E4300 vs. E6300/6400

[munisgtm]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: n23sh
But E4300 has a 9X multiplier instead of 7x or 8x that E6300 and E6400 have. And you can overclock E4300 simpler with cheaper memory. Am I right?

Some boards don't seem to support 1:1 for the E4300 currently

does Intel bad axe 2 supports 1:1 for E4300 ?

 

[TheJQ]

The current batch of E4300 requires a lot of voltage to stay stable when OC'd. Unless you already have old DDR2 RAMs, the price difference between DDR-667 and DDR-800 is really minimal (about $10-20). As for motherboard, there's no cheap overclockable motherboard. With that in mind, I couldn't go for E4300. Personally I'd go for E6400 which is about $60 more than E4300. I bought E4300 and returned it after disappointing OC results (max at 350x9=3150Mhz at 1.475v and HOT). My E6400 runs cool at 440x8=3.5GHz at 1.3625v. It did 450x8=3.6Ghz at 1.4v, but I like it cool. So spend the extra $60, you will be much happier. There's a reason E4300 is cheap and its price will fall faster (percentage wise) when compared to the E6xxx.

 

[StopSign]

Despite the higher multiplier, people have had problems with E4300 overclocking. It's not a guaranteed 3.6 GHz just because of the 9x multiplier.

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: TRD3SGTE
E4300 : 200FSB x 9 = 1.800GHz
E6300 : 266FSB x 7 = 1.866GHz

at STOCK setting, E6300 is faster by 6% since it has 0.066Ghz more speed.

If you set your E4300 to 266FSB and lower the multipler from 9 to 7, you will have what's basically the E6300; just no Virtualization tech which we don't need.

E4300 is better bang for the buck IF the price is cheaper than E6300 (which is not the case as of now). E4300 could run 3.6Ghz (400FSB x 9) using DDR2 800, while an E6300 requires DDR2 1028 which is more expensive (514FSB x 7 = 3.6Ghz)

So am I correct in thinking that an E4300 can be run on any board that supports the E6300's FSB and allows FSB adjustments?

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: n23sh
can overclock E4300 simpler with cheaper memory. Am I right?

That's the idea. Yes, many have run C2D at super high FSB. Yes, at same MHz a higher FSB is faster. Yes, at this time there is no price advantage to buying an E4300 over an E6300 (except for that $150 Fry's deal with mobo). Yes. Yes .Yes.

However, the E4300 lets you get by with cheaper RAM and motherboard to hit similar clocks.

All this is in theory. In practice, besides the reviews here, one guy at Xtremesystems hit over 3.6GHz with an E4300. Note that what they consider "stable" is probably not the same as what most people here would do for an everyday-use system.

The E4x00 series is interesting to me because I like mATX setups, and unless Abit proves us wrong in the next few months, most mATX C2D boards do not overclock very high.

As always with overclocking and strippers, YMMV.

Is there anything that you know about Abit, or just speculation? Because I really need a mATX board that will OC like mad, and I'm thinking of waiting for Q2 for the price drops.

Also, in talking about the mATX boards, like I mentioned in my last post, the E4300 is a better option because even if they're not big OC'ers, they'll run at the 1066 of the E6300, right?

Thanks a lot!

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: n23sh
But E4300 has a 9X multiplier instead of 7x or 8x that E6300 and E6400 have. And you can overclock E4300 simpler with cheaper memory. Am I right?

Some boards don't seem to support 1:1 for the E4300 currently

Could you explain this further? I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. I know that the 1:1 would be a memory to FSB divider, right?

 

[Markfw]

Simply put from my experience, and everyone I have read, if you want to OC up to 3 ghz on cheap memory, but a decent (~$100) motherboard, and E4300 will save you some bucks. Even with great memory, I can't get mine past 3060, and all by 6300 and 6400 processors (5) do 3.3-3.4. Others experiences have been the same, its NOT a great overclocker.

 

[Xvys]

I think the review on TechSpot was bang on. The E4300 is only desirable if it's much cheaper than the E6300. In Q2 the bulk price of the E4300 will drop to $113 with the introduction of the $183 E6320 (4mb cache) and the $133 E4400 (10 x multiplier) models. Then Intel will bring out it's new Celeron Core2 processors which will be sub-$100...(better sell your AMD stock!). And these all will soon become obsolete when the Penryn is released. I guess the longer you wait the cheaper they will get, (frankly I'm holding out for that 80 tera-chip model bundled with the ECS mobo at Frys for $159

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: hans007

Originally posted by: tallman45
Keep in mind shortly the E6300 and E6400's will cost the same as now but have 4mb of l2 cache. That in itself will make any current inventory of L2 procs obsolete and a great deal.

well they wont have 4mb the 6320 and 6420 do

And they will cost the same as the E6300 and E6400 so who would buy the 2mb cache versions....No-body

i have an e6300 running at stock, and it is quite fast ^-9 fyi, 4mb isn't bad either

 

[littlelion]

hey guys
i added 3 fans 2 my case and a cheap thermaltake watercooling system that fits on top of my tuniq. it looks a bit odd, but this thing runs like stink. for the love of god yes, 4.5ghz is possible with a 4300, its stable at 4.2 tho i wouldnt recommend trying it without added cooling.

the core runs at 41C full pelt, 37C idle, and the internal temp is between 22 and 25 C.

i havent met any problems as yet tho i dont think this'll run like this for too long, tho at the price, i bought a spare. (i only paid $111.50 each for mine).

have fun

 

[MisterDucky]

This would have been a much better article if they'd have used cheaper memory. But that Corsair memory they're using is $310 on newegg. A much more interesting comparison would have been how much they could OC using some PC2 5300 memory.

That would establish if it was cheaper to overclock an E4300.

 

[nyker96]

I think if you judging between the two interms of max oc potential E6xxx has been shown to be better than 4xxx. However not but whole lot, like 3.6 vs 3.2. Also if you need VT get 6xxx. If you have ****** RAM or board get 4xxx that 9x multiplier allows max OC with low FSB.

 

[shabby]

Any news on the e4200 1.6ghz chip? I need something cheap for my htpc.

 

[Hajpoj]

I have a 945pl asus board that can only run 800fsb CPUs natively. I have 2GB of ddr2-533 corsair value ram. An e4300 or e4400 is ideal for me as I can pop in a cheap $150 upgrade and OC it to E6600 speeds.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: TheJQ
The current batch of E4300 requires a lot of voltage to stay stable when OC'd. Unless you already have old DDR2 RAMs, the price difference between DDR-667 and DDR-800 is really minimal (about $10-20). As for motherboard, there's no cheap overclockable motherboard. With that in mind, I couldn't go for E4300. Personally I'd go for E6400 which is about $60 more than E4300.

:thumbsup: