Considering a Conroe-L

[VirtualLarry]

Just came across this review (http://xtreview.com/review188.htm), showing a comparison between a stock E4300, and a Conroe-L OC'ed to 3.0Ghz. Also compares the stock Conroe-L (2.0Ghz) against a Celeron 365 (3.6Ghz).

The Conroe-L spanked the Celly 365 in most things, and it's a cooler-running CPU to boot. So it's a win there. But compare the 3.0Ghz Conroe-L to the stock E4300, and things are a very different story. It seems that the CPU scaling of the C2D design is very cache-dependent, because the dual-core E4300 (2MB L2) at stock (1.8Ghz) wallops the Conroe-L single-core (512KB L2) at 3.0Ghz, even in apps that aren't multithreaded. (Like UT2004.)

So if you are interested in OC'ed performance, it seems clear that one would want to purchase an E4xxx CPU over a Conroe-L anyday. Even if you can get the Conroe-L to high clock speeds, it still doesn't really compare.

But if you have appplications in which a Celeron-D would suffice, then substituting a Conroe-L where possible will save on power and cooling costs.

 

[Borealis7]

Or...simply forget the Conroe-L altogether and go for an E2160. i dont imagine the price difference is an issue at these levels. (60 vs 80 bucks?)

 

[jhtrico1850]

Go for the dual core

 

[eplebnista]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Just came across this review (http://xtreview.com/review188.htm), showing a comparison between a stock E4300, and a Conroe-L OC'ed to 3.0Ghz. Also compares the stock Conroe-L (2.0Ghz) against a Celeron 365 (3.6Ghz).

The Conroe-L spanked the Celly 365 in most things, and it's a cooler-running CPU to boot. So it's a win there. But compare the 3.0Ghz Conroe-L to the stock E4300, and things are a very different story. It seems that the CPU scaling of the C2D design is very cache-dependent, because the dual-core E4300 (2MB L2) at stock (1.8Ghz) wallops the Conroe-L single-core (512KB L2) at 3.0Ghz, even in apps that aren't multithreaded. (Like UT2004.)

So if you are interested in OC'ed performance, it seems clear that one would want to purchase an E4xxx CPU over a Conroe-L anyday. Even if you can get the Conroe-L to high clock speeds, it still doesn't really compare.

But if you have appplications in which a Celeron-D would suffice, then substituting a Conroe-L where possible will save on power and cooling costs.

Thanks for the link and info! :beer:

 

[secretanchitman]

im sure you can get regular core 2 duo chips (e4xxx and e6xxx) for around 100 bucks, maybe less....considering a damn fast dual core is around $266.

needless to say, conroe L looks damn promising.

 

[jpeyton]

A dual core beats a single core; who knew?

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, it seems to be a big non-issue, really. It shouldn't be any surprise. Lo-and-behold, the Celerons are the slowest in Intel's lineup. Wait a minute.. they're supposed to be! What are the odds of that?

 

[daveybrat]

I really see no point in buying a $50 retail box conroe celeron when an AMD 3600+ X2 retail box is only $60.

Even for a budget build, i'd rather have dual over single any day.