A 9x multiplier is only good if you're limited by your board rather than your CPU. Given the fact that some of the upcoming ATI boards are supposed to be hitting 500-550 mhz FSB, I don't know that I'd want a 9x multiplier.

 

[larciel]

I"m sure someone will come up with 9x 500mhz = 4.5ghz vapor chilled e4xxx

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Right. The way Core 2 is shaping up, it does better at the same clock speed with a higher FSB. A 9x multiplier is only good if you're limited by your board rather than your CPU. Given the fact that some of the upcoming ATI boards are supposed to be hitting 500-550 mhz FSB, I don't know that I'd want a 9x multiplier.

True, current E6300 (and to a lesser extent E6400) are often constrained by the mobo FSB ceiling.

Don't forget that with a higher FSB comes a need for higher speed RAM. Run an E6300 @ 3.5GHz 500FSB and you need DDR2-1000 just to keep up in sync.

With the E4300's 9x multi, it means even 3.6GHz would 'only' require a 400MHz FSB or DDR2-800, and as Anandtech's Conroe buying guide points out, even cheap DDR2-533 can overclock to these speeds, which bodes well for the budget buyer.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: tommo123
maybe they realise that people that overclock at all are by far a minority - and those who overclock with targets of 100% OC are even fewer still. they can sell 1.8gig CPUs for a little and when the time comes they should easily be able to ramp the speeds up to what they need to keep the high end theirs (just in case AMD gets something competitive out again)

sound right to me, thx. still i wouldnt trust those "100% overclock guaranteed"-promises..

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
True, current E6300 (and to a lesser extent E6400) are often constrained by the mobo FSB ceiling.

Don't forget that with a higher FSB comes a need for higher speed RAM. Run an E6300 @ 3.5GHz 500FSB and you need DDR2-1000 just to keep up in sync.

With the E4300's 9x multi, it means even 3.6GHz would 'only' require a 400MHz FSB or DDR2-800, and as Anandtech's Conroe buying guide points out, even cheap DDR2-533 can overclock to these speeds, which bodes well for the budget buyer.

Even still, a Core 2 Duo at 3.6 ghz with 7x514 with memory at DDR2-800 (or so) running on a divider should be faster than a Core 2 Duo at 3.6 with 9x400 with emory at DDR2-800.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: harpoon84
True, current E6300 (and to a lesser extent E6400) are often constrained by the mobo FSB ceiling.

Don't forget that with a higher FSB comes a need for higher speed RAM. Run an E6300 @ 3.5GHz 500FSB and you need DDR2-1000 just to keep up in sync.

With the E4300's 9x multi, it means even 3.6GHz would 'only' require a 400MHz FSB or DDR2-800, and as Anandtech's Conroe buying guide points out, even cheap DDR2-533 can overclock to these speeds, which bodes well for the budget buyer.

Even still, a Core 2 Duo at 3.6 ghz with 7x514 with memory at DDR2-800 (or so) running on a divider should be faster than a Core 2 Duo at 3.6 with 9x400 with emory at DDR2-800.

Current mobos such as the DS3 don't have RAM dividers below 1:1 yet, perhaps in a future BIOS release? Even so, 514FSB w/RAM at 5:4 or 4:3 ratio might not necessarily be any faster than 400FSB 1:1 because the FSB and RAM are in sync.

Don't forget that an E4300 will be cheaper than an E6300, apparently it will be priced at around current PD-805 levels! Can anyone say BARGAIN?

This is good news for ALL users, not just prospective E4300 buyers, because it will force AMD to follow suit if they are to keep their word regarding staying price competitive.

It will perform on par with an X2 4200+ or thereabouts, can you imagine sub $100 X2 4200+s?!

 

[DrMrLordX]

An E4300 at ~$100 would be pretty sweet . . .

 

[jester700]

I'm looking at a cheap upgrade myself, and since I don't game I'd love to use my 1GB DDR400 memory and ATI 9600 AGP card. With the current processors and an ASRock board that'll use them, I'm stuck at 300MHz FSB. So, a $300 E6400 & board combo gets me 2.4GHz. An E4300 with the same rig would net 2.7Ghz at half the price.

I say bring it on!

 

[KayKay]

I for one, cannot wait for this chip. the 9x multiplier should alleviate the motherboard FSB ceiling we've seen, and at the same time, the money saved can be dedicated towards Mobo, Vid card, PSU, cooling, what have you. Intel better not screw this one up!

 

[Skott]

Even if it only tops out at 3.0GHz - 3.2Ghz stable it would become a very popular chip I'm thinking.

 

[imported_RedStar]

i'm not an overclocker -at all . That said, the e4300 FSB= 200 and the e6300/6400 are 266.
Doesn't this mean that the e6300/e6400 would have a higher max fsb ceiling than the e4300.

Or say the max FSB turns out to be 500 for the e6400/e6300. Does that automatically mean the same is true for the e4300?

If it is the same..then why is having a higher "native" FSB important?

TIA

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: RedStar
i'm not an overclocker -at all . That said, the e4300 FSB= 200 and the e6300/6400 are 266.
Doesn't this mean that the e6300/e6400 would have a higher max fsb ceiling than the e4300.

Or say the max FSB turns out to be 500 for the e6400/e6300. Does that automatically mean the same is true for the e4300?

If it is the same..then why is having a higher "native" FSB important?

TIA

Nope, max FSB is currently limited by the chipset, not the CPU itself.

So, the E4300 stock FSB of 200 and 9x multiplier is a godsend for prospective budget overclockers.

Most P965 based boards can handle between 400 - 500MHz FSB (some boards can go a bit higher though), so the 7x multiplier on the E6300 can be limiting if you don't have a particularly strong board that can do 500MHz FSB.

Realistically, based on current C2D overclocking results, 400FSB (or 3.6GHz) would be considered an excellent result for an E4300. And 400FSB is well within the FSB limitations of most P965 mobos.

 

[imported_RedStar]

so as far as overclocking goes..everything else being equal (virtualisation not an issue), the e4300 will make the e6300/e6400 obsolete. Yet, this makes no sense to me. Why would intel cannibalize its higher rated parts?

What am i missing??

 

[DrMrLordX]

At stock settings, the older E6300 and E6400 will probably outperform the E4300. The older chips also have EIST for what it's worth.