core 2 duo e8200 vs pentium dual core e6300

[DarkAmeba]

I am building a file server / mcpc which will be running 24/7, so I am looking for a low power setup. I have already ordered the evga geforce 9300 motherboard as a base, now I need a cpu. I am looking a step up from the cheapo pentium dc e5200 because of it's lack of virtualization tech which I feel may come in handy at some point as this will be a linux server style deployment and I may be running vms at some point.

My decision was easily the new pentium dc e6300 until microcenter started clearancing the older c2d e8200's for $100. Now my decision is basically a pdc e6300 for $90 or $100 for a c2d.

Both processors are 45nm wolfdales and carry the useless 65 watt tdp. c2d has higher fsb and more cache with a lower multiplier, pdc has less cache and lower fsb with higher multiplier.

$10 is irrelevant, my only concern lies in power consumption. A few watts difference does not matter, but anything over a 10 watt difference starts to add up fast. I've looked at a lot of reviews on the e8200, and power consumption appears to be a little above the range of the pdc e5400 models. These reviews are all older however, and do not give a good idea of what power use on a modern motherboard would look like. I also have been unable to find any real world power stats for the pdc e6300 (or any legit reviews at all) likely because it is so new.

So here's the dilemma: I want maximum performance/power usage ratio. Pentium dual core e6300 or c2d e8200?

Also, I know that the pentium dc e5300/5400 support vt with new revisions, but I am concerned I will get an older cpu and be stuck w/o vt.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

From some reviews I've seen, there is little difference in power consumption among the E5xxx, E7xxx, and E8xxx series. I think the difference will be just around 10W under load. Under idle, the difference will be even smaller. Here are a few reviews.
Comparing the E6300 to an E7xxx chips:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/c...on-ii-x2_12.html#sect0

Comparing an E7xxx chip to an E8xxx chip:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=16

You can't come to an exact conclusion of the difference for various reasons. First, the reviews are probably using different methods (programs) to load the processors. Second, they were written at different times, and ever-improving (even minor) manufacturing processes could lead to improvements (minor) in power consumption. And third, there is no single chip in both set of benchmarks - only chips from the same series.

I think you have to need to get rid of the performance/watt metric in your head. Just deal with absolutes: Is the E6300 going to be powerful enough to do what you want? I think it (the E6300) will more than serve your case, and basically the performance difference between the E6300 and E8200 is going to come down to whether or not the programs you're using is sensitive to L2 cache size. If the E6300 will easily handle the tasks you're throwing at it, then get it, save $10 now, and enjoy the lower power consumption. Otherwise if it can't handle your tasks, then you'll want to get the E8200 regardless, and it is just a benefit that the E8200 doesn't use that much more power.

 

[VirtualLarry]

More cache is going to use more power, period. How much more is debateable, it might not even really matter to you. But the laws of physics say, more transistors = more current.

 

[DarkAmeba]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
From some reviews I've seen, there is little difference in power consumption among the E5xxx, E7xxx, and E8xxx series. I think the difference will be just around 10W under load. Under idle, the difference will be even smaller. Here are a few reviews.
Comparing the E6300 to an E7xxx chips:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/c...on-ii-x2_12.html#sect0

Comparing an E7xxx chip to an E8xxx chip:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=16

You can't come to an exact conclusion of the difference for various reasons. First, the reviews are probably using different methods (programs) to load the processors. Second, they were written at different times, and ever-improving (even minor) manufacturing processes could lead to improvements (minor) in power consumption. And third, there is no single chip in both set of benchmarks - only chips from the same series.

I think you have to need to get rid of the performance/watt metric in your head. Just deal with absolutes: Is the E6300 going to be powerful enough to do what you want? I think it (the E6300) will more than serve your case, and basically the performance difference between the E6300 and E8200 is going to come down to whether or not the programs you're using is sensitive to L2 cache size. If the E6300 will easily handle the tasks you're throwing at it, then get it, save $10 now, and enjoy the lower power consumption. Otherwise if it can't handle your tasks, then you'll want to get the E8200 regardless, and it is just a benefit that the E8200 doesn't use that much more power.

Thanks for the research and your post. You make a very good point. It looks like the differences basically equates to around 10 watts, give or take a few, which is like $7 per year.

It doesn't seem as though running Ubuntu server edition and possible 2 or 3 vms would be particularly cpu intensive, no matter how you look at it. If anyone thinks the extra cache would be particularly useful for that, please chime in. However, it seems at this point that the e6300 is the right choice.

 

[win32asmguy]

I recently built four machines using the E8200 and was faced with the same dilemma: I wanted the coolest running chip to keep temperature and power usage low. My choices were either the E5200 or E8200, for $70 or $100. In the end, Micro Center actually made the choice much more easy for me. They discounted the E8200's to $85 each for my puchase.

 

[nyker96]

i just get the cheaper of the two. large cache no use for these type of applications.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: DarkAmeba

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
From some reviews I've seen, there is little difference in power consumption among the E5xxx, E7xxx, and E8xxx series. I think the difference will be just around 10W under load. Under idle, the difference will be even smaller. Here are a few reviews.
Comparing the E6300 to an E7xxx chips:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/c...on-ii-x2_12.html#sect0

Comparing an E7xxx chip to an E8xxx chip:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=16

You can't come to an exact conclusion of the difference for various reasons. First, the reviews are probably using different methods (programs) to load the processors. Second, they were written at different times, and ever-improving (even minor) manufacturing processes could lead to improvements (minor) in power consumption. And third, there is no single chip in both set of benchmarks - only chips from the same series.

I think you have to need to get rid of the performance/watt metric in your head. Just deal with absolutes: Is the E6300 going to be powerful enough to do what you want? I think it (the E6300) will more than serve your case, and basically the performance difference between the E6300 and E8200 is going to come down to whether or not the programs you're using is sensitive to L2 cache size. If the E6300 will easily handle the tasks you're throwing at it, then get it, save $10 now, and enjoy the lower power consumption. Otherwise if it can't handle your tasks, then you'll want to get the E8200 regardless, and it is just a benefit that the E8200 doesn't use that much more power.

Thanks for the research and your post. You make a very good point. It looks like the differences basically equates to around 10 watts, give or take a few, which is like $7 per year.

It doesn't seem as though running Ubuntu server edition and possible 2 or 3 vms would be particularly cpu intensive, no matter how you look at it. If anyone thinks the extra cache would be particularly useful for that, please chime in. However, it seems at this point that the e6300 is the right choice.

I assume you calculated for worst case scenario, meaning the processor is under load the whole time. Under idle or light loads I'd say the difference is more like 5W, but again this is just my best guess. And I think the previous user is correct: The extra cache probably won't make a difference for these applications.

 

[faxon]

get the e6300 and underclock it. less cache = less power, but underclocking it will decrease it's power usage even more still, and the e8200s, being only C0 steppings, wont underclock as well (same idea as overclocking only in the opposite direction) as a much newer stepping e6300. there's a reason they discontinued the e8200, with the speeds on e7xxx chips up to 3GHz, it made no sense to continue making a 2.66GHz 6mb cache C2D

 

[DarkAmeba]

Thanks for the input everyone. Made this decision much easier e6300 it is.