45nm vs. 65nm?

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
Anyone have some links for the performance diff between the two? More exactly the C2D chips. Wondering if I should consider a bigger die for a cheaper price? Right now looking at a 45nm for 120$. E7300.

Any tips would be great.
 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
You can compare processor performance using various benchmarks here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...PC-Mark-Suite,812.html

The 45nm version of the 2.66Ghz processor is cheaper than the equivalent 65nm version, has more cache, has a faster FSB, and runs cooler, therefore has more overclocking headroom (generally), and, is more energy efficient:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...8%2c510%3a7390&bop=And

They can sell them cheaper because they make processors on a big silicon slab about the size of a waffle house pancake. Smaller CPUs mean they can get more CPUs out of each "pancake": they can therefore (generally) sell them for less.

I would recommend the 45nm version....

HTH

NXIL

 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
which c2d chips exactly, one is e7300 and the other is? e4700 would be slower.
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
So there is pretty much zero reason to get anything other than 45nm? Thanks for the links!
 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
I have read that some people really like the q6600 65nm quad core, I guess since it overclocks great, and is pretty much perfected...but otherwise, no, 45nm looks good to me.

 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,766
784
126
The q6600 is a nice 65nm CPU. Cheap and overclocks well. Quad core on a budget you could say. It's a bit of a power sucking beast though, if that's a concern to you.
 

Rich3077

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
518
0
0
Never owned a q6600 but if you look at the current page in this forum there are more q6600 posts than any other. My hats off to this cpu for its overclocking reputation.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,161
984
126
I picked the Q8200 over the Q6600 because it trades off as the same performance as the Q6600 at much less power consumption and at a lower clock. The Q8200 might have less cache, but Core2 processors are not really cache limited so i can tolerate it. Also, even at my overclock my CPU's cores range from 58-64C on the tiny stock cooler while playing most games. One core got up to 69C in 3Dmark06. Also, if the Q8200 matches the Q6600 at stock, then my overclock at 2.5 is the equiv of the Q6600 at 2.6. Not too bad in my book. I haven't even touched the OC envelope i think.

My whole system is powered by an Antec Power Trio 550w, and i feel much safer overclocking a 45nm processor than a 65nm processor.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I picked the Q8200 over the Q6600 because it trades off as the same performance as the Q6600 at much less power consumption and at a lower clock. The Q8200 might have less cache, but Core2 processors are not really cache limited so i can tolerate it. Also, even at my overclock my CPU's cores range from 58-64C on the tiny stock cooler while playing most games. One core got up to 69C in 3Dmark06. Also, if the Q8200 matches the Q6600 at stock, then my overclock at 2.5 is the equiv of the Q6600 at 2.6. Not too bad in my book. I haven't even touched the OC envelope i think.

My whole system is powered by an Antec Power Trio 550w, and i feel much safer overclocking a 45nm processor than a 65nm processor.

actually cache is pretty important especially in most games so Im not sure why you think its not. http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663794&page=8



also from what I have seen the Q6600 would actually be dead even or quicker clock for clock than the Q8200. either way though it is pretty close and the Q8200 does use much less power. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9400_7.html#sect0
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Anyone have some links for the performance diff between the two? More exactly the C2D chips. Wondering if I should consider a bigger die for a cheaper price? Right now looking at a 45nm for 120$. E7300.

Any tips would be great.

Performance should be about the same, though the 65nm c2ds are slightly slower at 64 bit code, and don't have SSE4.1. (maybe not even sse4?)
45nm c2ds with greater cache will perform better though, and should have higher possibly clock speeds and fsb speeds.
45nm c2d's use way less power, at least under load. On motherboards that support C1E, I'm finding that the power consumption at idle is about the same for 65nm and 45nm, though the chips are basically shut off with C1E on and idle.

I have read that some people really like the q6600 65nm quad core

It may be more that it overclocks good enough and is the cheapest intel quad core still. (and will still hang with even the fastest phenom quad core)
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,161
984
126
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I picked the Q8200 over the Q6600 because it trades off as the same performance as the Q6600 at much less power consumption and at a lower clock. The Q8200 might have less cache, but Core2 processors are not really cache limited so i can tolerate it. Also, even at my overclock my CPU's cores range from 58-64C on the tiny stock cooler while playing most games. One core got up to 69C in 3Dmark06. Also, if the Q8200 matches the Q6600 at stock, then my overclock at 2.5 is the equiv of the Q6600 at 2.6. Not too bad in my book. I haven't even touched the OC envelope i think.

My whole system is powered by an Antec Power Trio 550w, and i feel much safer overclocking a 45nm processor than a 65nm processor.

actually cache is pretty important especially in most games so Im not sure why you think its not. http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ticle_id=663794&page=8



also from what I have seen the Q6600 would actually be dead even or quicker clock for clock than the Q8200. either way though it is pretty close and the Q8200 does use much less power. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...uad-q9400_7.html#sect0

The reason why i believe cache is much less of an important factor is because its evident even on the benchmark that you have shown. Cache becomes less of a factor after a certain point. An E2160 at 3Ghz is quite a bit worse off than a E7200 at 3Ghz, but an E7200 is nearly in line with the E8400 at 3ghz, despite having half of the cache. Cache seems to be like RAM, it is only a problem when you do not have enough of it.
 

Roland00

Junior Member
Dec 26, 2008
17
0
0
If you are talking about Core 2 Duos, there is no reason to not get a 45 nm chip. The 45 nm chips are faster, produce less heat, oc better, and are about the same price as the 65 nm versions.

If you are talking about Core 2 Quads, well that is a different matter. This is the current pricing at newegg

q6600, 184.99
2.40 GHz, 9x multipler, 2 mb cache per core (8 total), 1066 fsb
q8200, 189.99
2.33 GHz, 7x multipler, 1 mb cache per core (4 total), 1333 fsb
q9300, 249.99
2.50 GHz, 7.5x multipler, 1.5 mb cache per core (6 total), 1333 fsb
q9550, 309.99
2.83 GHz, 8.5x multipler, 3 mb cache per core (12 total), 1333 fsb

Now when you overclock you increase the fsb speed for increasing the bus speed * the multipler will get you a faster ghz speed. Notice that the q6600 has the fastest multiplier of the quads I listed. Now when you overlock the chip creates more heat and needs a higher voltage to be stable. At the same time any 45nm chip will require less heat and less voltage due to its manufacturing process.

Thus even though you can get a cooler chip with a 45 nm due to the multipler being so low on the cheaper quads a q6600 would overlock better than anything in the 8000 series of quads and would be comparable to anything in the 9x00 series of quads. It is in the 9x50 series of quads you have a far better chip but by then you are spending almost double on the cpu.

Thus right now if you OC you get a Core 2 Duo (anything in the 7000 or 8000 series), a q6600, or an I7. You mostly iqnore the rest of intels offerings. The rest of the quads are going to non overlockers, traditional oems, and business related products.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Cache seems to be like RAM, it is only a problem when you do not have enough of it.

Well yah, but cache is always a losing battle. You can definitely find apps now where more cache makes a huge difference, and in the long run apps are only going to use more and more cache. The more heavily threaded an app is, the harder it will hit the cache too (unless they take that into account and spawn less threads when there are less cpus).
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Originally posted by: Paraguay11
+-3% in real world apps. The same as running faster ram.

thats a random number just to throw out there. and what difference in cache is that based on? an e5xxx and e8xxx Core 2 based cpus biggest difference is the cache and clock for clock the e8xxx cpus are much faster than 3% in games.


seems to be about 10-15% clock for clock difference between the E7200 and E5200 and then another 10-15% between the E7300 and E8200. some of this is probably due to larger fsb but still. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...pdc-e5200_6.html#sect0
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
Im looking at dual cores, as my current PSU wouldn't be too good with a quad. 450w. Plus the Mobo im looking at has a 8pin for the CPU power, and the PSU has 4pins. I looked into that deeper and basicaly its for heavy overclocks or 2cores or just a basic 4 core would really need the 8pins and 4 is fine for 2cores.

Plus i dont really have a need worth a 80$+ PSU for more than 2 cores right now. Coming from venice 3000+ everything is going to fly anyway. =D

Thanks for the tips!
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Anyone have some links for the performance diff between the two?

With the same design (just a die shrink), same GHz and same cache, there is zero performance difference.

However, regarding C2D chips there IS a difference.

Zero reason to get 65nm unless you pick up a used one for cheap.


Originally posted by: NXIL
I have read that some people really like the q6600 65nm quad core, I guess since it overclocks great, and is pretty much perfected...

There are a few reasons that people buy the Q6600...
*Cheapest
*High multiplier makes overclocking easier
*Compatible with older boards (such as 680i)
*Low FSB makes overclocking easier
*More cache than other affordable Intel quad cores